Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/07/2016 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB366 | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 283-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
10:12:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to the nomination and
designation of state water as outstanding national resource
water; and providing for an effective date."
10:12:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 283, Version 29-GH2916\H, Nauman, 4/6/16,
as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:13:02 AM
REID HARRIS, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, described the changes being proposed in the CS. He
paraphrased the original bill title, which read as follows:
An act relating to the nomination and designation of
water as outstanding national resource water; and
providing for an effective date.
MR. HARRIS referred to the CS, page 1, lines 1-2, and
paraphrased the proposed title, which read as follows:
An act relating to the nomination and designation of
water as outstanding state resource water; and
establishing an Advisory Board of Protected Waters.
MR. HARRIS pointed out the removal of "national," the insertion
of "state," and the added language to include an Advisory Board
of Protected Waters. He said Section 1 retains language for the
outstanding state resource waters to be designated by an act of
the legislature, and the constitutionality for having the
authority for designation be held by the commissioner of DEC,
remains in question. A Board of Protected Waters is being
proposed, in Sec. 1, as a nine member board. Three permanent
members will be the commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), as chair, a DEC environmental
specialist appointed by the commissioner, and a biologist from
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appointed by the
commissioner of DNR. The other six seats will be reserved for
rotating member's, appointed by the commissioner of DEC,
representing the region(s) in which the nominated waters are
located. Seats will be reserved for two members each of the
fishing industry, mining industry, and regional tribal entities.
The term regional tribal entity broadens the scope of Native
participation versus the term Native Corporation. He pointed
out that the board members will be volunteers, receiving no
salary, travel or per diem. Five members will constitute a
quorum and a majority of the membership is required to approve a
final recommendation on a nomination. The board will establish
acceptance criteria and provide public notice. He referred to
page 3, lines [6]-22, and paraphrased the language, which read
as follows:
(A) in relatively pristine condition, largely
absent of human sources of degradation, and of
exceptional value to the state in its current
condition;
(B) of exceptional ecological, economic, or
recreational significance;
(C) an exceptional and rare example of its type,
regardless of its water quality; or
(D) proximate to, adjacent to, or within existing
protected waters;
(3) public notice and public hearings for all
nominations meeting qualifications under (2) of this
subsection;
(4) a method to provide individual notice to known
owners of land adjacent to the nominated water; and
(5) scientific and other requirements that must be met
before water can be designated outstanding state
resource water;
(6) guidelines and criteria that must be provided in a
report to the legislature under (f) of this section.
10:17:28 AM
MR. HARRIS said that the board will transmit final
recommendations to the commissioner, with a prepared report for
each nomination received prior to January 1. Within 10 days
after the convening of each regular legislative session, the
commissioner shall deliver the reports and final recommendations
to the legislative bodies for review and action. Turning to
page 4, lines 3-4, he paraphrased the sunset language, which
read as follows:
* Sec. 3. AS 46.03.085, 46.03.087, and 46.03.900(38)
are repealed 11 days after the convening of the Second
Regular Session of the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature.
10:17:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES commented on the sunset provision and said that the
bill provides an 18 month interim period to address the
compliance situation with concerned stakeholders.
10:19:16 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection, and without further
objection, Version H was before the committee.
10:19:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed concern for changes proposed in
the CS, and said:
This feels like a hard fought battle over coastal zone
management, when you look at the six rotating members
that don't have to be scientific in nature. They're
regional fishing organizations, regional mining, and
regional tribal. My understanding ... [of the
original bill was that] this was based solely on data,
it was based solely on the value of the waterway and
it went through a rigorous designation process.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said there is opportunity for a
nomination to become heavily politicized, and for the six
rotating members to be lobbied by big money, as has happened in
the past to the detriment of Alaska's resource potential.
Despite these reservations, she said she would not oppose
passage of the bill from committee.
CHAIR STUTES commented that one reason for the sunset date is to
insert a measure to depoliticize the designation.
10:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER turned to page 2, line 12, which read:
(C) two representatives from a regional tribal entity.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) corporations may not be considered tribal entities.
He suggested that it would be appropriate and more inclusive to
insert an "or", to read:
two representatives from a regional tribal entity, or
a Native corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER opined that the term tribal entity is not
inclusive of Native corporations and asked for legal clarity.
10:22:54 AM
MR. HARRIS deferred.
10:23:17 AM
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Alaska State Legislature, deferred.
10:23:33 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Alaska State Legislature, opined that the term "tribal
entity" is a legally broad term and a potential reading could
include Native corporations. She suggested that the bill could
be amended to include a definition.
10:24:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concurred, and agreed that the term is
appropriate. He offered that the Association of Village Council
Presidents, in his district, is comprised of 56 tribes and as
such constitutes a regional tribal entity. He then turned to
page 2, line 23, which read as follows:
(f) Within 60 days of receipt of a nomination, the
commissioner shall...
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked how the 60 day period was chosen.
10:25:11 AM
MR. HARRIS reported that the administration, legal services, and
DEC determined this to be ample time to begin the process and
assemble the board members.
10:25:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ turned to page 2, lines 4-5, which read as
follows:
(B) one environmental specialist from the Department
of Environmental Conservation, appointed by the
commissioner;
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked why an environmental specialist from
DEC is specified over staff from Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G).
MR. HARRIS responded that ADF&G appears to be overtaxed and
would be required to interrupt a field biologist from other
duties.
10:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ questioned whether it's safe to say that
DEC is not also pressed, or stressed, or lacking personnel.
10:27:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a definition of a regional
mining organization
MR. HARRIS deferred.
10:27:43 AM
MS. NAUMAN responded that the phrase is broad and inclusive, and
allows the commissioner flexibility for interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that organizations seem to be a
specific group of people who are specifically organized, versus
being a broad and inclusive term.
MS. NAUMAN clarified that legally it is considered a broad term.
10:29:42 AM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), explained that the bill is being proposed to
satisfy the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) anti-
degradation regulations, which require Alaska to have nomination
and implementation procedures in place, which work in concert
with the federal standards. One aspect of the anti-degradation
ruling includes a process for designation of Outstanding
National Resource Waters, or Tier 3 waters. The designation
allows no further discharges to be emitted and ensures that the
existing water standard will be maintained, save temporary
discharges that cause no permanent effect. Tier 3 status goes
beyond the protections of Tier 2 standard use waters, and enters
the realm of preservation. Alaska has an anti-degradation
policy and a means for nominating and designating Tier 3 waters
via the legislative process. However, the process is not
clearly defined, nor are procedures specifically outlined, that
allow the public to nominate waters for Tier 3 designation.
10:32:36 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether once designated, the action could be
reversed.
MR. HARTIG opined that it may be difficult to unwind the
provision, however, it's not clearly understood. The detailed
criteria being used under the EPA regulation is still
outstanding but, once protected, no additional discharges would
be allowed. The intent is to preserve the waters character at
the time of designation; barring natural disaster. If a
discharge were to be allowed the action would require litigation
and a court ruling.
10:34:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the federal government
would view the work expended in conjunction with HB 283, as an
active demonstration of progress towards compliance.
MR. HARTIG suggested that EPA would rather not override an
effort being made by the state. Clearly HB 283 is a vehicle for
compliance, and the undertaking, he predicted, will be
recognized.
10:36:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER returned to the tribal/Native corporation
question and said in Nome there are several entities, which seem
to intertwine. He referred to an internet, Wikipedia entry and
paraphrased the entry, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Note that while the names of Alaska Native tribal
entities often include "Village of" or "Native Village
of," in most cases the tribal entity cannot be
considered as identical to the city, town, or census-
designated place in which the tribe is located. ...
Nor should Alaska Native tribes be confused with
Alaska Native Regional Corporations, which are a class
of Alaska for-profit corporations created under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER expressed concern for any exclusion that
may unintentionally limit Native participation, and said he
remains skeptical.
10:37:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked what occurs following the sunset
date; what will be left.
MR. HARTIG opined that the intent and effort, as previously
discussed, would preclude federal intervention. He deferred
comment on what would happen to existing nominations upon
sunset.
10:39:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ returned to the designation "impact," and
asked about the potential impact on activities that don't result
in discharge in the water. He asked whether timber sale and
supply activities could be impacted if operating in proximity to
a Tier 3 river.
MR. HARTIG said it may depend on the type of discharge.
However, runoff from a large construction or industrial
operation would also constitute a point of discharge, creating a
bias that would require scrutiny.
10:41:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ returned to the question of seating an
ADF&G biologist on the board, versus one from DNR and asked
whether an amendment to that effect would be objectionable.
MR. HARTIG said it would not be objectionable, and opined that
DNR may not have anyone with that title on staff. He deferred
further comment to DNR.
10:42:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned whether DNR retains
biologists on staff. He then suggested that the bill stipulate
that the fishing and mining representatives seated be from
Alaska and offered to propose a conceptual amendment.
CHAIR STUTES pointed out that the term "regional" serves to
specify Alaska.
MS. NAUMAN offered to provide further information.
10:45:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered Conceptual Amendment 1,
page 2, lines 10-11, to read:
Delete:
(A) two representatives from a regional fishing
organization;
(B) two representatives from a regional mining
organization;
Insert:
(A) two representatives from an Alaska based regional
fishing organization;
(B) two representatives from an Alaska based regional
mining organization;
10:45:51 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:45 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.
10:46:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion.
10:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented on the importance for moving
the bill to curb additional actions that may be forthcoming from
the current federal administration. Additionally, as a member
of the subsequent committee of referral, he offered to carry
members concerns and amendments to that committee for inclusion.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON acknowledged that further work will occur
in a subsequent committee and asked to have Native non-profit
corporations included with tribal entities, for board membership
consideration.
10:49:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
10:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ agreed on the necessity for moving HB 366,
and requested that the subsequent committee consider stipulating
the inclusion of an ADF&G biologist.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER added that the inclusion of the term
Native Corporation will be necessary for ANCSA organizations to
be represented in a tribal seat.
10:52:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB
283, Version 29-GH2916\H, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 283 (FSH) was reported from the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 366 Ver Y (Most Recent Version).pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |
| HB 366 ver L.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |
| HB 366 Summary of Changes Ver S to Ver L.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |
| HB 283 ver H.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 Sitka form letter.PDF |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 283 |
| HB 366 Supporting Document - Leg Legal memo on constitutional issues.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |
| HB 366 Oppose Randrup.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |
| HB 366 Supporting Document - Residency Data.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2016 10:00:00 AM |
HB 366 |