Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/11/1996 03:37 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 11, 1996
3:37 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 37
Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression
of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate,
restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from
its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the
University of Alaska.
SENATE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing a discovery royalty credit for the lessees of
state land drilling exploratory wells and making the first
discovery of oil or gas in commercial quantities."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Opposing the proposed expansion of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's toxins release inventory program.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39
Relating to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency draft National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for placer
mining in Alaska.
SENATE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to environmental audits and health and safety
audits to determine compliance with certain laws, permits, and
regulations; and amending Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 202,
402, 602, 603, 610, and 611."
SENATE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to management of game populations for maximum
sustained yield for human harvest and providing for the replacement
of areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to management
of fish and game areas; and amending Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2),
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 212(FIN)
"An Act relating to the management and sale of state timber and
relating to the administration of forest land and classification of
state land."
SENATE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to filing, recording, and indexing of documents
with or by the Department of Natural Resources; repealing certain
filing requirements concerning property involving nonresident
aliens; and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 37 - See Resources minutes dated 3/8/96.
SB 112 - See Resources minutes dated 3/6/96.
SJR 38 - No previous action to consider.
SJR 39 - No previous action to consider.
SB 199 - See Resources minutes dated 1/31/96 and 3/6/96.
SB 262 - See Resources minutes dated 2/12/96 and 3/8/96.
HB 212 - No previous action to consider.
SB 283 - See Resources minutes dated 3/8/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mark Rubin
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 38.
Faye Sullivan, Environmental Scientist
UNOCAL Oil and Gas
P.O. Box 196247
Anchorage, AK 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 38.
Mark Wheeler
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 38 and SB 199, and commented on HB
212.
Steve Borell, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
501 W. Northern Lights, #203
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 39.
David Chambers, Mining Analyst
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
325 4th Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 39.
Mike Pauley, Aide
% Senator Loren Leman
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-11182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 199.
Dwight Perkins, Special Assistant
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 199.
Janice Adair, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 199.
Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 199.
Lynn Levengood
931 Vide Way
Fairbanks, AK 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 262.
Bill Perhach
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 262.
Ken Taylor, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 262.
Senator Torgerson
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 37.
Cliff Eames
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W 8th, #201
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 37.
Mark Wheeler
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 37.
Ken Boyd, Director
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99503-5948
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 112.
Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 212.
Jack Phelps
Alaska Forest Association
111 Stedman, Ste 200
Ketchikan, Ak 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 212.
Erik Holland
427 1st Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212.
Dan Ritzman
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
218 Driveway St.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 212.
Sharon Young, State Recorder
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste. 1180
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 283.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-26, SIDE A
Number 001
SJR 38 TOXINS RELEASE INVENTORY PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:37 p.m. and announced SJR 38 to be up for consideration.
He explained this is a result of information he and Senator Pearce
found at the Energy Council meeting in Washington, D.C.
Mark Rubin, American Petroleum Institute, informed them that the
EPA is proposing to expand the TRI Program to include oil and gas
exploration and production as well as some other categories. The
downside to this is that it will likely make oil and gas producers
the biggest polluters in the state because they are pulling from a
formation and treat the oil and the gas and separate it and take
the produced water and produced gas and reinject it. It doesn't
make any sense to have to monitor, test, and report that as a toxic
release.
Number 44
MARK RUBIN testified that Toxins Release Program currently requires
that a number of manufacturing industries report for 651 toxic
chemicals. The EPA is considering whether to put additional
industries into this program including the oil and gas exploration
and production industry. They would have to report for about 80
chemicals, some of which occur naturally in oil, gas, and produced
water, like benzene or tylene. If they expand this to the
exploration and production (E&P) industry, API estimates about
4,700 or more facilities would have to report. The first year cost
to the industry would be about $228 million; annual costs
thereafter would be about $110 million per year. The average cost
for offshore oil and gas would be about $58,000 in the first year
and about $8,000 each year thereafter.
They believe strongly that the TRI Program is not really designed
for the E&P industries. It is designed more for businesses that
are in close proximity to communities and most E&P facilities are
away from communities or offshore and they have very few releases
to the environment.
EPA believes that the TRI Program has been a great success and one
of the reasons because there was a voluntary reduction in releases
from some of the facilities that report. The largest releases from
E&P would be naturally occurring constituents of oil, gas, and
water. Reducing those releases would be close to impossible
without shutting in wells.
The industry is not opposed to providing more information to the
public, and they have recommended to the EPA that instead of
expanding the TRI Program that they look at what type of
information is really needed by the public working with the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the State Regulators
Commission, and include EPA officials.
Number 128
FAYE SULLIVAN, Environmental Scientist, UNOCAL, said they support
SJR 38. She said the original TRI was established to provide
information to the public about potential chemical releases as a
risk of these releases to the local community. It's not
appropriate to expand TRI reporting to the oil and gas industry
which generally operates in remote areas or offshore. Oil and gas
facilities have limited release potential and present a very low
risk to the public. Typical oil and gas reportable releases would
include discharges of produced water, underground injection of
waste, and air emissions from combustion sources.
All of these activities are currently strictly regulated by
existing federal and state programs. Use of chemicals can vary in
the oil and gas industry from day to day and week to week.
Expanding the TRI Program would force operators to conduct regular
expensive waste removal tests with very little environmental
benefit.
Many old fields are marginal now and their expected life is
decreased with each additional regulatory burden placed on them.
MARK WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said they support free
and easy access to information on toxic chemical releases. They
commend EPA's efforts to increase the scope of their reports to
include other industries with high potential for toxic pollution
including mining facilities, waste management facilities, and
electric utilities. He urged the legislature to reject this
resolution and to help the public gain more knowledge, not less
about toxic releases into our air and water.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass SJR 38 with individual recommendations
and a $0 fiscal note. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
Number 192
SJR 39 EPA'S NPDES PERMIT FOR PLACER MINING
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
supported SJR 39. He suggested two potential changes. He said the
resolution references dredge and recreational mining; however, the
issue goes far beyond just dredge and recreational mining and it
affects any commercial mining operation. The resolution should
address how it affects commercial operators and should give full
due deference to the folks that have caused the problem by
litigants being included in addition to their attorneys.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that they had two proposed amendments from the
Alaska Miners and he thought they were friendly amendments and
would improve the resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment number one. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment number two. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
Number 219
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SJR 39 from committee as amended.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him to hold the motion as there were people who
wanted to testify.
DAVID CHAMBERS, Mining Analyst, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,
said he is a geophysicist by training, not an attorney. He was one
of the people involved in the settlement agreement that is at issue
with this resolution. He wanted to clear up some of the misleading
statements in SJR 39.
The first "Whereas" requires all dredges to have a NPDES permit
despite the fact that EPA does not have the personnel to process
all of the newly required permits. While the settlement agreement
requires small suction dredgers to send their names and addresses
to EPA and in turn they receive a one page sheet listing specific
practices to follow. He did not think that was an onerous
requirement.
The second concern was the arsenic level of .18 parts per billion.
While that is factually correct and is a requirement of state and
federal law, during the course of the year and a half of
negotiations they never once discussed the arsenic level at its
numeric limits. This is just a number EPA is putting in the
permit; it's required to do so by law. Should EPA change its
standard as is referred to in the next line, to 50 parts per
billion, he assumed that would become a part of this permit as it
would all other permits. He said there were numerous compromises
in the agreement and at the end of the discussions, the miners were
invited to comment and they chose not to do so.
MR. CHAMBERS said he thought EPA entered into this settlement
agreement because its position under their legal challenge was
weak. He said the settlement agreement was in the best interests
of the State. If the terms of the settlement agreement aren't
complied with and we end up in court, they would go back to their
original negotiating position and he did not think it best to have
a court imposed solution.
He said if there are perceived weaknesses in the settlement
agreement the door is open to miners or anyone else.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that there are some things the legislature
doesn't agree with and asked why the arsenic level was set a .18
parts per billion which is considerably lower than the requirement
for drinking water.
MR. CHAMBERS explained .18 is just a reflection of what the State
and federal standard is. It is not an element of the settlement.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund had
filed a suit against EPA. MR. CHAMBERS answered that they
challenged the EPA permit on behalf of their clients, American
Rivers and the Northern Alaskan Environmental Center.
Number 318
MARK WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said the recent draft
NPDA permit for placer mining in Alaska is a result of one and a
half years of settlement negotiations between the EPA, the State of
Alaska, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. It is a good
compromise agreement which seeks to protect water quality in
Alaska. He encouraged the legislature to support this compromise
agreement by rejecting the proposed resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if .18 parts per billion is a lower standard
than the current standard for drinking water. MR. CHAMBERS replied
the current standard is 50 parts per billion, so .18 is quite
lower. It is based on a human carcinogenic health risk.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the 50 parts per billion which municipal
water systems use was based on a health standard. MR. CHAMBERS
replied that it was not based on risk of arsenic as a carcinogen;
that is what the .18 per billion is based on. He elaborated that
the .18 applies to all discharges in the State of Alaska, not just
to placer miners.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that normal water running off a hillside
would be higher than what the number would be. He asked if someone
wanted to extract gravel would they have to set up a filtration
system that would take out the normal background levels of arsenic.
SENATOR LEMAN answered that he doubted that a filtration system
would do that.
Number 388
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the administration had a position on this
resolution.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the administration agreed to this
settlement? MR. CHAMBERS replied that yes, they did.
MR. BORELL disagreed and said the administration, in a letter for
Deputy Commissioner Michelle Brown, said if a series of things were
met they would look kindly on it, but the details of the letter
were not met and they haven't heard if they have withdrawn their
support.
SENATOR PEARCE asked how the State became involved. MR. BORELL
replied that the State was questioned during various points during
the negotiations and involved by the EPA.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the Miners Association was asked what they
thought of the new regulations. MR. BORELL replied that they were
asked. COMMISSIONER BURDEN specifically called on a couple of
different occasions asking for comments. There may have been one
occasion when the EPA attorney called, but they did not see a copy
of the draft permit until it was put out for public notice. They
were not aware of the multitude of details in that general permit
that had never been discussed with EPA, DEC, or with them.
SENATOR PEARCE asked why the Miners did not actually try to inject
themselves into the suit? MR. BORELL said there were two reasons:
there was a group of miners at the time who felt they had an
agreement between themselves and EPA that the existing general
permit was going to be satisfactory. With that promise they were
not interested in pursuing it. The other reason is that the
industry was just burned out on being in court.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the settlement decision had been given back
to the judge, yet, for approval. MR. BORELL replied that it hadn't
been approved by the court. It depends on this draft of the
general permit going forward and EPA meeting several other
criteria.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they would be involved at that point. MR.
BORELL replied that they would like to, but they don't have access
at this point because they were not involved at any earlier stage.
Number 480
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that this seems to be a pattern that the
environmental community files a suit against a federal monitoring
agency and by filing that suit they are able to go into a back room
with the attorneys on behalf of the federal government who talk
with their friends about what kind of a settlement should be
achieved on their litigation. The settlements that come down,
then, establish through court order new standards and new
requirements without any of the effected people being in the room
or being allowed to participate.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass SJR 39 am with a $0 fiscal note and
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 199 ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH/SAFETY AUDITS
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt the workdraft (f)Lauterback 3/9/96 as
their working document. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
MIKE PAULEY, Staff to Senator Leman, said the new committee
substitute incorporates certain recommendations they received from
both the business community and the administration. Many changes
are technical matters. They have added clarifying language in the
area of privilege saying that if one part of an audit report is
disclosed for any reason, the privilege still applies to the
remaining portions of the audit report. This is necessary because
some federal courts have adopted a four part test for determining
claims of privilege on the basis of self critical analysis.
They have added to the list of nonprivilege materials such
information that is required in order to obtain, maintain, or renew
a license and also such information that is required under a
contract with the State. These changes were made to address
concerns of administration representatives.
In the area of immunities they clarified that a regulated entity
which voluntarily reports instances of noncompliance is not only
eligible for immunity for the violations reported, but also
violations that are based on the facts disclosed and which were
unknown to the person making the disclosure. This change was made
because of the concern that a person might not be covered by
immunity for violations that were discovered as a result of a
voluntary disclosure, but were not declared as violations in the
disclosure. This possibility could be a powerful disincentive to
voluntarily report violations.
An extra requirement has been added for immunity. A regulated
entity is required to disclose under terms of the confidentiality
agreement that part of an audit report which deals with the plan
for compliance, but only if the information is requested by the
appropriate regulatory agency.
A new paragraph has been added to the bill clarifying that a
regulatory agency may not initiate an investigation of a regulated
entity based solely on the fact that the entity has provided a
notice of intent to perform a self audit.
He said that the circumvention by regulation prohibited regulation
was deleted because it is already covered in another part of State
law.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that made three major changes that were
requested by DEC.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that the circumvention regulation was addressed
in AS44.62.030. He said they wanted to make sure it was covered
not only by regulation, but by permit and other administrative
action as well. They do not want to do things that are contrary to
statute.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Department of Labor, said in the
hearing on this bill last week Mr. Paul Grossi, Director, Workers
Compensation, and Mr. Jeff Carpenter, Occupational Safety both
testified why they have concerns. The Commissioner didn't have a
problem with the legislation prior to introduction of the bill.
After going through the bill they found that it does significantly
change their role in Workers Compensation. On March 5 they had a
letter prepared reviewing their concerns and he noted it was in
their packets. He said they would be happy to work with the
committee.
TAPE 96-26, SIDE B
Number 582
SENATOR LEMAN commented he was frustrated that they were notified
of concerns after the first hearing when the bill had been out for
60 days. MR. PERKINS responded that during the first hearing the
DOL and DEC did speak, but they ran out of time and the Department
of Labor didn't go on record. SENATOR LEMAN apologized.
MR. WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, commented that none of
their concerns had been addressed in this CS. He said they are
worried about the health and safety of the citizens of Alaska.
This legislation shows a blatant disregard for the health of the
public. The bill seems to make it harder for DEC and other State
agencies to do their jobs by extending the right of privilege to
information disclosed in self audits, by allowing industry to get
around working toward compliance by excusing persons ignorant of
the law and granting immunity for violations which industry hasn't
even acknowledged breaking.
MR. WHEELER said there was little evidence for protection against
bad actors. There's not much talk about repeat violators. They
are also concerned with interjecting "substantial" when referring
to injury on page 4 of the summary of changes.
SENATOR LEMAN said the intent of this legislation was to get people
to come in compliance with environmental laws and he thought the
bill accomplished that. He wanted to address some of his concerns.
Number 525
JANICE ADAIR, Director , Division of Environmental Health, said she
continues to have concerns with the privilege and that immunity is
provided for criminal activity, and continue to have concerns with
the broad definition of environmental health and safety law. She
also pointed out that in the section regarding substantial harm and
substantial injury she had pointed out that there was
inconsistency.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was anyone here from ADF&G who wanted
to address the $66,500 fiscal note submitted with the bill. He
asked specifically why they would need additional staff to
encourage people to come into compliance.
GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said they are looking at their authority under
AS16.05.870 which regards anadromous streams, crossing, and other
activities in the streams. Because of the broad application of
privilege and immunity to information provided by this legislation
they feel they would have to have some increased effort to develop
their own sources of information when they suspect violations are
occurring. In the past they have enjoyed good relationships with
the companies in the field and they have gone to them for a lot of
information, but they don't think that is likely to continue under
this legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR countered that the self audit would be an effort to
comply and would only impact the law if, in fact, it did.
MR. BRUCE said he thought they were seeing things differently
developing the balance between allowing private industry to conduct
their business and our responsibility to protect the public
resources. They are not eager to prosecute people. They have very
few prosecutions under their authorities to protect anadromous fish
streams. They generally try to work with operators up front to
prevent problems and when problems are detected to then work with
them to correct them. Because of the broad nature of the
legislation some operators may not be willing to cooperate the same
way they have in past. The Department may have to develop
independent information where they think violations have occurred,
because they will see this as a way to shield themselves from
actions which were not in compliance.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that the protection of the self audit only
applies if the party who does the audit performs immediate
compliance with the law. He thought the Committee should be seeing
negative fiscal notes from all departments.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for an example of how this could be used as a
shield. In response MR. BRUCE explained that someone going to
engage in some kind of activities in an anadromous fish stream is
supposed to notify the Department, supply plans about their
intentions, and then receive a permit from them. After that, they
pretty much operate on their own. For some reason, if they
deviated from the terms of the permit that resulted in some damage
of the stream, they could conduct one of these audits, disclose the
information, then perhaps engage in some activity to correct the
problem. The State would be in the position of arguing whether or
not their corrective action was actually equal to what they thought
it should be.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought their department would probably be
consulted on what was the best remedial action. They don't get the
shield unless they haven't cleaned up their act.
MR. BRUCE said their fiscal note addresses the cost of collecting
information to demonstrate that a violation has occurred since
under this legislation they can't get the information from the
operator themselves if they have conducted an audit and the
information is then confidential.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that he thought they had the capacity to
put in permit conditions which are not protected under the audit.
MR. BRUCE said he thought it would be helpful for his staff to get
together with some of their field people to walk them through some
other examples.
Number 312
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had conferred with other States to see
if they needed additional funding for self audit programs. MR.
BRUCE said they didn't and one of the reasons they didn't contact
the state of Texas is there's so much difference between the two
states. Texas, for instance, doesn't have salmon resources. He
wasn't sure their experience would help us that much with the
unique laws we have on the books to protect our salmon resources.
Number 299
SENATOR HOFFMAN moved to adopt the Department of Labor amendment to
add "except for worker's compensation proceedings." There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 199 am from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 262 to be up for consideration.
MARY GORE, Staff to Senator Miller, sponsor, said she had
highlighted the changes for the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute to SB 262.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Tanana Chiefs supported the
legislation with the current changes. MS. GORE replied that they
do.
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks, supported the committee substitute. He
said it was absolutely necessary to reverse the plummeting laws of
consumptive use opportunities by politically based closures to
their uses.
BILL PERHACH, Alaska Environmental Lobby, commented on the
assumption that game should be managed for the maximum sustained
yield by human harvest. This is assuming that human consumption is
the highest and best use. He said like a lot of people in the
Denali Borough he makes his living through tourism. He has worked
for the last 14 years with the packaged tour segment of the market
and the last six years with eco-tourism which is just booming. In
over 20 years he has seen tourism growth between 3 - 16 percent
every year. They sell two things at Denali - the Mountain and
watchable wildlife. He said the animals in the park are affected
by what happens around the perimeter of the park. They are looking
for some sort of acknowledgement that this wildlife is a product a
kind of subsistence activity. It is the way they make their living
- a nonconsumptive use of the wildlife.
MR. PERHACH said there are two native corporations in the Denali
Borough right now which are looking at tourism because they can't
continue to live off of resource extraction. Ahtna, for example,
is actively engaged in a project in Broad Pass. The Doyon Corp.
just bought property in Kantishna where subsistence hunting is
still allowed (inside the park). He thought that once Doyon
started trying to make a living from tourism they might also
request some relief from Senator Miller.
Number 146
SENATOR HALFORD explained one of the conflicts is the source of
funding for the management and he asked if it was reasonable for
management of these resources to be paid for by the taxes, revenue
sharing, and license fees of hunters. MR. PERHACH said he didn't
see why the tourist industry shouldn't contribute.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if thought that managing for consumptive uses
is somehow going to be detrimental to those people who view. MR.
PERHACH said the folks he deals with are not going to get off the
road corridor for their experience, so he didn't have a problem
with subsistence and recreational hunting. He helps people who
work for their meat. It's people who hunt in road corridors who
are a problem for him and his clientele. He said this is a very
complex issue and the bill is very simplistic. He didn't think
they could predict what the impact would be if they continue to
allow this type of access to game. He sensed that as hunting from
the road increases, the game year round disappears.
MR. PERHACH said his most important concern is that he get some
acknowledgement that wildlife viewing is just as important as
consumptive use.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if he thought he'd win in the battle if
wildlife were managed according to a public mandate. MR. PERHACH
said he thought it would.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 001
KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said he noticed some changes that weren't mentioned before. On
page 2, line 21 "highest" was substituted for "high" and "greater
than" was included at the end of the sentence. On line 24 "the
highest" was substituted for "a high." The same occurs on page 4,
line 1 and line 5.
There are three portions of this version of SB 262 that cause the
Department concern. The first is in section 1 which mandates the
game population should be managed solely for maximum sustained
yield by human harvest. The definitions which follow would mandate
harvest levels that could only be achieved only by reducing wolf
and bear populations to extremely low levels and by wide spread
establishment of antlerless moose hunts which even are prohibited
in AS16.05.780.
The second concern is that the bill would prohibit the expenditure
of federal aid to ADF&G from management of non-game species. The
fact is that the non-game program was established to meet the
statutory requirements of the Alaska Endangered Species Statute
which passed in 1971. The purpose of that statute is to establish
a program for conservation, protection, restoration, and
propagation of species listed as endangered in Alaska. He said
their track record has been excellent in that regard. If these
programs go unfunded and we fail to meet our conservation and
management responsibilities for non-game or endangered species,
Alaska's authority to manage these resources will be further
eroded.
Currently ADF&G has a place at the table of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on
Endangered Species management. We are actively involved in
decisions on Goshawks and wolves in Southeast Alaska, eiders and
Aleutian Canada Geese, and peregrin falcons in the Arctic (recently
delisted). If funding is eliminated for this small State program,
we will be shut out of the endangered species decision making
process, leaving this entirely up to the federal agencies. Our
marine mammal program also focuses on endangered species such as
the Stellar sea lion and the bowhead whale.
MR. TAYLOR said that we fund only two positions to establish
expertise in this area, but we are known world-wide.
Their third concern is that section 2 removes authority from the
Board of Game to restrict public access in a variety areas,
including sanctuaries, refuges, and special management areas.
Since statehood the Board has adopted several management areas and
controlled use areas that restrict access methods and means to
reduce conflicts between user groups, provide for various quality
hunting experiences the public has desired, and to maximize
opportunities for participation and hunting. Without this tool the
Board will be forced to shorten seasons, establish additional tier
II permit hunts which Alaskan hunters overwhelmingly oppose, or
close areas entirely. The Board has recently taken a regional
approach to considering regulatory changes and all areas will be
reviewed to determine if they are meeting the objectives for which
they were established.
The provision in section 1(b) that mandates the Board to open an
area at least three times larger than an area closed is really
unrealistic. Nearly all the lands closed to hunting in Alaska are
under federal management over which the State has no authority.
The Board would essentially be prohibited from passing any
regulations in the future that restrict methods, manner, or means
in an area as hunting pressure increases or shifts from one area to
another. Their only options would be to shorten seasons or to
close them and be subject to litigation.
Serving on the Board of Game is a tiring and thankless task.
Subjecting Board members to litigation and personal liability for
decisions they make in the interests of Alaskans would likely
result in many of them resigning.
Section 2(b) would prohibit access restrictions in sanctuaries.
This provision is in direct conflict with AS16.20.094 and
AS16.21.62 which specifically authorize the Board to adopt
regulations governing public entry onto these lands. Without this
authority unrestricted public access would soon render these areas
useless as sanctuaries. The cost of this to Alaska's economy,
national image, and ultimate authority to manage its resources is
impossible to calculate.
MR. TAYLOR concluded saying the Department really didn't see a
great deal of change in this version from the original version and
remains opposed.
Number 130
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how all the other managers who are doing work
under the Endangered Species Act were being paid.
MR. TAYLOR replied in their Marine Mammal Program there are two
positions that are funded in their budget ($163,000). All of the
other positions, projects, and work that's done in marine mammals
cost $1.5 - $2 million and are all federal funds. A sizeable chunk
of money comes from the National Marine Fisheries Servey to work on
Stellar Sea Lions. Because of that funding they have been working
identifying separate stocks in the stellar sea lion population.
The stock in the Bristol Bay area has been declining much more
rapidly than the stock in Southeast Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he knew the Department was involved in more
non-game species management than just the two marine mammal
programs he commented on and asked where the funding for that came
from. MR. TAYLOR replied that they get funding from the Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to do goshawk and
archipelago wolf research. They get funding for the peregrin
falcon work through section 7 Fish and Wildlife Service Funds.
These are all special project accounts. They aren't part of the
permanent budget.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many employees were being paid mostly from
the State budget and just a token amount from federal funds. MR.
TAYLOR replied comparing all the special projects funding to amount
of funding that's in their base budget, they will find that what he
has said is true. Most of the funding that goes to both non-game
and marine mammal programs comes from other sources.
Number 235
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the Endangered Species Act treats the
Stellar sea lions as one population. MR. TAYLOR answered that he
wasn't an expert on the Endangered Species Act, but he thinks the
Act treats them as one population. The Department is arguing that
they are two population stocks and there are provisions in the
Endangered Species Act that allow for that.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the one population that wasn't in trouble
is of sufficient strength to carry the population that is in
trouble if they are managed as one species. He said he was trying
to figure out if the State's position was the same as the
congressional delegation's position regarding the reauthorization
of Endangered Species Act. MR. TAYLOR said he didn't know what our
delegation is doing on that issue and he wasn't an expert. He said
that the population has declined overall in Alaska from 120,000
stellar sea lions in the 1950's to 30,000 statewide which is why
they are listed as threatened. He didn't know if 30,000 was
sufficient to carry the population.
Number 306
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Board of Game was the public official
he was referring to when he said they might not be able to get
people to serve if they are going to get sued. MR. TAYLOR replied
yes and the reason he brought it up is because the Board of Game
makes the decisions on which areas are going to be open or closed.
They are the only public officials who do make those decisions, so
the penalty clause will apply to them alone.
SENATOR HALFORD said regarding the access provision - the public
trust would be breached by restricting public access to State game
refuges, etc. and he didn't agree with the concern that the animals
move away and don't come back. Some access methods do provide some
pretty significant impacts that stay there for a long time and may
have some negative impact on tourism and he thought they should add
an exception that might read, "except where such restrictions are
solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from direct damage due
to the method of access." SENATOR LEMAN said he wouldn't object to
such an amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern was that
it would be misused as well as it was used and withdrew his
objection.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to insert on page 3 "except where such
restrictions are solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from
direct damage due to the method of access." There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR HOFFMAN moved on page 2, line 10 to delete "or public
official" and on line 11 delete, "a public official is not immune
from suit under this section." His primary concern was being able
to get competent people to serve on the Board of Game. SENATOR
TAYLOR objected; he said he believed people needed to be
accountable. SENATOR HOFFMAN repeated his concern that they
wouldn't be able to get people to service. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed
that it was a bit harsh, but he thought the point needed to be made
that someone had to be accountable.
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought there might be two questions where
on line 10 the public official could be the Commissioner acting on
an emergency closure or something else. He thought it wasn't just
Board members and he thought it could be drafted in a way to
exclude the Board members.
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection.
SENATOR HOFFMAN amended his motion to just Board members, not
public officials. There were no objections and the amendment to
the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any objection to SENATOR HOFFMAN'S
amended amendment. There were no more objections and it was
adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 262 (res)(am) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
SJR 37 PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER
SENATOR TORGERSON, sponsor, said he understood there is curre
legislation to give Alaska this exemption and one of those bills
was vetoed by the President. So there is nothing before Congress
that would give them this authorization. This approach includes
municipal lands and also the University of Alaska lands. The
reason for the legislation is because in the City of Seward there
was a saw mill that shut down because of a lack of material to be
processed resulting in them auctioning off all the equipment. A
year ago there was a sale and it was purchased by an outfit from
Oregon. The chances are now that this raw material will be
exported to Oregon. The exemption asked for has been granted to 11
other western states. So they can come up here and export, but
Alaskans are prohibited from doing the same down there to
supplement our timber supply.
Number 425
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he thought there would be any exceptions to
this legislation. He said the U.S. Forest Service has had a
restriction on round log export in Southeast Alaska for many years.
As a consequence it did develop the local economy. During the
entire time there has been an exemption on cedar logs.
SENATOR TORGERSON responded that this proposal asks Congress the
authority for the State of Alaska to regulate, restrict, or
prohibit. We could decide to prohibit entirely.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was pointing out that this is not a complete
ban on the exportation of logs, but merely provided the State with
some working tools.
SENATOR FRANK commented that it would be helpful to have an
additional whereas expressing that it would be just a tool to help
local development.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he thought that was what he thought the
resolution was saying.
Number 490
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, noted the committee
had a letter from him supporting SJR 37.
MARK WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, strongly supported SJR
37. He said when timber is harvested on State land it makes sense
to maximize the number of jobs from each tree cut. Exporting logs
in the round sends jobs out of state and hurts the future of a
sustainable timber industry in Alaska. They respectfully ask that
other trust lands be included in the resolution and urge passage in
a timely manner.
SENATOR TORGERSON commented that lands held in trust have been
determined by the higher courts as having a higher fiduciary
responsibility to the trust than they do to the residents of the
area in which the trust has effect.
Number 503
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass SJR 37 from committee with individual
recommendations and a $0 fiscal note. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
SB 112 DISCOVERY ROYALTY CREDIT
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt the F version Chenoweth 3/9/96 work
draft for SB 112. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Staff to the Senate Resources Committee,
explained the changes in version F. The substantive change begins
on page 2, line 30. She worked with the administration to create
language acceptable to the committee regarding definition of pools.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt amendment #1. MS. KREITZER explained
that AS38.05.134 speaks to the exploration licensing program that
was passed by the legislature a couple of years ago. The Cook
Inlet Basin is a very large sedimentary basin and some of the area
especially in the northern part is open to licensing and they
didn't mean to exclude that part of the basin.
KEN BOYD, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, said it was unlikely
that they would have any objection to it unless it had some strange
definition of the Cook Inlet Sedimentary Basin.
There were no objections to amendment #1 and it was adopted.
MS. KREITZER explained the second proposed amendment which
clarified which production is actually getting the royalty
reduction.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE B
Number 580
SENATOR LEMAN noted that this amendment was Mr. Boyd's suggestion.
MR. BOYD agreed and said it eliminated ambiguity. The way the
language is now, for instance he said, if the pool was on all six
of the leases, their intention was to reward the initial discovery
on that one lease in that pool.
MS. KREITZER noted to be consistent the same change would have to
be made on page 3, lines 5 and 6.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt amendment #2, there were no
objections and it was adopted.
MR. BOYD had a concern with "commercial quantities," but he said
the last amendment had changed the absolute need for a dimension
and he wanted to work with the committee on that issue. He said
the point was that the well had to be capable of producing
commercial quantities.
SENATOR PEARCE asked when they certify a well producable what
language to they use. MR. BOYD replied they certify capable of
production in paying quantities. SENATOR PEARCE asked if they
should just use that language. MR. BOYD replied no, that he
thought it was a different standard. In paying quantities does not
really say that it will be produced.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if line 8 would have to be changed also. MR.
BOYD answered that it would have to be changed anywhere "commercial
quantities" appeared would have to have "capable of producing"
added.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to adopt that amendment. There were no
objections and it was so ordered. MS. KREITZER noted that language
was used throughout amendment #1 and on page 3, lines 1 - 12.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved amendment #4. SENATOR LEMAN objected for
purposes of explanation. SENATOR TAYLOR explained the effect of
this amendment would be to set it up so that current lease holders
in the Cook Inlet Basin would fall within this royalty bill.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the royalty was being made retroactive
with regard to investment decisions that were made five years ago
and rewarding those decisions with the credit? He said that any
kind of a credit bill is supposed to encourage marginal activity.
Going back in a lease term so they can put the money in now is
still a prospective reward for activity that might not otherwise
occur. But going back and picking up activity that occurred in
1992 and applying that to the terms the effect is a retroactive tax
credit and it's hard to argue that that credit has encouraged
marginal activity retroactively.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed and explained that without doing so this
would be applicable against new leases.
SENATOR HALFORD said there are two questions; one is going back to
the leases is the right thing to do; the second question is are
they talking about investments made from the time of the effective
date of the bill forward on leases that were already held before
that or are they talking about going backward in both cases.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that his desire would be to go backward on
those leases already held for new discoveries, but he thought this
goes beyond that. However, he would rather err in going beyond
that than in not accomplishing it at all.
SENATOR LEMAN said he was concerned with how they recover those
lease payments that have already been made and whether that's done
as a credit to future royalties.
SENATOR FRANK asked if they considered that in the formation of
their committee substitute. SENATOR LEMAN answered they considered
it and there is one other approach, Senator Halford's, which he
thought merited discussion. Applying it to leases that have not
been explored would create an incentive and the down side of that
is that you change the value of leases. SENATOR FRANK commented
that the value of a lease changes every time the price of oil goes
up or down, as well as every time they pass a law concerning
worker's compensation or the environment. He supported Senator
Taylor's concept and Senator Halford's desire to fine tune it. He
thought Senator Taylor's amendment went a little too far.
SENATOR HALFORD said he didn't think retroactive credits worked the
way they are intended to work. But he didn't think they should
exclude leases because they were already out there. He wanted
those leases to be eligible.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any objection to incorporating the
conceptual amendment. There was no objection and it was so
ordered. SENATOR LEMAN noted that the bill would be back in
committee on March 13.
HB 212 TIMBER MANAGEMENT & STATE LAND CLASSIF.
SENATOR LEMAN announced HB 212 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, sponsor, said she filed this bill at
the request of timber industry constituents in Fairbanks. These
are small lumber businesses in the local communities whose lives
have been impacted by the overly complicated procedures through
which they have to go to secure timber. It wasn't the lack of
timber; it was the inability of the DNR to allow the harvesting of
the resource.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what the comma on page 1, line 14 meant.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the comma was added in the House
Resources Committee and the emphasis makes a difference in the way
the sentence reads. The comma refers to the best available data
and then describes the best available data as opposed to the
agencies describing it.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he would like to delete the comma and asked her
to comment on using "use" instead of "consumption." REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES explained that there was a concern with a number of people
that there is human use other than consumption.
JACK PHELPS, Alaska Forest Association, said they continue to
support this legislation and thought it would make some positive
changes for the forest industry particularly in the interior and
possibly southcentral.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the negotiation on the House side included
the administration. MR. PHELPS answered that was correct; he added
that public comment was also part of the negotiations. He asked if
he has assurances that this will be signed into law. MR. PHELPS
said they had been given some strong assurances that the bill would
be signed in its present form.
Number 351
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, commended the
House, the Administration, and the Board of Forestry for their
work; the bill is close to something they can support.
Their concern is with the 160 acre exemption from the five year
schedule requirement. He said in the interior and Kenai there are
a number of timber sales off of State lands that are 160 acres and
less and they are very important to people in their cumulative
affect. They supported the compromise proposed by the Board of
Forestry, recognizing that it is a well balanced Board. The
present requirement is that sales appear for two years on a five
year schedule. The present bill would exempt the sales of 160
acres or less entirely from the five year schedule; the compromise
proposed by the Board of Forestry would have those sales appear
just one year on the five year schedule. They believe that would
give adequate notice to the public of the full range of sales that
are proposed to be offered without burdening the State and without
having any undue affect on the actual selling of those sales. He
didn't think the Board of Forestry could make a strong argument
that having those sales appear just once on the schedule is going
to be any significant obstacle to their management of the sales.
He urged the committee to adopt the Board of Forestry's proposed
compromise.
ERIK HOLLAND, Fairbanks, said that a number of local loggers have
told him that exporting is killing and that the scale of the bill
is too large and the part of the bill they like best is the first
part where the 10 acres are exempted. The 160 acre exemption
doesn't seem to help very much. He suggested exempting two or
three parcels a year. All the loggers have told him that they need
the wood yesterday. He is in support of a truly sustainable local
industry.
DAN RITZMAN, Northern Alaska Environmental Lobby, recognized and
appreciated the efforts of the House members and Representative
James in particular. He said HB 212 makes substantial changes to
Title 38 and 41, statutes which cover the entire State, not just
small sales by Interior operators.
The development of the Forest Resources and Practices Act
represented a lot of work from a variety of interests including the
timber industry, the fishing industry, conservation organizations,
and many others. Changes are not needed in the law; changes are
needed in the funding, implementation, and regulations that the
agency uses to carry out the law.
This legislation will further stress the Department and put
Alaska's population of fish and wildlife at further risk. A fiscal
note should be required of this legislation which takes into
account the unfunded Forest Practices responsibilities to DNR, DEC,
and ADF&G.
Eliminating the five year schedule requirement for sales of 160
acres or less would mean that over 70 percent of the sales in the
Interior and a fair number of sales on the Kenai would not have to
appear on the schedule. It is nearly impossible to learn about
individual sales from their individual announcements which are
buried in the legal section of the newspaper. This does not give
a good sense of the overall picture for the region.
MR. RITZMAN reiterated that the Board of Forestry which has
representatives from logging companies, fishing communities,
conservation organizations, recreation, and fish and wildlife
sciences recommended that all sales be listed at least once on a
five year schedule.
Number 261
Finally, section 11, page 5, lines 20 - 24 is a wildlife issue that
shouldn't be a part of the Forest Resources and Practices Act.
While it is appropriate to put wildlife protections in the Act,
management of wildlife is not a DNR function.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to amend page 1, line 14 to delete the comma.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSCSHB 212(FIN) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
MR. WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said they still have a few
problems with the bill as drafted. They would like to see sales of
160 acres or less appear at least once in the five year schedule.
The Board of Forestry presents a good vehicle for hashing out
language that represents a lot of diverse interests and should be
listened to in this matter.
Section 11 should be deleted also. Wildlife management is not a
function of DNR and should not be a part of this bill.
The language in section 7 is not a great improvement over the prior
language and they would like to see the prior language kept as is.
SB 283 DOCUMENT FILING, INDEXING, & RECORDING
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 283 to be up for consideration.
SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder, DNR, testified in support of SB 283.
She said the recording laws in this state were last visited in 1988
when there were comprehensive changes and consolidation. These
were a big improvement, but they have slowly shown some areas of
inconsistency and ambiguity. SB 283 is largely a housekeeping bill
and makes minimal substantive changes. The changes it does make
are very beneficial for their staff, the State, and the public who
uses their services on a daily basis.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if anyone who used their services provide any
suggestions or testimony in opposition. MS. YOUNG replied that she
had heard of no opposition at all. She has heard favorable
comments from the major user groups, such as the title industry.
It also has a negative fiscal note attached.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they were going to be charging multiple
fees for recording the same document if it is to be recorded for
different purposes. MS. YOUNG replied that this seldom occurs, but
it is how they currently operate. It has never been clear in the
past, but this clarifies that.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he wanted to make sure the State would not be
losing recorders offices because of streamlining. He also wanted
to see the program receipts go back into the recorders office which
has been grossly underfunded. It actually makes money.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited Ms. Young to work on this with him and
answer a few more questions regarding this program.
SENATOR LEMAN said he would set aside SB 283 and adjourned the
meeting at 6:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|