Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/20/2000 03:10 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 20, 2000
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Jerry Mackie
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Sean Parnell
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 273(RES)
"An Act requiring oil discharge prevention and contingency plans
and proof of financial responsibility for nontank vessels and
railroad tank cars; authorizing inspection of nontank vessels and
trains; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED CSSB 273(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 258
"An Act relating to registration for commercial set gillnet fishing
sites; relating to leases for shore fisheries development; and
providing for an effective date."
-HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 212
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish and game to award
grants for certain resource activities; and providing for an
effective date."
-MOVED CSSB 212(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 273 - See Resources Committee minutes dated 2/21/00 and 3/3/00.
SB 258 - No previous action to record.
SB 212 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Commissioner Michele Brown
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 273.
Mr. Breck Tostevin, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
310 K Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 273.
Mr. Rick Thompson
Division of Mining, Land and Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Ste 800
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 258.
Ms. Carol Carroll, Director
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave., 5th Floor
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 258.
Mr. David Rang
5033 W 80th Ave
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 258.
Mr. Marv Ebnet
9400 Springhill Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Al Bauman
P.O. Box 92895
Anchorage, AK 99509
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Kim Rice
Egegik Set Net Association
P.O. Box 331
Girdwood, AK 99587
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Tom Church
P.O. Box 406
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Jim Pahl
P.O. Box 179
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Dan Chalup
Kachemak Bay Salmon Coop
RDO - Red Mountain
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Ms. Sandy Umlauf, President
Ugashik Set Netters Association
Ugashik, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Karl Kircher
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Brant Johnson, Vice President
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Robert Kuchenbecker
P.O. Box 876608
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 258.
Mr. Ken Taylor, Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 212
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-11, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 273-OIL SPILL RESPONSE; NONTANK VESSELS & RR
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:10 p.m. and announced SB 273 to be up for consideration.
He announced the committee already adopted a committee substitute
(CS).
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment 1.
SENATOR GREEN objected for an explanation.
SENATOR PEARCE explained there was some concern that the timing to
put regulations for the contingency plans in place was too short.
To remedy that concern, the date of June 1 was changed to November
1 on page 1, line 9 following the word "effectively." In addition.
that date change was made throughout the bill.
The second change was made on page 2, line 7, in response to
questions about where a vessel that had persistent product, such as
fuel or in bulk, or nonpersistent product, would fall under the
bill. Following the word "greater," new language was added that
reads:
(C) Both persistent product, as fuel or in bulk, and
nonpersistent product at the applicable financial
responsibility rate established in (A) or (B) of this
paragraph for the storage capacity of the vessel for
persistent product or nonpersistent product that
predominates on the vessel.
She summarized that the vessel owner would determine which category
applies depending on the predominant fuel on board. This was worked
out with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and
some of the folks who would be affected by the bill.
SENATOR PEARCE said that she and Senator Taylor are working on
language to limit a portion of the liability of the response action
contractors, such that in a neg/reg process they could possibly
become contingency plan holders themselves, which should streamline
the whole process dramatically. That change will take some
liability changes. She requested that the bill be moved out of
committee while they continue working on that liability language.
SENATOR PEARCE said a number of shippers have said the bill is not
necessary so she would like to enter into the record the first
paragraph of a letter dated February 22, 2000 from the Commander of
the U.S. Coast Guard, Officer in Charge of Marine Inspections for
Southeast Alaska, R.C. Lorigan, to NorthStar Maritime in Anchorage,
acting as agents. The same letter went to other organizations.
She read:
I am writing this letter to express my concern about the
increased incidents that deep draft vessel operators
failing to comply with the navigation safety regulations
contained in 33 CFR 64.33. Specifically, in the course
of routine boardings, my inspectors have noted that
vessels have navigated far within the internal waters of
Southeast Alaska with inadequate charts. This poses a
significant risk to safe navigation and protection of the
pristine Alaska marine environment."
SENATOR PEARCE said this letter and other actions the Coast Guard
has taken in Southwest Alaska make it clear to her that ships are
navigating in Alaskan waters that the Coast Guard doesn't consider
to be safe. That's one reason she thought ships that come into our
waters should have to show financial responsibility and have
contingency plans in case they end up on the rocks as they,
unfortunately, all too often do.
At members' request, SENATOR PEARCE offered to provide a copy of
Officer Lorrigan's letter to them.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he knew the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on
Washington tanker regulations. He asked if Senator Pearce
addressed that.
Number 450
SENATOR PEARCE replied that it's her understanding that the
Washington law that was thrown out had to do with other than
protection of the state's waters. The contingency plans (CP) and
financial responsibility areas of Washington's laws were not thrown
out by the courts. The Supreme Court said Washington could not get
into the business of trying to be the entity that decides how many
people must be on the bridge of a ship, what language they speak,
and what bridge accommodations there had to be. Bridge management
is not something that a state can push.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he just read the decision and thinks there is
a bigger problem but he doesn't know that it's laid out at this
point.
She said that DEC looked at it and doesn't believe Alaska's
contingency planning regulations nor the financial responsibility
regulations would be impacted by that decision and certainly not in
the scope of this bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if other provisions of Alaska law may be
impacted by the decision.
SENATOR PEARCE said she doesn't know whether any of the provisions
of Alaska's tanker laws are going to be impacted. Under state law,
there are no requirements for bridge management. One of the
concerns after the Exxon Valdez spill was whether the number of
crew members onboard was too small to operate a ship that size. At
that time, the number was down to about 18 onboard; now it is up to
22. When those ships were first operated, 27 people were onboard.
The Exxon Valdez didn't have a third officer. Those are the sorts
of things that can't be required under state law.
Number 900
SENATOR TAYLOR said he is considering amending page 5, line 4 to
change the definition of "nontank vessel" from 300 gross tons to
400. He asked what types of vessels would be excluded or included.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if a Coast Guard person was available to
tell them if there is another classification that would make sense.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that the original number was chosen to
comply with the size the State of Washington used in its law.
That way, ships that travel in Washington waters would then be
covered when they come into Alaskan waters. The Coast Guard uses
gross tonnage as opposed to displacement or other ways you can use
to measure the bulk of a ship. If the definition is changed to 400
gross tons, she is not familiar with how many ships would be
excluded.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if anyone could give a ballpark idea of the
difference in size between a 300 and 400 gross ton vessel.
MR. HANS ANTONSON, Southeast Sea Pilots Association, responded that
in many instances, the gross tonnage doesn't reflect the actual
size of the vessel. Small vessels can have a greater gross tonnage
because of the way the space is divided up. Passenger vessels can
be affected by design features, such as whether the cabins open to
the outside deck or an inside corridor.
SENATOR PEARCE noted that the regulations that were overturned by
the Supreme Court include crew training, English language
proficiency, navigation watch requirements, accident reporting, and
containment boom requirements for some tankers. She said that her
understanding is that the basis for contingency plans and the
ability to clean up petroleum spills will not be affected by this
federal decision.
SENATOR GREEN asked Senator Pearce if she believes the scope of the
ruling is limited by paragraph 2.
SENATOR PEARCE replied that she was reading from an article, not
from the opinion itself. Intertanko actually sued on the points it
thought the Coast Guard had primacy over, not Washington State. The
issue of who has primacy is clear under this decision. Alaska laws
don't require drug and alcohol testing, although the U.S.
Department of Transportation requires testing on the tankers.
Proving financial responsibility for a spill and requiring a
contingency plan are not the issues that Intertanko had thrown out
of the federal courts. It is possible that Intertanko will sue
over some of the other requirements in the future. She said she
wouldn't discount that the industry worldwide will try to get out
from under any regulations it can. That doesn't mean we shouldn't
try to protect our waters.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that booming is one of the things that's
not mentioned in that paragraph.
SENATOR PEARCE responded that the article refers to booming during
a transfer. She didn't know where in Washington state ships do
lightering. She said she would be surprised if the Coast Guard
didn't require booming when there was lightering anyway.
SENATOR PEARCE repeated that DEC looked at the opinion and doesn't
believe it will affect any of our state laws.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced a brief at-ease at 3:32 p.m. Shortly
after, he called the meeting back to order.
COMMISSIONER MICHELE BROWN, DEC, testifying via teleconference,
announced that she was available to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked why a distinction is made at 300 tons and
whether another Coast Guard category is close to that but larger.
MR. BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
said his understanding of the 300 gross ton distinction is that it
was used by the states of Oregon, Washington, and California in
their nontank contingency planning legislation. Those states, in
turn, relied on that distinction based on the Coast Guard, which
used 300 gross tons as a regulatory threshold. Ships above that
size have to meet various requirements.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what provisions of the current legislation
are brought into question by the Supreme Court opinion.
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that the current legislation would not be
affected. Contingency planning requirements and cleanup equipment
were not addressed in the decision. The Supreme Court focused on
vessel design, equipment, manning, qualifications of the crew, and
navigation. He didn't think that decision affected current Alaska
laws either. He thought that DEC, in implementing the contingency
plans, will be mindful of the uniformity requirements and the Coast
Guard regulations. The Supreme Court did say state liability laws
can be more stringent than federal law.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the one thing that might be in question is
the equipment requirements that are tied to the spill response
capability.
MR. TOSTEVIN said that the Supreme Court was focused on
requirements of vessel design. For example, Washington required
that two [indisc.] be onboard while the Coast Guard only required
one. The Supreme Court said there was no uniformity and that states
could not change that standard. Washington has contingency plan
requirements regarding the kind of cleanup equipment that must be
available. That was not challenged in the Washington case.
Number 1400
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment 1 which reads:
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: CSSB 273( ), Draft Version "D"
Page 1, line 9, following "effective":
Delete "June 1"
Insert "November 1"
Page 2, line 3, following "(A)":
Insert "only"
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "and"
Page 2, line 6, following "(B)":
Insert "only"
Page 2, line 7, following "greater":
Insert "; and
(C) both persistent product as fuel or in
bulk, and nonpersistent product, at the applicable
financial responsibility rate established in (A) or (B)
of this paragraph for the storage capacity of the vessel
for persistent product or nonpersistent product that
predominates on the vessel"
Page 2, line 10, following "effective":
Delete "June 1"
Insert "November 1"
Page 2, line 23, following "effective":
Delete "June 1"
Insert "November 1"
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there was any objection to the adoption
of Amendment 1. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment 2, which would delete "300"
and insert "400" on page 5, line 4.
SENATOR PEARCE explained that 300 gross tons was chosen because it
is consistent with the rest of the West Coast and with the Coast
Guard threshold. She didn't know how many ships will be left out
of the requirement if it is changed to 400 but the ships that have
been involved in the latest groundings in our state would not be
excluded from compliance because of this change.
SENATOR TAYLOR said his first thought was to go to 500. He wanted
to go to a number that wouldn't capture a whole bunch of little
guys - like packers and tenders in the fishing fleet. He said he
is willing to do more research on that number and provide examples
of vessels that would be excluded.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that if the same vessel can fall between 100
and 1000 gross tons based on whether the cabin doors open in or out
on deck, this standard is strange.
SENATOR PARNELL said he would vote against the bill because he
wants to know what the impact is on specific ships.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2. SENATORS HALFORD,
KELLY, GREEN, TAYLOR, and MACKIE voted yea; SENATOR PARNELL voted
nay. The amendment passed five to one.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 273(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 258-SET NET SITES/ SHORE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 258 to be up for consideration.
MR. RICK THOMPSON, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said that
the current set net leasing program is a long-standing program that
allows limited entry gill-net permit holders to obtain leases for
their fishing sites. However, it does not require one to fish in
that spot.
MR. THOMPSON explained that a lease gives fishermen control over
the locations where they habitually fish. A lease holder may use
the location for set net fishing to the exclusion of others. In FY
00, the legislature reduced the funding in the program by about
two-thirds and reallocated the program receipts to other programs.
MR. THOMPSON said DNR cannot manage the program as it stands with
the finances left so it is proposing to restructure the program.
The registration system would not result in the customary lease,
but it would give fishermen the right to fish their sites in a
manner similar to the existing lease program. A statute change is
required to implement the registration system. At the present
time, DNR is not accepting any applications for leases and, without
modification to the statute and with the resources DNR has left, it
cannot continue to manage the program as it exists.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how much income was generated from the
program receipts for the existing lease program.
MR. THOMPSON answered that the total income from program receipts
was $360,000 and, prior to FY00, $300,000 of that was allocated to
the program.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if DNR is asking to repeal a program that
was making a $60,000 profit.
MR. THOMPSON explained that DNR lost two-thirds of the resources it
had to run the program. DNR has 1,200 outstanding leases, which
require lease management, and the program cannot be run by one
person. He was asked to come up with a way to continue the
registration program with one person and this is his best shot.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the registration would cost as much as
the lease program, in terms of what the people pay.
MR. THOMPSON replied that the fee would stay the same.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the lessees were paying $360,000 to get
$300,000 worth of work in the past and under this bill they will
pay $360,000 to get $50,000 worth of work.
MR. THOMPSON responded the lessees will pay the same amount of
money to get less services from DNR.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked where the program receipts went.
MR. THOMPSON replied they were redirected by the legislature and he
isn't sure where they went.
MS. CAROL CARROLL, DNR, explained that DNR received a reduction in
its authority to expend the program receipts and her understanding
is that they are now deposited into the general fund. The program
receipts were not redirected within DNR.
SENATOR MACKIE commented that this might be a Finance Committee
question. He asked if anyone from OMB explained this to the
Finance Committee members so they could give DNR enough program
receipts to manage the program.
Number 1900
MS. CARROLL answered when they went through budget reductions last
year, the subcommittee knew it was redirecting program receipts.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the difference is between the
registration program and the lease program from the user's
perspective.
MR. THOMPSON explained that users get the exclusive use of the
beach for that site, but applicants have to locate the site and
fill out a form with DNR to register it. That registration
information will be a matter of public record. Applicants have to
provide the coordinates for that location.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what's different and what they get with a
lease that they didn't get with registration.
MS. CARROLL explained that DNR used to adjudicate any controversy
but will no longer do that if the bill passes. Any controversy
will be decided through arbitration, mediation, or the court.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if DNR would accept multiple registrations
for the same site.
MR. THOMPSON answered yes; a system would be set up so that if
someone registers for a site and someone else comes along and
claims it, there's a conflict resolution system the parties can go
through but DNR wouldn't handle it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said so he is not guaranteeing a lessee the
exclusive right to use a specific piece of beach.
MR. THOMPSON replied that the lessee has to be able to prove he or
she is the superior fisherman on that site.
SENATOR MACKIE asked who would do the conflict resolution in that
situation.
MR. THOMPSON replied that it would be an arbitrator.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if it would be up to the fisherman who's been
fishing the same site for 20 years to find an arbitrator.
MR. THOMPSON answered if a person has an existing lease, it would
be converted and no one will be able to challenge it. He was
referring to the way it would work for a new site.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought DNR isn't accepting leases this
year.
MR. THOMPSON responded DNR isn't accepting any leases but if it
switches over to the registration program, the leases will be
allowed to go through the normal cycle. When they expire, they
could convert.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what would happen if a lease expires this
year.
Number 2100
MR. THOMPSON replied they will renew a license that just expired in
the interim to protect people's ability to maintain their
exclusivity on the site.
MR. DAVID RANG, Cook Inlet fisherman of 48 years, said he sees this
as a divestiture of interest. When you put a municipality's
interest ahead of fishermen's, the process of eminent domain should
take care of that. The people at DNR forced a utility outfit to
tempt him to buy out his fishing interests for the season. The
other thing he does not like about SB 258 is that it addresses
several issues to be handled by one claim. He didn't think
registering would work very well for the fishermen and would work
to someone else's advantage. He also asked that this bill be
translated into lay language. He is opposed to SB 258.
MR. MARV EBNET, Bristol Bay set netter, said, "If something ain't
broke, don't fix it, and this ain't broke." There are two things
lessees pay for with the shore lease program - long term security
and conflict resolution without the risk of injury or loss of
income. Take that away, and there will be no incentive for the set
netters to participate in the program and the program will die.
He said there is a history of people dying while trying to protect
set net sites. He also said that GPS isn't accurate enough to nail
down site locations. Everyone out there has already made a
substantial investment in existing survey data. That shouldn't
change; there's nothing wrong with that data.
If this fishery becomes disorderly through violence, the Department
of Fish and Game will shut down the fishery. That will have a
serious impact on fishermen and the State. He is opposed to SB 258
and would like to see this program have dedicated funds similar to
the guide program.
MR. AL BAUMAN, Bristol Bay fisherman, testified that in October,
1992, a letter from Ron Swanson said if the program was not self
supporting, it might be eliminated. Fees were then increased from
$150 to $300. At the time there were four full-time employees,
which accounted for about 90 percent of the just over $200,000 cost
of the program. The program's viability was to be reviewed in
1997. In February of 1998, they received a letter from Cathy
Doogan, Bethel Resource Officer, saying that costs had not
increased so no fee increase was necessary, and that the next
review would be in 2002. At that time, there were three employees;
one was cut due to DNR budget cutting. At present, the program as
he knew it no longer exists. One person is employed part-time on
shore fishery issues.
TAPE 00-11, SIDE B
MR. BAUMAN continued. Under the proposed registration program,
which is partially operating now, no new diagrams are accepted. No
amending diagrams are allowable, conflicts are not resolved, and
public notices have been eliminated. From time to time, it's
necessary to adjust shore fishery diagrams because of shore erosion
or the voluntary elimination of an existing site to increase
"fishability." The ability to change a diagram is essential.
At present, most arguments have already been settled. Public
notice of new lease and lease changes is a tool to avoid conflicts
and is paid for directly by the fishermen. Three hundred dollar
fees are still required. The fee is not the issue; the issue is
that the participant-funded receipt program is accepting funding
and not performing services. They would like to see the section
pertaining to shore fishery leases in SB 258 be stricken and the
former program reinstated. The best way to stop what has become an
annual fight to save the program would be to declare fees from the
shore fishery program as non-general fund monies. It appears that
DNR is using the shore fishery program as a cash cow. Last year,
it had one employee and he can't see how DNR spent $300,000 on this
program.
MR. KIM RICE, Egegik set netter, said he is opposed to SB 258. He
wants to save the program because it brings stability to the
fishery. He said the Governor should have discussed this bill with
them to see what they could do to help before submitting it to the
legislature. The lease program as it exists works fine; changing
it to a yearly lease as opposed to a 10-year lease (as it is now)
will disrupt the fishery and create a Smith and Wesson mentality.
The program was enacted to add stability to the mostly Alaskan
fishery (90 percent). Set netters are paying $360,000 for the
program and he would like to see that money dedicated. That would
end the conflict.
MR. RICE agreed that GPS is not accurate enough to use for set net
location as sites are 300 ft. apart in Bristol Bay. They have
already spent millions on surveyors statewide to locate and
dedicate these sites to their leases. They need the 10 years so
that they can plan their seasons. They are willing to pay the
money for the system as long as they get it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the $300 fee is for the 10 year period or
whether it is annual.
MR. RICE replied they pay an annual fee for a 10-year lease.
MR. TOM CHURCH, Prince William Sound set netter, clarified that the
fee is $300 per year per lease site. In his district, they are
entitled to have three lease sites for a total of $900 per year.
He supported the previous shore fishery lease program.
Historically, it has proven to be successful and provided an
efficient, valuable, and stable means of managing that fishery.
The facts show that the annual fees have been increased to the
point where the program provides a surplus to the State. It's been
successful so why fix something if it's not broken.
MR. JIM PAHL, Prince William Sound set netter, said he is opposed
to SB 258. He pays $600 per year for his plots and it cost him
$1,000 last year to have an amendment to it. He is concerned that
something like this could happen without his knowledge.
MR. DAN CHALUP, Kachemak Bay Salmon Co-op, opposed SB 258 for the
reasons already stated. He would like to see the fees dedicated to
the shore lease fisheries program instead of the general fund.
MS. SANDY UMLAUF, President, Ugashik Set Net Association, opposed
SB 258. The old program was self sustaining, offered stability for
shore fishery leases and provided a means for conflict resolution.
There was general satisfaction with the program from the fishermen.
The resulting chaos of abandoning this program might cause the set
net fishermen to abandon the program and lose that state revenue.
Set net sites are frequently hotly contested and very
controversial.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Carroll if anyone supports this bill.
MS. CARROLL responded that DNR came forward with this bill because
its budget was cut last year. It is an attempt to handle the
program and still give the people who have a shore fishery lease a
registration program. Right now there is a moratorium on the lease
program because DNR cannot run it the way it used to.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it wasn't actually a budget reduction. He
asked if the money went some place else within DNR.
MS. CARROLL replied that it was a reduction in their authority to
expend program receipts. The money did not go anywhere else. It
was not allocated anywhere else in DNR's budget. It resides in the
general fund if people are still paying; and they are. The people
testifying today are saying that they totally fund this program;
but DNR does not have the authority to spend that money like it did
in previous years.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if DNR doesn't believe it still has a mission
to provide the same service.
MS. CARROLL replied that DNR cannot provide the same services if it
doesn't have the staff to do that. Statutorily, DNR is required to
do a lease program, but it doesn't have the authority to expend the
money. Without the legislature's permission, it is unable to run
the program like it used to. SB 258 is a fix.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Senate and House Finance Committees
actually cut DNR's budget by $200,000 last year.
MS. CARROLL said that is correct - directly to the shore fishery
program.
SENATOR TAYLOR said DNR should have just asked for program receipt
authority again, which doesn't take a bill. It just takes the
Finance Committee to reinsert it that way.
MS. CARROLL said that DNR recognizes that the State doesn't have
the money it used to and that the legislature is reducing the
overall State budget. DNR has been participating in those budget
cuts.
SENATOR TAYLOR said DNR would be much wiser to discuss this with
the Finance Committees.
Number 1512
MR. KARL KIRCHER, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association,
submitted documents to the committee: an October 29, 1992 letter
from DNR to set netters outlining the need for an increase in the
yearly rental fees for shore fishery leases and an October 5, 1992
letter from DNR detailing how the increased fees would be used to
ensure that the adequate program receipts would cover
administrative costs. AS 38.05.082 gives authority to the director
to administer the program. This program brought a great deal of
stability to the program. They should look closely at the
circumstances surrounding the original cut to the fund.
He agreed with Senator Taylor that this should be dealt with in the
Finance Committee. He thought they should ask DNR if there are
specific areas of the shore lease program that are administratively
or financially problematic. Mr. Kircher said this is a bad bill
but, if it is killed, it would still leave the moratorium in place.
At a minimum, DNR should continue to issue renewals so as not to
harm those whose leases have expired. DNR should be given the
authority to spend the program receipts as they came from the
industry.
MR. BRENT JOHNSON, Vice President, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's
Association, said he had been surveying shore fishery leases for
many years and he didn't see how this new program would work in
Cook Inlet. In this area, nets are sometimes a mile and a half off
shore. The only time they can possibly be surveyed is at slack
tide when the buoy lines are pulled absolutely tight so you can
locate the anchors which lay at the bottom of the ocean. He didn't
think it could be done with GPS.
MR. ROGER KUCHENBECKER said that Senator Taylor had suggested the
solution to the problem. He said he fished in the Ugashik River
district for 13 years and is opposed to SB 258. The current
program works and has taken 15 years to implement. He said that
"peacefully" was one of the important catch words here. One of his
main concerns would be the GPS location as mentioned by previous
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it is his understanding that the highest
percentage of Alaska resident ownership and the highest percentage
of local area resident ownership of a fishery is in set net sites.
The State shouldn't be dismantling something that works. If DNR
can come back with something that provides the same kind of service
that the existing system provides, it can make its case. Short of
that, this bill isn't destined to be a fast mover.
SENATOR MACKIE said the problem is that DNR isn't going to manage
the lease program any more and it needs to fix the program receipt
question in the budget so that the funds collected for that purpose
can be used for that purpose.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said this may be one of those cases in which
something happened to the program receipts in the prior year and
because something wasn't done correctly, the program receipts were
reduced further.
SENATOR MACKIE repeated that whatever the cause of the problem is,
the funds collected for that purpose should be allocated to manage
that program.
SB 212-FISH & GAME GRANTS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 212 to be up for consideration.
MR. KEN TAYLOR, Director, Habitat and Restoration Division, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said he appreciated working
with the committee to narrow the scope of this bill so that it does
not deal with general funds, Fish and Game funds, or federal aid
funds, but simply with federal receipts. This bill is necessary
because the Habitat Division has been involved in restoration
activities for some time. In 1994, the legislature passed SB 183,
which provided some criminal settlement funds from EVOS, of which a
large portion went toward restoration activities on the Kenai
River. That program has been very popular with the public and with
the fishing community.
Unfortunately, the way that system works, because ADF&G didn't have
granting authority, it had to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The division
transfers the money to USFWS, it takes an 11 percent cut, then
makes the grants and does a little bit of the paper work to the
individual land owners on the Kenai. ADF&G works with the USFWS
but it ends up getting most of the credit for this work, thus
elevating its stature in the public's eye.
This system is administratively inefficient. ADF&G feels it would
service the public much better if the grants went directly from the
State to the private land owners where restoration activities are
necessary. There are a fair number of federal funds available for
this kind of work that ADF&G frequently gets receipt authority for.
SB 212 would facilitate that process. ADF&G has long-term plans to
do restoration work throughout a good part of Southcentral Alaska
and some work will be done on the Chatanika over the next year.
Some work will be done in Southeast, as well. In essence, that's
the purpose of this bill. This bill may benefit some of the other
divisions, although he didn't know much about granting in
commercial fisheries or sport fish or wildlife. The director of
the Wildlife Division thinks this bill would benefit that division
as well.
SENATOR TAYLOR said this version still seems very broad to him. It
basically says the Commissioner may award grants from federal funds
and just restricts the specific funding mechanisms that come from
tax receipts. He asked what program these funds are coming from
and whether this is being set up so that ADF&G can take advantage
of S 25 or H 701 by Don Young.
MR. TAYLOR answered no. Those bills will require major changes to
state legislation as well. Currently, AS 16.05.300 (d) restricts
the use of federal aid funds to programs that only directly benefit
hunters, trappers, and sport fishermen. If the Conservation
Reinvestment Act passes, which is principally for non-hunted
species, there will have to be some changes made to the fish and
game fund in statute. SB 212 is simply for federal funds that are
available through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
through the Governor's request in the federal budget and, he
believes that in this fiscal year the Governor received money for
salmon restoration - a statewide pot - as a result of the Treaty
negotiations. Some of the money comes from the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), EPA, and the USFWS.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that money is subject to appropriation and
would still have to go through the appropriation process. Other
departments have granting authority, but if you want to do a fish
and game grant, you have to do it through another agency. SB 212
would allow grants directly through ADF&G; it still has to be
appropriated by this legislature for the purpose of that grant to
whoever it's supposed to go to.
MR. TAYLOR said that is correct.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if that was a result of the narrowing of the
bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that's in the Alaska Constitution. He asked
to whom the grants would be made.
MR. TAYLOR responded that currently, he understands that ADF&G can
make grants to any recognized governmental entity, such as a
municipality or first, second, or third class cities. ADF&G can
also make grants to nonprofits or to private individuals. The
grants ADF&G has funneled through the USFWS have been primarily to
private land owners that own land adjacent to the Kenai River. If
SB 212 passes and ADF&G receives the federal funds, it would expand
the program it has on the Kenai to places like Chester Creek, Ship
Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Wasilla, and other water bodies in need of
restoration.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if ADF&G plans to do restoration work on the
Chatanika near Fairbanks.
MR. TAYLOR answered through the Yukon Treaty negotiations, the
Yukon River Board receives federal funds from Congress for its
activities. Money was put in the federal FY 00 budget to deal with
some of the dams and impoundments built years and years ago that
blocked off a lot of salmon spawning areas. ADF&G also received
$200,000 in the federal budget this year for that. He didn't know
if that would given as grants or whether ADF&G would go through the
contract procurement code process to deal with that.
Number 478
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what ADF&G would think about including
language that says, "The Commissioner may, with the concurrence of
the respective Boards of Fisheries and Game, make grants from
federal funds other than ...." He thought that might create a
balanced approach to enhancing some resources in return for the
protection of other resources.
MR. TAYLOR answered that during the course of the year, it takes a
while to figure out which projects are going to occur and which
aren't. There were over 160 different projects on Kenai River
alone. He didn't think ADF&G would mind some Board oversight in
this matter but the question is how to do it most efficiently and
effectively.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted the Board could give ADF&G a general
concurrence or a specific concurrence.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if the Commissioner of ADF&G would put
together a grant proposal, i.e., for a fisheries habitat project on
the Kenai, and submit it to the Board of Fisheries for approval.
If the Board blessed it, it would then go in the budget and the
legislature would have to approve it.
SENATOR HALFORD said yes, it would just get them back on the same
sheet of music.
MR. TAYLOR said he thought that would work. He pointed out that
tomorrow the Board of Fisheries would take up its sustainable
fisheries policy and the first criteria in that policy is habitat
related.
Number 223
SENATOR GREEN asked if there could be a timing problem in getting
the concurrence for the project and whether it would delay anything
by 12 months.
MR. TAYLOR said it would depend on the approach that the Board
took. ADF&G plans its budget in September and it doesn't take
effect until July. The legislature approves it sometime between
January and May. Board meetings occur over that time and ADF&G
could give the Board its general approach.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had done any assessments to indicate
whether any of the habitat enhancement projects done on the Kenai
have had an effect.
MR. TAYLOR answered that studies are on-going right now, but people
doing visual observations of stream banks that have been restored
have observed an increase in the number of salmon fry, especially
king salmon, so it appears to have been very successful.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if ADF&G thought about putting some large
woody debris in that river. He said it is interesting that pooling
is taken for granted in Southeast and yet he has never seen it done
on the Kenai.
MR. TAYLOR said ADF&G looked at doing that to rivers but not
particularly on the Kenai. Large woody debris is being studied
intensively in Washington State for some of the salmon restoration
projects. He noted the Kenai River has some deep pockets of water,
unlike the rivers in Washington. Large woody debris is a science
in itself and biologists are finding there is a fair amount of
difference in its importance to certain environments. Right now,
ADF&G is looking at whether it is important at all on the Tanana
River.
TAPE 00-12, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested amending line 6 by adding, "With the
concurrence of the respective Board of Fisheries or Game," before
the words, "the Commissioner may." There being no objection to
adopting the amendment, Chairman Halford noted it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the CS. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 212(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|