Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/01/1995 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Eileen MacLean
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 128: "An Act establishing an exemption to the requirement of
obtaining a waste disposal permit for certain activities
that yield water and waste material discharges ancillary
to those activities."
PASSED CSSSHB 128(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 107: "An Act relating to restrictions attached to certain
commercial fisheries limited entry permits."
PASSED CSHB 107(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
JACK PHELPS, Aide
Representative Bill Williams
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 128
DEENA HENKINS, Section Chief
Drinking Water & Wastewater Section
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-5300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 128
DAVE JOHNSTON, Chairman
Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 279-1433
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on fiscal note
NEIL MACKINNON, Representative
Alaska Minerals Commission
1114 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1254
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128
PATRICIA BERG, Representative
ARCO Alaska
P.O. Box 100360
Anchorage, AK 99510
Phone: 265-6878
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128
MOLLY SHERMAN, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 128
TROY REINHART, Employee Relations & Public Affairs Manager
Ketchikan Pulp Company
P.O. Box 6600
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-2151
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 128
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF
State Capitol, Room 415
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3824
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 107
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
BILL FLOR, President
Southeast Dungeness Crab Association
P.O. Box 262
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3829
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
BETH FLOR
P.O. Box 262
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3829
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
SCOTT CROSS
P.O. Box 1575
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
ANDY WRIGHT
P.O. Box 1432
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-9233
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
MARK JENSEN
P.O. Box 457
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3316
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced concerns with HB 107 language
LADD NORHEIM
P.O. Box 935
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3671
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
DAVE BEEBE
P.O. Box 148
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3357
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
SHERRI WOHLHUETTER
P.O. Box 1312
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-9248
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
ROCKY LITTLETON
P.O. Box 1373
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-4521
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
MICHAEL SHELDON
P.O. Box 1288
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3746
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
DENNIS ONEAL
P.O. Box 1083
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3982
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
GWYNNE SHORT
P.O. Box 1224
Petersburg, AK 99833
Phone: 772-3585
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 107
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Kott,Toohey,Green,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 156 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 156 (H) RESOURCES
01/27/95 163 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT, TOOHEY
02/08/95 271 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/08/95 271 (H) RES
02/20/95 425 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/20/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 107
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICTED LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUSSENDORF
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 102 (H) FSH, RES
02/08/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/10/95 299 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 1DP 4NR
02/10/95 300 (H) DP: ELTON
02/10/95 300 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, OGAN, MOSES, AUSTERMAN
02/10/95 300 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADFG) 2/10/95
03/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-26, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Williams at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Austerman, Davies, Kott, and
Nicholia. Members absent were Representatives Ogan, Barnes, and
MacLean.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there was a quorum present.
HRES - 03/01/95
HB 128 - WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT EXEMPTION
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS told committee members they have a proposed
committee substitute, version R, dated February 23, 1995, in their
packets.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSSHB 128(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 030
JACK PHELPS, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, PRIME SPONSOR,
stated CSSSHB 128(RES) represents the changes discussed at the last
hearing on HB 128. He requested committee members to look at page
2, lines 13-16. He said the previous draft of HB 128 had a
definition of hazardous waste drawn from Title 46. The problem
identified at that time was that the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC) utilized the federal definition for
hazardous waste found in 40 C.F.R., Part 261, in regulating
activities in the oil patch. He noted the definition of hazardous
waste in the Department of Environment Conservation's (DEC)
statutes is a short paragraph. The definition under the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 80 plus pages. Therefore,
it was deemed appropriate by all concerned to use the federal
definition of hazardous waste in CSSSHB 128(RES). He pointed out
there is a precedent in statute for using the federal definition in
Alaska statutes for hazardous waste.
MR. PHELPS stated the other change in the committee substitute is
on page 3, line 17. He noted this part of the bill was added at
the request of DEC to allow them to continue to regulate excavation
dewatering activities. He said this section was added prior to the
previous draft but groundwater had not been included. This
committee substitute includes the term groundwater.
MR. PHELPS identified another change which was suggested and that
change is reflected in the amendment R.1 in committee member's
folders. He said when it was decided to transfer the annular
disposal authority from DEC to AOGCC, the bill was drafted to deal
with oil or gas wells on the oil patch. It was recently pointed
out that in the production facilities there are water producing
wells and water reinjection wells as part of the Enhanced Oil
Recovery Program. He stated it did not seem appropriate to leave
those out of the loop. Therefore, it was suggested that amendment
R.1 add those as well so it would be certain that AOGCC would have
the authority to regulate all of the annular pumping on the slope.
He explained amendment R.l adds those water wells which are
associated with oil well activity in the oil patch.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT R.1.
Page 2, lines 11-12: Delete "the disposal, in the annular space of
an oil or gas well, of drilling mud, cuttings, and nonhazardous
drilling operation wastes;" and insert "the disposal of drilling
mud, cuttings, and nonhazardous drilling operation wastes in the
annular space of an oil or gas well or in the annular space of a
water well associated with oil or gas exploration and production;"
Page 2, line 19: Delete "an oil or gas" and insert "a."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
MR. PHELPS stated there has been interest raised in how the
excavation dewatering portion might affect certain activities. He
said it might be appropriate to question DEC on how those might
affect certain activities, particularly reserve pits on the North
Slope.
Number 173
DEENA HENKINS, SECTION CHIEF, DRINKING WATER & WASTEWATER SECTION,
DEC, stated she would be happy to answer questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if CSSSHB 128(RES) were to pass into law
as it currently reads, would the draft general permit regarding
drilling wastes, currently out for public comment, no longer be
necessary.
MS. HENKINS replied yes, that would be her interpretation.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS questioned if this bill were to pass in its
current form, does she know of any human health risks, or specific,
quantifiable environmental pollution problems that would go
unregulated.
MS. HENKINS stated she is not aware of complaints or problems with
the type of activities the bill describes. She felt the department
would have other recourses to deal with these kind of wastes if a
problem was discovered. For example, if wastes were causing a
health hazard, that would presumably meet the definition of
pollution which is prohibited in statute.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the department might not be able to take
an official position for or against HB 128, but asked Ms. Henkins
to tell the committee, given the current state of knowledge about
the activities covered under this exemption, if the bill would pose
any significant difficulties in carrying out the department's legal
responsibility to protect the environment.
MS. HENKINS replied no.
Number 221
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to Section 3 of CSSSHB 128(RES) and
noted at the department's request, the language regarding
excavation dewatering was included. He said in the oil patch,
there are reserve pits which were formerly used to contain drilling
wastes and are permitted under federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) provisions, which DEC certifies. He
stated those drilling wastes are now ground and reinjected into the
formation and the industry's practice is to empty and clean the
pits and re-vegetate them. He noted they do leave a hollow in the
ground and sometimes accumulate runoff. He asked how DEC would
treat post grind and inject abandoned reserve pits in light of the
excavation dewatering provisions of CSSSHB 128(RES). He wondered
if DEC would require new permits if these pits had to be dewatered.
MS. HENKINS said she is not familiar with dewatering reserve pits
but felt if there were any contaminants in the water in the reserve
pit and the water was being discharged to land or surface waters,
the department would want to permit that activity. She stated that
what the department is most commonly dealing with is muddy water
from an excavation.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that Representatives
MACLEAN and OGAN had joined the committee.
Number 262
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if CSSSHB 128(RES) would have
a negative impact on fish spawning streams.
MS. HENKINS replied it will not. She said point source discharges
to any surface water would still require a permit. If a non-point
source discharge was causing a violation of DEC's water quality
standards, the department could take action. She noted the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) could also require a Title 16
permit if an activity was affecting anadromous waters in their
jurisdiction.
Number 284
DAVE JOHNSTON, CHAIRMAN, AOGCC, expressed support of CSSSHB
128(RES). He stated AOGCC has authority, in its statutes AS
31.05.030, to regulate the disposal of oil field wastes. He said
CSSSHB 128(RES) would remove the dual jurisdiction and permitting
authority over this activity currently existing between the DEC and
the AOGCC. The activity is similar to the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program which is mandated under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act that AOGCC administers. He noted the state,
through AOGCC, acquired primacy for the UIC Program in 1986. The
UIC Program differs from the Annular Disposal Program in that the
UIC Program was set up to control the injection of production
wastes on a large scale, and the Annualar Disposal Program was
originally conceived as an exemption to the UIC Program to allow
the disposal of wastes associated with the drilling of one well
only.
MR. JOHNSTON stated those who set up the UIC Program originally did
not feel it would make sense to require a dedicated injection well
to be drilled solely to take wastes from one exploratory well.
Therefore, it was decided that the Annular Disposal Program was not
something subject to UIC jurisdiction. He noted because of AOGCC's
statutory authority, that does remove the commission from the
regulation of the disposal of oil field wastes in the annular space
of the well.
MR. JOHNSTON said the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission in
1992, made the recommendation that the Annular Disposal Program be
turned over to AOGCC. That recommendation was made because in the
wisdom of the people reviewing the program, who were from various
other states, saw that the AOGCC had the expertise and knowledge to
properly manage this program. The annular disposal of mud and
cuttings, etc., is an activity which takes place many thousands of
feet below ground. He stressed AOGCC understands that environment,
whereas DEC does not have nearly the expertise when it comes to
understanding things like confining zones, receiving zones, well
construction, etc. He stated CSSSHB 128(RES) will not
significantly add to AOGCC's existing burden it has under the UIC
Program. The AOGCC encourages the legislature of pass CSSSHB
128(RES).
Number 351
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN asked what is done with mud drillings
when wastes are disposed.
MR. JOHNSTON replied currently the mud and cuttings can be disposed
of in two ways which reflects a change within the past two years.
He said these mud and cuttings previously went to reserve pits
where they sat for quite a long time. He stated AOGCC is in the
process of closing out those reserve pits. He stressed the
preferred alternative is below ground injection. The injection
zones on the North Slope are 3,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface.
The confinement of those injection materials are ensured by enuring
that proper confining zones exist above where the oil field wastes
are placed so they cannot migrate to the surface again. He noted
when looking at confining zones, AOGCC looks for thick layers of
shale or some impermeable barrier to flow.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked what CSSSHB 128(RES) would do.
MR. JOHNSTON stated this bill would remove dual jurisdiction
currently existing between the AOGCC and DEC. Both agencies
currently have a piece of this annular disposal issue. AOGCC has
looked at it as an issue associated with drilling safety,
protecting the integrity of the well, etc. DEC has looked at it
more from the standpoint of what the waste material is. He noted
there is no argument between the two agencies over the process.
The process of annular disposal has proven to be a very good
process to dispose of the wastes permanently in a manner that
protects the environment. He stressed he could not think of any
better alternative than the underground injection of this waste.
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked what is the annular space of an oil
or gas well.
MR. JOHNSTON replied the annular space is the space between the
earth and the casing put into that boring or it is the space
between two strings of casing. For example, when a well is drilled
there will be a surface casing string in the area of 13 and five-
eighths inches in diameter. A smaller production string of about
nine and five eighths inches in diameter runs down inside that
surface string. The space between the two is the annular space.
Fluid is put down that space until it reaches a receiving zone that
is below the bottom of the surface string. He explained the
surface string goes down between 2,000 and 4,000 feet and is
cemented in place. The annular space between the surface string
and the rock formation is cemented to the surface. Wastes are put
down the annular space between the production casing and the
surface casing. The wastes travel down the annular space and go
out into the receiving formation at the base of the bottom of the
surface casing.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified the disposal zone is a porous rock
formation.
MR. JOHNSTON stated porous sandstone is involved and gravity and
pressure is used. He said mud and cuttings involve a lot of weight
which tend to push the wastes out into the formation but pressure
is also added.
Number 430
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in light of the discussion with Ms.
Henkins regarding reserve pits in the oil patch, he asked Mr.
Johnston to make comments on reserve pits that might help the
committee understand the permits and safeguards that govern this
activity.
MR. JOHNSTON stated the AOGCC has always looked at reserve pits
more as the prerogative of the DEC since it is an activity
associated with the surface. AOGCC's focus is more on the
subsurface environment. He said AOGCC's regulations briefly talk
to reserve pits. He noted there are people who believe the AOGCC
should take a larger role in reserve pits but there is a point
reached where it does not make sense to have this dual jurisdiction
all the time. He stressed AOGCC has backed off the reserve pit
issue and has allowed DEC more of a say in that issue. Again, it
is something the commission could step into and direct additional
attention.
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Johnston to explain the
reserve pits. He wondered if the pits are capped off.
MR. JOHNSTON responded there are a number of generations of reserve
pits which have existed over a number of years. More recently, as
people became more knowledgeable about wastes, the construction has
reflected that wisdom with permeability barriers, etc. He noted
that some of the reserve pits, particularly those on the Kenai
Peninsula, are difficult to find. Generally, reserve pits were
covered over and forgotten. Today, those old reserve pits are
being reopened and the mud and cuttings are being disposed of
through an injection type program. He noted that wells on the
North Slope are being drilled without reserve pits and stressed
this is where the Annular Disposal Program has become much more
important.
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES noted on page 2, line 30 and page 3,
line 11, there is the phrase "established industry procedures". He
wondered if Mr. Johnston, as a regulator, is comfortable with such
a phrase. He asked if there are established industry procedures.
MR. JOHNSTON stated AOGCC refers quite often to good engineering
practices, good oil field practices, etc. He said established
industry procedures may be different to different companies. He
felt good engineering practices, or recognized engineering
practices might be better. He felt if engineers are talked to,
there would be a consensus on what these things are. He noted it
is similar to the phrase, "a good citizen." He pointed out the
phrase is an intangible and is subject to debate.
Number 530
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ADF&G, told committee members
they have a fiscal note which was prepared by the department for
the first version of the bill. He said the department was not
aware, until recently, of the work being done to modify the bill.
He stated he did receive a copy of CSSSHB 128(RES) the day before
and had faxed it to the department staff in Fairbanks. Based on
their review, the department believes the fiscal note should be
revised to reflect a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Bruce to highlight the changes
between the original bill and the committee substitute which
resulted in less activity on the part of the department.
MR. BRUCE stated the changes clarify that the intent of the bill is
to address the question of the duplication of efforts between the
AOGCC and DEC on the specific matter of the disposal of wastes
associated with oil drillings. He noted that DEC's other
responsibilities on water quality will not be affected and will
continue to do the things that the department depends on them to
do. He explained the original fiscal note was based on the
assumption that DEC would not do some of the things they are
currently doing in regard to ensuring that water quality standards
are adequate for the protection of fish and wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that ADF&G is comfortable that DEC
is going to continue to do those things related to habitat
protection, which allows the department to have a zero fiscal note.
MR. BRUCE stated that is correct. DEC will continue to do things
that ensure water quality which are important for fish and wildlife
habitat. He noted CSSSHB 128(RES) does not affect ADF&G's
responsibilities regarding the protection of fish and wildlife
habitat.
Number 572
NEIL MACKINNON, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA MINERALS COMMISSION (AMC),
stated AMC supports CSSSHB 128(RES). He said this law was applied
for the first time last year, specifically in the case of the Echo
Bay Mine drilling project. He told committee members about delays
in several projects. He pointed out there is no other place where
it is required to permit the discharge from a mining drill hole in
the exploration stage.
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN wondered what is currently done with wastes.
MR. MACKINNON said the drilling waste is mostly water, which is
used to cool the bits, and rock cuttings. The water flows out into
a return tank which is recirculated and put back down the hole. He
stated last year a sand centrifuge was used to pull the sand out
which is put on the ground.
Number 606
PATRICIA BERG, REPRESENTATIVE, ARCO ALASKA, stated ARCO Alaska
supports HB 128, supports using the federal definition of hazardous
waste, and supports the amendment just adopted. Previously, ARCO
Alaska had concerns about Section 3 (B) to unintentionally include
reserve pits which had been excavated with the drilling wastes
ground and injected back down into the hole. She said what remains
is an empty reserve pit. She stated based on Ms. Henkins'
testimony, ARCO Alaska has no further concerns. She explained the
intent of that section is for construction sites not for cleaned
and abandoned reserve pits.
MOLLY SHERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL),
stated AEL is always in support of things which streamline
government efficiency and costs less. She said she has been
involved in exploration drilling with reconnaissance crews as a
field cook and many of the places she has been they firmly believe
in conscientious business and environmental practices. She noted
they fulfill their contracts with vigor and as economically viable
as possible. They are conscientious people who love to work
outside, relish the risk and extreme conditions, and love Alaska.
MS. SHERMAN said AEL's intent is not to shut down drilling
operations or to objectively oppose the bill. She stressed AEL's
concerns regard safeguards and abuses where practices are not
established. AEL feels there is a critical flaw in the last half
of CSSSHB 128(RES) as there is not a cohesive set of standards.
She stressed that issue needs to be addressed. She noted often the
drilling sites are in remote areas and in many places there are
pits involved. She expressed concern about clean up and
reclamation. If not mandated, she felt there should be established
reclamation standards set up. She stressed it is not difficult to
rake an area and reseed it.
Number 660
TROY REINHART, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER,
KETCHIKAN PULP COMPANY (KPC), stated KPC supports CSSSHB 128(RES).
KPC does considerable drilling to develop rock pits and to build
roads under best management practices. He noted that currently
there are not any regulatory incentives in place which also protect
the environment. He stressed if a permitting process is started,
it would impact KPC's operations. He pointed out currently there
is not a chance for an exemption for minimal activities that
involve drilling to place charges or drilling to build logging
roads and develop rock pits. He stressed KPC takes all the
safeguards in place to ensure that water used in drilling
operations do not get discharged in streams.
TAPE 95-26, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to AMEND CSSSHB 128(RES) on
page 2, lines 29 and 30, and page 3, line 11, eliminating the words
"established industry procedures" and substituting the words
"recognized engineering practice."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt the amendment provides a middle ground.
He said the other option is to require state guidelines. He
expressed concern the notion of established industry procedures is
perhaps vague. He stated the phrase "recognized engineering
practice" would be more focused and a less elusive concept for
something which is intangible.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the amendment would require an
established definition of what "recognized engineering practices"
are. He expressed concern about leaving something vague where
there is not a track record. He said recognized engineering
practices could come from various sources that could compete with
one another.
Number 073
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if established industry procedures
or recognized engineering practices are written.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he is not an expert. He stressed the
whole concept being dealt with is intangible and there are no
written procedures and that concerns him. He said there probably
is no singular volume that can be used to find established industry
procedures or recognized engineering practices. On the other hand,
he felt the engineering practice is a professional area which is
somewhat removed from a particular industry. He noted in most
engineering fields, there are many publications which do not exist
in the same way for industry procedures. He pointed out his
amendment is still an intangible concept but would take it one step
less removed from intangible.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS suggested the committee pass out the bill as
it is and then he and Representative Davies can discuss his
concerns. He noted if they agree one way or the other, perhaps
Representative Davies can offer an amendment on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES WITHDREW his MOTION.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSSSHB 128(RES),
with accompanying zero fiscal notes, out of committee with
individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 150
HRES - 03/01/95
HB 107 - RESTRICTED LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 107 came
from a moratorium situation. He said about three years ago there
were concerns about the pressures on the dungeness crab stock and
the sustainability of the stock while deriving income off of it.
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) was given the tool
for a moratorium. During that moratorium, the CFEC and people in
the fisheries have been looking at the crab questions and have come
to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of the stock to
enter into some form of limited entry in the dungeness crab
fishery, in Southeast, to protect the stock.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stated HB 107 addresses the issue and
gives the CFEC the ability to determine a plan to limit the pots,
etc., but stressed HB 107 does not address any specific plan. HB
107 simply authorizes the CFEC to do it. He stressed HB 107 does
not affect the ability of the Board of Fish to make their
decisions. He explained what HB 107 will do is bring people into
the dungeness crab fisheries at their historical level of
participation.
FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, CFEC, stated CFEC supports HB 107. He
said HB 107 is a continuation of an earlier effort to look for a
solution in the crab fishery. He noted in the crab fishery, there
is a great diversity of effort levels and establishing a limited
entry program similar to the current salmon industry would allow
that effort level to increase significantly, which is not a good
conservation measure but rather is counter-productive to the
resource. He explained HB 107 would allow a variation to the
typical limited entry system in that the CFEC could keep the effort
level at its current capacity by restricting the permits to some
historical level of effort.
MR. HOMAN told committee members that currently there are
approximately 45,000 pots in Southeast. If the current system was
continued, there would be about 300 permits issued in the fishery
and each permit could fish 300 pots each, raising the effort level
to 90,000 pots over time. For that reason, the CFEC has been
reluctant to give the traditional limited entry to the crab fishery
and has been searching for the last three years to determine
another effort restriction. He felt HB 107 is something which can
be worked with to keep the fishery at its current level with its
participants, while preserving the resource.
Number 276
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated there are probably fishermen concerned
about not being able to get 200 or 300 pots at a time. For
example, if his son wanted to start fishing but is only fishing 75
or 100 pots, he asked how he would get up to 300 pots to make the
fishing viable for him.
MR. HOMAN responded a proportional pot limit on a permit means the
fishery would be similar to what it is today. For example, if
someone was fishing 100 pots, they could continue to fish 100 pots;
those who are fishing 300 pots could continue to fish 300 pots. He
said if the 100 pot permit was sold, a 300 pot permit could be
purchased, which allows people with 100 pot permits to move up and
also allows new entrants to come in at a lower level.
Number 306
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified if a 100 pot permit was sold, a 300
pot permit could be purchased.
MR. HOMAN said all the permits, at whatever pot level allowed,
would be transferrable permits, so they could be bought and sold.
He stressed that would depend, however, on whether or not a permit
was available.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that in Mr. Homan's example there
would have to be two permits available.
MR. HOMAN replied that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked how many permits can a person hold.
MR. HOMAN stated a person can hold one permit in each fishery under
the current system.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified a person could not fish 600 pots
with two permits.
MR. HOMAN responded that would not be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 107(FSH).
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 332
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wondered how the amount of gear each fisherman
is using can be verified.
MR. HOMAN stated that is an issue which the CFEC has to give more
analysis to. He said the CFEC will need to review catch histories,
harvest levels and the number of pots claimed on registration forms
to determine a ratio or formula. He noted the CFEC would work with
biologists on the issue. He pointed out the CFEC has all of the
harvest fish tickets from the past, so they know what each
individual harvest level has been.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said if the point is reached where there is over
fishing with the number of pots allowed and there had to be a
cutback, he wondered how that cutback would happen.
MR. HOMAN stated the crab fishery in Southeast is now under a
moratorium. He said the CFEC does not have the ability to change
the pot level as that is a Board of Fisheries decision.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is a total for all of the fishery.
MR. HOMAN replied that was correct--it is not an individual or
group total. He said one of the difficulties which has arisen is
the Board of Fisheries only meets about every three years on these
issues. He stated HB 107 says the CFEC can use the maximum allowed
by the Board of Fisheries and can issue permits based on a
proportion of that maximum.
Number 385
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified if there is a drop in the number
of sustainable crab that can be taken, at some point in time there
is a limitation put on by ADF&G in regard to the time frames of
fishing so the amount of the crab catch can be controlled.
MR. HOMAN explained the department can adjust seasons, limits,
sexes and sizes.
Number 405
BILL FLOR, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST DUNGENESS CRAB ASSOCIATION (SEDCA),
urged committee members to support HB 107. He said HB 107 is part
of continuing process, since 1984, to achieve a protection of the
crab resource in Southeast. He stressed that resource does need
some protection. He stated the problem with the traditional
limited entry is the fleet is so diverse--not everyone fishes the
full 300 pot limit and many people fish on the weekends with very
few pots. He pointed out if a traditional limited entry was
created, the potential for growth in the number of pots would
increase dramatically.
MR. FLOR said in 1991, SEDCA came to the legislature and presented
the problem and a moratorium on the crab fishery was passed so the
fishery could be studied. He noted the CFEC held hearings in the
fall and went to all of the Southeast communities. The Southeast
fleet was fairly united in creating a tiered system, even though
many other ideas were discussed. He stressed the tiered system
seemed fair, the diversity of the fleet would be grandfathered in
as it exists now, and it is a fairly simple plan.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the moratorium was just on the
Southeast crab fishery.
MR. FLOR replied it was.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN clarified HB 107 reflects statewide.
MR. FLOR said it does.
BETH FLOR, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and stated she
is in favor of HB 107. She felt HB 107 will enable CFEC to design
specific limited entry programs that will solve many problems for
resource conservation, as well as provide equitable levels of
participation.
SCOTT CROSS, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference, expressing
support for HB 107. He said it is quite clear the traditional
limited entry will not work for the dungeness crab fishery. He
stated if the moratorium is allowed to expire, there will be a big
impact. He noted other fisheries are breaking new ground and
moving towards a less derby-style fishery and there is an
opportunity to do the same in the dungeness crab fishery. He said
this will help the value of the crab, as well as the safety of the
fishermen.
ANDY WRIGHT, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and expressed
support for HB 107.
MARK JENSEN, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and said he
would support a bill that would get a limited entry type program
going. He stated he does not agree with the wording in HB 107,
especially not being able to change a permit. He felt if he has a
permit for 100 pots and another person is going to sell their 100
pot permit, he should be able to buy another permit. He said when
the moratorium bill was passed, it provided for research of the
crab stocks and to his knowledge, that has never been done except
for dock surveys.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked Mr. Jensen to explain his first
opposition to HB 107.
MR. JENSEN said if a person originally receives 100 pots, he cannot
add to that number of pots unless he sells his permit and buys
another permit. He stated he did not understand why, if a person
originally got a permit for 100 pots, he could not buy another 100
pot permit.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the committee substitute for HB 107 took
care of that issue. He noted the original bill said, "The fishing
capacity allowed under an entry permit may not be changed after the
permit is issued." He explained in the committee substitute that
language was deleted.
MR. JENSEN said that would alleviate the problem. He expressed
concern also on the fact that many people show 300 pots on their
registration when, in fact, they are not fishing that many pots.
He felt using the registration criteria would not be realistic
information for the program. He noted also if someone has a bad
year, that could affect the criteria used for the program.
Number 520
MR. HOMAN stated what Mr. Jensen is talking about is a provision
which was looked at during the public hearing process and it was
called a stackable provision where a person could consolidate
permits. He said there is difficulty with that provision in the
current system in that permits are limited to one permit per
fishery. He noted to accommodate a stackable system, there would
be a need to consolidate permits which is a difficult thing to
incorporate into the CFEC's current system because it does not
occur anywhere else. He felt it would be a very complicated
provision to incorporate at this time but is something which could
be looked at in the future. He stressed CFEC does not want to do
anything to jeopardize any of the other existing limited entry
fisheries by having a provision that could consolidate permits.
MR. HOMAN noted the CFEC is currently faced with a court case
called the Johns case which says a fishery can become too exclusive
by a reduction in the number of permits. He said if it gets to a
point where the court would declare the fishery too exclusive, new
permits would have to be issued in that fishery. He stated that is
why the stackable provision was not pursued.
Number 544
LADD NORHEIM, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 107. He expressed concern about the
viability of the crab fishery and felt HB 107 will help keep the
fishery at a viable level. He stated he likes HB 107 because it
gives a kid out of high school the opportunity to buy a small pot
permit on which he could build.
DAVE BEEBE, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and expressed
support for HB 107. He stated his main concern is the direction of
the fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and those fishermen moving
into Southeast Alaska.
SHERRI WOHLHUETTER, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
said she is strongly in favor of HB 107. She stated HB 107 will
give the CFEC a responsible management tool for the crab resource
which is crucial for the longevity of this resource. She stressed
if the resource is not managed responsibly, it will not be
available for anyone.
ROCKY LITTLETON, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 107.
MICHAEL SHELDON, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 107 because he is concerned that the
California, Oregon and Washington fleet plan to come up and fish
the fishery. He stated if the fishery is allowed to be accessed by
a wide open fishery, the production will be hampered. He said he
would like to see his son get a chance to get into the fishery.
DENNIS ONEAL, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 107.
GWYNNE SHORT, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and stated
her husband, Joe Short, has been in the fisheries for 15 years.
They both support HB 107.
TAPE 95-27, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. BRUCE stated the department supports HB 107. He recalled that
earlier testimony in the fisheries committee indicated the bill was
not needed from a biological standpoint. He clarified the
department's biologists believe HB 107 does have biological
benefits for protecting the crab stocks from over-exploitation.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked someone to explain the committee
substitute.
MR. HOMAN said the committee substitute removes one sentence from
the original bill. He stated in the original bill on page 2, lines
22 and 23, there was reference that the permit could not be changed
after it has been issued. He noted the Attorney General's Office
was somewhat concerned that reference may indicate some restriction
on the Board of Fisheries. He stressed the Board of Fisheries
still has the final authority on the maximum numbers of pots.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 107(FSH) with
accompanying zero fiscal note out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the committee was going to hear
HB 170 again but due to time, it will be taken up again on Monday,
March 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|