Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/07/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 74-BAN MIXING ZONES IN SPAWNING AREAS 9:04:41 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act prohibiting mixing zones in freshwater spawning waters." CHAIR SEATON passed the gavel to Representative Johansen. 9:05:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of HB 74, explained that HB 74 would reinstate the previous prohibition on pollution mixing zones in Alaska's freshwater spawning areas. This prohibition was in effect for over ten years, and was reversed two years ago. He gave a brief history of the statute, along with current concerns regarding mixing zones and spawning areas. He stated that HB 74 prevents artificially dug channels or lakes from being reclassified as "spawning areas," thus offering security to mining interests and municipalities. 9:11:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to adopt CSHB 74, Version 25- LS0337\M, Bullock, 2/6/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version M was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Version M clarifies that mixing zones are not authorized at any time, in addition to clarifying that the prohibition does not apply to turbidity mixing zones. He noted that his office has received a large amount of testimony in favor of the bill. He brought attention to a letter from Joe Faith, of Dillingham, Alaska, requesting a definition of "suction dredge" and "mechanical dredge." Additionally, there are letters from individuals with mining interests, which resulted in the turbidity mixing zone exemption. 9:13:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in regard to the definition of "suction dredge" and "mechanical dredge," asked if further information is available. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that information is not available at this time. 9:14:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the sponsor would like a conceptual amendment to address this issue. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that it would be helpful to hear public testimony regarding this issue. Additionally, other concerns may be raised. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that there will be additional changes. 9:15:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN returned the gavel to Chair Seaton. 9:15:23 AM THOMAS PEBBLER stated that he is in support of HB 74. In regard to mixing zones, he stated that Alaska's fisheries should not be compromised for the sake of waste discharge. The fisheries are "invaluable," due to the laws which have, until recently, maintained the standard of quality. He opined that allowing mixing zones in the fisheries would defeat and reverse the intention of the original law. It is not possible, he said, to compensate for "invaluable, renewable resources." Timing the mixing so that it corresponds to periods between spawning would be "futile." He opined that the current regulations will eventually lead to disaster, and must be changed. 9:18:00 AM LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that she would cover three issues: background on water quality standards and mixing zones, recent regulatory changes regarding spawning areas, regulatory protections in place for mixing zones. DEC, she said, is responsible for adopting water quality standards that will protect multiple uses of Alaska's waters. This includes drinking water, contact recreation, and growth and propagation of aquatic life, and domestic, commercial, and industrial use. The water quality standards include numerical and narrative criteria that are established in regulation. The mixing zone provisions are included in the water quality regulations. MS. KENT offered the definition of "mixing zone." She explained that mixing zones are not unique to Alaska, and are allowed under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed guidelines on how to establish mixing zones. The mixing zones are highly regulated by the department, and are not a "blanket approval" to discharge pollutants into the water. Mathematical models are used to determine the size and shape, using site-specific information. Many permits require that the permittee monitor the concentration of pollutants and discharge, in addition to monitoring to ensure that water quality standards are met at the edge of the mixing zone. DEC conducts independent inspections and monitoring of permittees. MS. KENT went on to say that mixing zones have been allowed in Alaska for the past 30 years, as a part of a wastewater discharge permit, which must go through a public notice and review period. Mixing zones are a tool used to keep treatment costs reasonable, while ensuring protection of human and environmental health. She then gave examples of mixing zones. 9:24:50 AM MS. KENT moved on to discuss the recent changes in mixing zone regulations. Previously, there was a prohibition on mixing zones in streams and rivers, and spawning areas for anadromous fish, along with specific resident fish. The DEC felt that in certain circumstances, the prohibition was excessive. Additionally, the regulations were not fair to those who had invested in facility infrastructure and received authorization for a mixing zone which later became a spawning area. Finally, she said that the old regulations were not synchronized with the permitting practices. The current mixing zone regulations were adopted by DEC one year ago. These regulations continue the prohibition on mixing zones and spawning areas for anadromous salmon. The only exception to this is for renewal of mixing zone authorizations in areas where spawning was not occurring at the time of the initial authorization. This applies to both domestic and industrial discharges. The mixing zones are prohibited from having any adverse affect on the present or future spawning, incubation, and rearing capability of an area. These regulations also continue the prohibition of mixing zones in spawning areas for other specifically identified species, and allow for a few exceptions which were not previously allowed. The new regulations require DEC to work closely with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and ADF&G. She noted that the new regulations also include lakes. MS. KENT then explained the exceptions for spawning areas. The first is in regard to spawning that occurs after the mixing zone has been authorized. The second exception is for the discharge of a substance that does not adversely effect aquatic life. Finally, an exception is made if DNR or ADF&G has approved a mitigation plan under its regulations. In regard to spatial and temporal nature of mixing zones, she stated that DNR and ADF&G consider all mixing zones to have both aspects, which is reflected in the new regulations. However, the treatment of mixing zones and spawning areas remains the same. 9:29:05 AM MS. KENT then discussed the regulations which are in place for all mixing zones. Individuals who meet the aforementioned requirements must meet additional regulatory standards. She paraphrased from a handout titled "Division of Water Quality Standards, 2003-2006 Triennial Review, Mixing Zone Requirements in Regulation (as of March 23, 2006) and explained that this applies to all mixing zones. These requirements are designed to protect aquatic life, human health, and multiple uses of the water. 9:32:38 AM CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the fiscal impact of certifying that the biological impact of the water-body will not be impaired. MS. KENT replied that the applicant is obligated to self-monitor for this. The departments then review the reports and conduct independent monitoring. 9:34:05 AM CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how an individual might apply to mitigate the biological integrity of the water-body. MS. KENT replied that both DNR and ADF&G have regulations regarding mitigation. In response to an additional question, she explained that the regulations require that the aforementioned departments review and approve the mitigation plans for waters they are statutorily responsible for. CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that under a temporal application, the mixing zone could not be used while fish were spawning. However, the mixing zone may be approved for when the fish are not spawning. MS. KENT replied that this is correct. She explained that the new regulations are specific regarding this issue. This is intended to prevent mixing zones in areas that would have a down stream effect, or an effect on the area when fish are spawning, incubating, or rearing. 9:37:44 AM CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that a mixing zone may be allowed in a spawning area when spawning is not occurring, as long as this would not diminish the long-term integrity of the area in regard to supporting fish. MS. KENT agreed that this is correct. 9:38:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to how many current mixing zone permits would not be allowed if HB 74 were to pass. MS. KENT stated that she does not have this information but will research this. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in regard to the inspections done by the department, inquired as to what is done. Additionally, he asked whether the department has the ability to monitor on a "real- time" basis. MS. KENT replied that the inspections determine whether a facility is operating as was indicated, in addition to ensuring that outfalls are located appropriately. For around 25 percent of inspections, samples are taken to ensure that the discharge is the same as is being reported. She explained that most facilities are continuous discharge facilities, which gives a "pretty good picture" of what is being discharged. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to how many inspectors are employed during the summer months. MS. KENT offered her understanding that there are 12 full-time inspectors and two seasonal inspectors. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether additional inspectors would be needed if HB 74 were to pass. MS. KENT replied that the number of inspectors would not change. In response to a question from Chair Seaton, she explained that during the previous year, 90 facilities were inspected. She reiterated that on average, water samples are taken at around 25 percent of the facilities. This is in addition to the self- monitoring that is required of most permittees. Daily monitoring may be required, and reports are turned in on a monthly basis. 9:42:38 AM CHAIR SEATON requested additional information regarding the water quality samples. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to whether the inspections are announced or unannounced. MS. KENT replied that generally, rural area inspections are announced to ensure that facility operators are available. However, not all inspections are announced. CHAIR SEATON requested additional information regarding how many inspections are municipal waste-water facilities versus industrial facilities. 9:44:05 AM KEN DUCKETT, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association (USAG), stated that USAG is in support of HB 74. He opined that it is difficult to prove that a fish population has been adversely effected by an action. Various factors may effect the productivity of a system. The way to avoid this is "to not have ... discharge to begin with." He stated that he recently purchased a fishing license in Oregon, where warnings are given regarding the fish caught in a particular system. He opined that Oregon is a good environmental state; however, he does not want to see this happen in Alaska. 9:47:04 AM RICHARD KING, Village Administrator, Ekwok Village Council, stated that the Ekwok Village Council is in support of banning mixing zones. He explained that villagers use the area for subsistence, and opined that adding pollution to the food supply "is not right." 9:48:13 AM BRIAN KRAFT, Owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge, Kodiak Sportsman's Lodge, expressed concern with allowing mixing zones. He opined that self-monitoring may result in mistakes, and common sense should be used. In addition, it "does not make sense" to spend millions of dollars to market fresh, wild, salmon and allow mixing zones. The commercial fishing industry "depends heavily on a strong perception of clean water and clean habitat for these renewable resources." He encouraged the passage of HB 74. 9:51:11 AM GARVAN BUKARIA stated that he is in support of HB 74. He stated that allowing mixing zones "at any time" can adversely impact the fishery resources. The addition of toxins to water bodies is not helpful "in any shape or form." CHAIR SEATON clarified that "at any time" means that mixing zones could not be allowed during one time of year and not another. 9:53:13 AM GEORGE MATZ, Issues Coordinator, Cook Inlet Alliance (CIA), stated that CIA is in support of HB 74. The prohibition of mixing zones should be at a statutory level. 9:54:17 AM CATHY CRAWFORD, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), stated that CDFU is in support of HB 74. The CDFU is committed to ensuring the sustainability of wild Alaskan salmon, which is recognized in the world-wide market as a healthy product. It is imperative that the fish remain free of pollutants throughout all phases of the life cycle. 9:56:33 AM RALPH GUTHRIE stated that while he supports HB 74, he is concerned with the discharge of salmon waste in closed waters. CHAIR SEATON clarified that HB 74 applied to fresh-water, and does not include any marine mixing zones. 9:58:17 AM IZETTA CHAMBERS, Manager, Naknek Family Fisheries, LLC, stated that she is in support of HB 74. She stressed the importance of maintaining clean waters for Alaska's fisheries. 10:01:11 AM TYLER DANN stated that he is in support of HB 74. He pointed out that fisheries are important to the state of Alaska. In contrast to this, the mining industry does not appear to support the state. Finally, the state of Alaska has a "great opportunity to get it right." CHAIR SEATON noted that public testimony would continue at the next committee hearing.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|