Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/03/2018 10:00 AM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:03:49 AM Start
10:04:59 AM HB199
11:33:01 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 199 FISH/WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION; PERMITS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
Introduction of Committee Substitute
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 199-FISH/WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION; PERMITS                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
10:04:59 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR STUTES announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  199  "An  Act  establishing  general  fish  and                                                               
wildlife  permits and  major and  minor  anadromous fish  habitat                                                               
permits for  certain activities; establishing  related penalties;                                                               
and relating  to the  protection of  fish and  game and  fish and                                                               
game habitat."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:06:51 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CHENAULT moved  to adopt  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB   199,  labeled  30-LS0438\I,  Bullard,                                                               
3/29/18  as the  working  document.   There  being no  objection,                                                               
Version I was before the committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
10:08:20 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative  Louise Stutes, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, referring  to a document titled  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of Changes  Version N to  I," turned  to the first  change, which                                                               
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 2 and 3:                                                                                                 
     ?  The  bill's  title  was  slightly  altered.  It  had                                                                    
     previously  read  "and  relating to  fishways  and  the                                                                    
     protection of  anadromous and  other fish  habitat." It                                                                    
     now reads "and relating  to fishways and the protection                                                                    
     of anadromous  fish and  anadromous fish  habitat." The                                                                    
     major  difference  being  that the  protection  of  the                                                                    
     anadromous   fish   was   included  instead   of   only                                                                    
     referencing  habitat.  Other   fish  habitat  was  also                                                                    
     removed.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  reviewed the  first change,  noting that  it seemed                                                               
appropriate that the commissioner  should consider the effects on                                                               
anadromous fish  along with  the anadromous  fish habitat  as the                                                               
two work together.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
10:09:26 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN asked  if staff  would provide  the reason                                                               
for each  change in  Version I so  members can  better understand                                                               
the rationale for the changes in Version I.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING agreed to do so.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
10:10:06 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1 line 5 through Page 2, line 28:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
       Added a new Section  1 that adds legislative findings                                                                  
     and policy language to the  uncodified law of the State                                                                    
     of Alaska:                                                                                                                 
     ?  Subsection (a)  on Page  1, line  7 through  Page 2,                                                                  
     line  4  contains  language stating  the  legislature's                                                                    
     policy  to ensure  sustainable fisheries  by protecting                                                                    
     anadromous   fish   and   habitat,   having   standards                                                                    
     governing activities  that protect anadromous  fish and                                                                    
     habitat,  providing  regulatory   certainty  and  clear                                                                    
     criteria   that   allows   for   responsible   resource                                                                    
     development,  and that  the Alaska  Department of  Fish                                                                    
     and Game  (ADF&G) protect anadromous  fishery resources                                                                    
     in  a  manner  consistent  with  Article  VIII  of  the                                                                    
     Constitution of the State of Alaska.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
        Subsection  (b)  on  Page  2,  lines  5  through  28                                                                  
     provides additional language  containing guidelines for                                                                    
     protecting  anadromous  fish   spawning,  rearing,  and                                                                    
     migratory  habitat. This  language was  pulled directly                                                                    
     from  (c)(1)(A)(i),  (ii),  (iii). (iv),  (v),  (1)(C),                                                                    
     (1)(D), (1)(E), and (1)(F) of  5 AAC 39.222, Policy for                                                                    
     the Management  of Sustainable Salmon  Fisheries, which                                                                    
     is part  of a regulation  package passed by  the Alaska                                                                    
     Board  of Fisheries  that provides  guidelines for  the                                                                    
     protection of salmon habitat.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  pointed out  that  this  language was  non-binding                                                               
language or  essentially intent  language in  front of  the bill.                                                               
While  the  language states  the  findings  and policies  of  the                                                               
legislature,  nothing in  this  Section 1  is  binding, he  said.                                                               
Basically, subsection  (a) affirmed the  legislature's commitment                                                               
to sustainable salmon fisheries  consistent with the Constitution                                                               
of the State of Alaska, he said.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING turned to the  next change, subsection (b), which he                                                               
indicated  was  also part  of  the  legislative findings.    This                                                               
subsection  provides  guidelines  for the  protection  of  salmon                                                               
habitat,  which was  also non-binding  language.   He  reiterated                                                               
that  it  seemed  appropriate  to put  these  guidelines  in  the                                                               
preface of the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
10:11:44 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 29 through Page 3, line 7:                                                                                
     AS 16.05.841. Fishway required.                                                                                          
       Added a new Section 2  that amends the Fishway Act to                                                                  
     require  that the  passage of  upstream and  downstream                                                                    
     fish  is provided  for.  Currently,  AS 16.05.841  only                                                                    
     requires fish passage for downstream migrants.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING explained that the  change added language "upstream"                                                               
because  some  concern  had  been  expressed  that  perhaps  this                                                               
created a loophole by only  requiring fish passage for downstream                                                               
migrants.   He acknowledged that  if fish cannot get  upstream it                                                               
would not  take long  before fish would  not be  going downstream                                                               
either.   It  seemed  appropriate to  address  both upstream  and                                                               
downstream passage, although  this has not yet been  an issue, he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
10:12:43 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether  this provision would prevent                                                               
a  person  from building  a  bridge  across  a stream  since  the                                                               
language  [AS 16.05.841]  seemed  to imply  that  doing so  would                                                               
create an obstruction.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  answered  the  referenced  language  was  existing                                                               
statute that  had been  adopted from statehood.   The  only thing                                                               
being  changed in  this  statute  was to  add  a requirement  for                                                               
upstream passage of fish.  He  offered his belief that so long as                                                               
fish can move freely, it would satisfy this section.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
10:14:22 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
       Section 4 on Page 3, lines 18 through 28, formerly                                                                     
     Section 2 on Page 2, line 1 through Page 3, line 11                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
         Subsection (a) on Page 3, lines 19 through 21,                                                                       
     formerly Page 2, lines 2 through 4:                                                                                        
        ? Deleted "adjacent riparian areas" and inserted                                                                        
     "wetland" on line 21.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  stated  that "formerly"  refers  to  the  previous                                                               
version  of  HB 199,  Version  N,  for  members' reference.    He                                                               
reviewed the  change and explained that  currently the Department                                                               
of Natural Resources  (DNR) has the authority  on riparian areas.                                                               
In  addition, many  municipal ordinances  and  provisions in  the                                                               
Forest  Resources  and  Practices  Act  also  establish  riparian                                                               
setbacks.   The goal  was to avoid  overlapping authority  so the                                                               
reference to "adjacent  riparian areas" in the  bill was removed.                                                               
He  explained   the  process,  such   that  when   ADF&G  creates                                                               
protection for a setback in  a riparian area, the department must                                                               
first approach DNR and request authority  to do so for a project.                                                               
The sponsor  did not want  to interrupt  this process.   The term                                                               
"wetlands"  was inserted  because  although  ADF&G was  currently                                                               
cataloging wetlands  in the Anadromous  Waters Catalog  (AWC), it                                                               
did not have the explicit statutory authority to do so.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:16:00 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said it seemed  that this change in statute                                                               
would  also  allow  the  ADF&G   to  catalog  different  uses  of                                                               
fisheries,  which  he  characterized  as  being  a  fairly  large                                                               
change.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  answered that  the  Anadromous  Waters Catalog  is                                                               
already  in statute.   The  change to  add "wetlands"  in statute                                                               
means that  the [ADF&G] is  statutorily authorized  and obligated                                                               
to catalog them.  Although  the department started doing this two                                                               
or three  years ago, the sponsor  wanted to be certain  the ADF&G                                                               
has the  explicit authority  to do  so.   He reiterated  that the                                                               
anadromous waters catalog  is already in statute  and this change                                                               
would  add a  different type  of  waterbody that  ADF&G would  be                                                               
authorized to catalog, he explained.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
10:17:04 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN  asked  whether  this  would  be  done  in                                                               
consultation with  other departments or  if the ADF&G  would have                                                               
full authority  to make the  changes.   He further asked  if that                                                               
would be a change in statute.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  agreed it  would  be  a  change  in statute.    He                                                               
deferred to the  ADF&G as to the reason the  department began the                                                               
process to  catalog wetlands, although  the wetlands  in question                                                               
were ones with a nexus  between different anadromous water bodies                                                               
necessary to  support wetlands.   He clarified  that there  was a                                                               
difference between the wetlands  being cataloged and the wetlands                                                               
that the US Army Corps of  Engineers (USACE) uses for its Section                                                               
404  permit  program, which  also  includes  forests that  people                                                               
would not typically think of as wetlands.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN  responded that he  thought it would  be an                                                               
interesting discussion.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:18:02 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  CHENAULT  asked   for  further  clarification  on                                                               
whether  the  ADF&G  had been  cataloging  wetlands  without  the                                                               
authority to do so.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  answered yes.   He  related his  understanding that                                                               
nothing prevented  ADF&G from doing  so; however, the  ADF&G does                                                               
not  have direct  statutory guidelines  and authority  to catalog                                                               
wetlands.     He   deferred  to   the   department  for   further                                                               
explanation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
10:18:40 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON  stated this  was his  first hearing  on HB                                                               
199.   He asked  whether it  would be  fair to  characterize this                                                               
bill  as  "modernizing" some  of  these  terms given  that  these                                                               
statutes go back quite some time.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  answered yes;  he acknowledged that  it was  a fair                                                               
characterization to consider this  as modernizing these statutes.                                                               
He commented that he did not  wish to unfairly cast aspersions on                                                               
actions the department had taken.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON did not think he  had done so but he wanted                                                               
to be sure he understood [the genesis of some of the changes.]                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:19:38 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Former  subsection (b)  was deleted  (Page  2, lines  5                                                                
     through 13).  This subsection contained the  process by                                                                    
     which  the  department   may  conduct  a  site-specific                                                                    
     analysis to determine anadromy.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  said that since  the anadromous  waters presumption                                                               
was  deleted, the  site-specific  analysis determination  section                                                               
was  no  longer   needed.    He  explained  in   the  process  of                                                               
determining  if  a  water  body  was  presumed  anadromous,  that                                                               
someone  could   request  that  ADF&G  conduct   a  site-specific                                                               
analysis to  determine if the  water body was anadromous  or not.                                                               
Without the  presumption, the ADF&G currently  would sample water                                                               
bodies  prior  to  conducting  an  activity  not  listed  in  the                                                               
anadromous  waters   catalog.     He  characterized  this   as  a                                                               
conforming change to reflect the repeal of subsection (c).                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
10:20:41 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Former subsection (c) was deleted (Page 2, lines 14                                                                   
     through 23). This subsection contained the anadromous                                                                      
     waters presumption.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING said  this was  the anadromous  waters presumption,                                                               
such  that  all  naturally-occurring  permanent  or  intermittent                                                               
rivers,   lakes,  streams   and  adjacent   riparian  areas   are                                                               
considered anadromous  if they are  connected to a water  body in                                                               
the Anadromous  Waters Catalog (AWC)  without a  physical barrier                                                               
in between that prevented the  upstream and downstream passage of                                                               
fish.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING explained  that this  subsection was  deleted after                                                               
discussions  were  held  with  several  departments  and  through                                                               
research  that  determined  the presumption  was  not  necessary.                                                               
Although it varies from area  to area in the state, approximately                                                               
50  percent of  the streams,  rivers,  and lakes  in Alaska  have                                                               
already  been  cataloged  and  surveyed.   Of  the  remaining  50                                                               
percent, approximately 20-25 percent  will never be cataloged due                                                               
to  the  altitude.    Although  he was  unsure  of  the  specific                                                               
altitude, he believed that above  5,000 feet fish were not found.                                                               
Further, the  department does not  catalog some water  bodies due                                                               
to  the gradient  of certain  streams  or rivers.   For  example,                                                               
areas such  as the  Denali National Park  and Preserve  and other                                                               
protected-use  areas  it  would  be  unlikely  development  would                                                               
occur.  Permitting agencies indicated  that if the water body was                                                               
not in the anadromous waters  catalog the agencies will sample to                                                               
determine the presence of anadromous  fish and sampling occurs on                                                               
all projects.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
10:22:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,  "which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Former  subsection (d)  was deleted  (Page 2,  lines 24                                                                
     through 26). This  subsection contained a clarification                                                                    
     regarding  what area  of  law  the deleted  presumption                                                                    
     applied to.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  explained that this subsection  was removed because                                                               
concerns were  raised that  the presumption  might be  applied to                                                               
other areas and  overlap with other authorities;  for example, it                                                               
might overlap  with the  Board of  Fisheries' (BOF)  authority to                                                               
regulate fish.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:23:36 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Former  subsection (e)  was deleted  (Page  2, line  27                                                                
     through  Page 3,  line  3).  This subsection  contained                                                                    
     requirements  for the  department to  adopt regulations                                                                    
     that are no longer  necessary as the corresponding bill                                                                    
     sections have been deleted.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
10:23:58 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection  (b)  on  Page  3,   lines  22  through  28,                                                                
     formerly subsection (f) on Page 3, lines 4 through 11:                                                                     
     ?   Deleted   "naturally   occurring"   in   front   of                                                                    
     "permanent"  on line  23.  This  conforming change  was                                                                    
     made throughout the bill.                                                                                                  
     ?  Deleted  "adjacent   riparian  areas"  and  inserted                                                                    
     "wetland" on  line 24. This conforming  change was made                                                                    
     throughout the bill.                                                                                                       
     ?  Inserted  "wetland"  on  line  27.  This  conforming                                                                    
     change was made throughout the bill.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  said concerns were  raised about the  definition of                                                               
"naturally  occurring."   At  times  ADF&G  has created  spawning                                                               
habitat  to increase  protections for  anadromous fish;  however,                                                               
these  sections  of enhanced  streams  are  not included  in  the                                                               
anadromous  waters catalog  as "naturally  occurring" since  they                                                               
are  man-made stream  sections.   In addition,  when a  river has                                                               
been altered  or relocated  during a  road project,  that altered                                                               
segment would  not be considered "naturally  occurring" and would                                                               
also  not be  included in  the Anadromous  Waters Catalog.   This                                                               
change closed  a loophole by  deleting "naturally  occurring" and                                                               
would  ensure  that all  rivers,  lakes,  and streams  that  have                                                               
anadromous fish can be cataloged and protected, he said.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:25:37 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN   asked  for  clarification   whether  the                                                               
department  has a  framework it  used when  cataloging "naturally                                                               
occurring" anadromous  waters and  if the department  worked with                                                               
other agencies or the local fishing or mining industries.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  responded that  it is  a collaborative  process and                                                               
was not just the department's  determination.  He deferred to Mr.                                                               
Benkert, ADF&G, to go into more detail.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
10:26:59 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked to  continue the presentation, noting                                                               
that he could wait for the department's explanation until later.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
10:27:12 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (a) on Page 3,  line 29 through Page 4, line                                                                
     8, formerly Page 3, lines 13 through 29:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     ? Inserted  "or governmental agency" after  "person" on                                                                    
     line 3.                                                                                                                    
     ? An  error was corrected  from the previous  draft. On                                                                    
     page 3, line  17 of the previous draft,  it stated that                                                                    
     a person  must obtain  a permit "before  constructing a                                                                    
     hydraulic   project   that   uses   wheeled,   tracked,                                                                  
     excavating,  or  log   dragging  equipment?"  This  was                                                                    
     supposed  to  read  "before  constructing  a  hydraulic                                                                    
     project or using wheeled,  tracked, excavating, or log-                                                                    
     dragging equipment?"  The error  was corrected  on Page                                                                    
     4,  line 3  of the  current version  to align  with the                                                                    
     sponsor's intent and mirror current statute.                                                                               
     ?   Deleted  references   to   the  anadromous   waters                                                                    
     presumption.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING said  "governmental  agency" was  added to  conform                                                               
with  the existing  AS  16.05.871.   Additionally,  an error  was                                                               
corrected from the  previous draft, which required  that a person                                                               
must  obtain a  permit "before  constructing a  hydraulic project                                                               
that  uses   wheeled,  tracked,   excavating,  or   log  dragging                                                               
equipment."  Version I also  deleted references to the anadromous                                                               
waters presumption, he said.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
10:28:56 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (a) on Page 5,  line 12 through Page 6, line                                                                
     2: "Consideration of effects  of activity on anadromous                                                                  
     fish and anadromous  fish habitat." Formerly Subsection                                                                  
     (a)  on  Page  5,  lines  2  through  23:  "Significant                                                                
     adverse effects,"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                              
     ? The subsection was renamed as shown above.                                                                               
     ?  Inserted  "anadromous  fish"   as  a  factor  to  be                                                                    
     considered  along  with  "anadromous fish  habitat"  on                                                                    
     line  14.   This  resulted   in  a   conforming  change                                                                    
     throughout the bill.                                                                                                       
     ?  The  wording in  (a)  on  lines  13 through  16  was                                                                    
     altered. Instead  of the more prescriptive  language of                                                                    
     "the commissioner  shall find that a  proposed activity                                                                    
     has the potential to  cause significant adverse effects                                                                    
     on  anadromous   fish  habitat  under   AS.  16.05.871-                                                                    
     16.05.901 if the proposed activity?",  it now reads "in                                                                    
     determining if  a proposed  activity has  the potential                                                                    
     to  adversely  affect  anadromous fish  and  anadromous                                                                    
     fish   habitat   under  AS   16.05.871-16.05.901,   the                                                                    
     commissioner  shall   consider  whether   the  proposed                                                                    
     activity?"                                                                                                                 
     ? Deleted  the term "significant" in  front of "adverse                                                                    
     effects." This aligns the terminology  in the bill with                                                                    
     other   regulatory   agencies  and   avoids   confusion                                                                    
     regarding  determining  what   "significant"  is.  This                                                                    
     conforming change was made throughout the bill.                                                                            
     ? Deleted  "significantly", which was formerly  on Page                                                                    
     5, line 10.                                                                                                                
     ? Inserted  a new  (a)(7) on Page  5, lines  30 through                                                                    
     31. It  states that  the commissioner must  consider if                                                                    
     an activity  will "diminish the  stability of  a river,                                                                    
     lake, stream,  or wetland  bank or  bed" in  making the                                                                    
     determination under (a).                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  reviewed the  changes  and  pointed out  that  the                                                               
rationale for the title change  was to recognize the commissioner                                                               
must also consider the effects on fish and not just the habitat.                                                                
He stated that the wording on  lines 13-16 was altered to provide                                                               
a little  more discretion.   He explained that deleting  the term                                                               
"significant"  in front  of "adverse  effects"  was suggested  by                                                               
multiple departments.  Initially,  adding "significant" seemed to                                                               
add  a  higher  bar;  however, the  USACE  and  other  permitting                                                               
agencies  use  the  term  "adverse  effects,"  he  said.    These                                                               
regulatory  agencies thought  using  the  term "significant"  was                                                               
subjective  and made  it more  difficult to  determine what  that                                                               
meant.  This would align the  terminology, he said.  Referring to                                                               
(a)(7) on  page 5, he stated  that this provision seemed  like an                                                               
important sidebar.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
10:31:36 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (a)(6)  on Page 8,  line 30 through  Page 9,                                                                
     line 18, formerly on Page 8, lines 18 through 22:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
        Former Subsection  (a)(6)(A) and  (B) were  deleted.                                                                  
     These subsections specified  that the commissioner must                                                                    
     provide   in   the   major  anadromous   permit   draft                                                                    
     assessment  a determination  of  whether an  activity's                                                                    
     adverse effects  could be prevented or  minimized under                                                                    
     (d)   of  this   section  or   were  likely   to  cause                                                                    
     substantial damage under (e)  of this section. Both (d)                                                                    
     and (e) were deleted in the current draft.                                                                                 
        New subsections  (a)(6)(A)(i)(ii) and  (6)(B)(i)(ii)                                                                  
     were inserted  on Page 9,  lines 1 through 18  in place                                                                  
     of   the  deleted   (a)(6)(A)   and   (B).  These   new                                                                    
     subsections   contain    the   commissioner's   initial                                                                    
     determination that  a permit may  or may not  be issued                                                                    
     based on whether the activity's  adverse effects can be                                                                    
     prevented or  if the  effects can  be minimized  to the                                                                    
     extent  necessary   to  protect  anadromous   fish  and                                                                    
     anadromous fish  habitat, the  affected habitat  can be                                                                    
     restored to the extent  necessary to protect anadromous                                                                    
     fish  and anadromous  fish habitat,  or the  effects of                                                                    
     the activity  can be otherwise mitigated  to the extent                                                                    
     necessary  to protect  anadromous  fish and  anadromous                                                                    
     fish habitat.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
10:33:01 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING stated that the new  subsections would be part of an                                                               
initial draft assessment and  determination that the commissioner                                                               
must put  in writing, including  an explanation of  the rationale                                                               
used to make the determination.   The public noticing would allow                                                               
the  public  an  opportunity  to   scrutinize,  comment  on,  and                                                               
ultimately  challenge the  issuance of  a  permit, he  said.   He                                                               
characterized  this as  a main  provision in  this bill  that was                                                               
very  potent.   He suggested  the  Board of  Fisheries (BOF)  and                                                               
Alaskans want a transparent process,  including notification of a                                                               
permit  and   the  ability  to  comment   on  the  commissioner's                                                               
determination as  to whether  something protects  anadromous fish                                                               
and fish  habitat.  It  ultimately allows people who  disagree an                                                               
avenue to pursue it in court, he said.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:34:29 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN asked  whether  there was  a structure  or                                                               
specific  guidelines each  commissioner  uses  when making  these                                                               
determinations  since  the  mining industry  or  commercial  fish                                                               
industries want to know the rules.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING answered  no;  that there  is  nothing specific  in                                                               
statute.  The  language states that the  commissioner shall issue                                                               
a  permit unless  the plans  and specifications  are insufficient                                                               
for the  protection of  fish and game;  however, in  practice the                                                               
departments  have   a  very  well-established  structure.     The                                                               
department reviews the project,  including the scope of activity,                                                               
the duration,  all the  plans and  specifications and  then first                                                               
attempt  to prevent  adverse effects  or minimize  them.   If the                                                               
adverse  effects  cannot  be   prevented,  the  department  would                                                               
require mitigation or restoration.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  further responded that  the bill  provided specific                                                               
criteria that the commissioner must  consider and although it was                                                               
not 100  percent prescriptive, the  bill does codify  the process                                                               
for   mitigation  measures.     Further,   mitigations  must   be                                                               
implemented in a  way that prevents or  minimizes disturbing fish                                                               
habitat and  is geared toward the  protection of fish.   One goal                                                               
for this draft was to  avoid being overly prescriptive can result                                                               
in   numerous  unintended   consequences  on   industries.     He                                                               
acknowledged  that Version  I would  give  the commissioner  more                                                               
discretion   but    provided   a   transparent    structure   and                                                               
accountability for any determination.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
10:37:51 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his  belief that this process would                                                               
be better set in regulation since the process always evolves.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  STUTES stated  that  the structure  would  be included  in                                                               
further discussions.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING pointed  out  that  the bill  does  give the  ADF&G                                                               
direction to  establish regulations that are  consistent with the                                                               
chapter.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:38:49 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Former  Subsection (d)  was deleted  (Page  9, lines  5                                                                
     through 11).  This subsection contained  the conditions                                                                    
     under   which  adverse   effects   can  be   considered                                                                    
     minimized under the bill.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  said essentially this subsection  was prescriptive,                                                               
which  said  under  certain conditions  adverse  effects  may  be                                                               
considered minimized, but  for other instances it did  not.  This                                                               
resulted in unintended consequences  on construction and resource                                                               
development, he said.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
10:39:30 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Former Subsections  (e)(1), (2),  and (3)  were deleted                                                                
     (Page 9,  lines 12  through 16). Subsection  (e) stated                                                                    
     that  adverse   effects  could  not  be   prevented  or                                                                    
     minimized  if they  were  likely  to cause  substantial                                                                    
     damage.   Subsections  (1),   (2),   and  (3)   defined                                                                    
     substantial damage.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING offered  that "substantial" damage was  defined in a                                                               
several  ways and  state  agencies feared  that  using a  strict,                                                               
literal interpretation  would not  even allow  culvert placement,                                                               
which protect fish.   Further, the department  was concerned that                                                               
even good projects could not move forward.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
10:41:08 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Former Subsections  (f)(1) and  (f)(2)(A) and  (B) were                                                                
     deleted  (Page 9,  line 26  through Page  10, line  7).                                                                
     These   subsections    contained   the    factors   the                                                                    
     commissioner  shall consider  when determining  if fish                                                                    
     habitat   will  recover   or  be   restored  within   a                                                                    
     reasonable period and to a  condition that will sustain                                                                    
     the natural and historic levels of fish.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  said   this  subsection  was  tied   in  with  the                                                               
substantial  damage  section  and   whether  something  could  be                                                               
minimized.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
10:41:39 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN wondered  what plan would be  to bring back                                                               
a  tributary, for  example, in  instances  where anadromous  fish                                                               
were at risk of extinction from  pike or pollution.  He expressed                                                               
concern that  removing the language "commissioner  shall consider                                                               
when  determining if  fish habitat  will recover  or be  restored                                                               
within  a  reasonable  period,"  that it  may  be  removing  some                                                               
assurance that rules and regulations will  be in place.  He hoped                                                               
this issue would be addressed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:43:01 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, line 5:                                                                                                       
     ? Inserted  a requirement that  the amount of  the bond                                                                    
     imposed  by the  department is  to be  included in  the                                                                    
     final assessment and written permit determination.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING related  this bill provides the  ADF&G the authority                                                               
to  require  a  bond  for   restoration  and  mitigation.    This                                                               
provision would require the amount of  the bond to be included in                                                               
the  final assessment  and  written  permit determination,  which                                                               
allows  for  public comment  and  challenge.    One of  the  main                                                               
components of  Version I was  to enhance the public's  ability to                                                               
obtain information,  comment, and  affect that  process in  a way                                                               
not previously  available to them during  the permitting process,                                                               
he  said.     Currently,   the  public   does  not   receive  any                                                               
notification  of  permits being  issued,  let  alone to  have  an                                                               
opportunity    to   comment,    disagree,   or    challenge   the                                                               
commissioner's determination or decision.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
10:44:49 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR,  referring [to new  subsections (e)(1)(C)(i)                                                               
and (ii)],  asked whether a bond  would always be required  or if                                                               
this  provision  allowed  the   commissioner  the  discretion  to                                                               
determine if  bonding is necessary.   She did not see  "shall" in                                                               
the language, she said.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  answered  that  it read,  "if  applicable."    The                                                               
language  she  referenced  refers   to  a  later  section,  where                                                               
government  entities are  exempt from  the bonding  requirements.                                                               
However,  the commissioner  can decide  the amount  of the  bond,                                                               
which  could be  zero, which  would alleviate  that concern.   It                                                               
would  be  public noticed  and  could  also  be challenged.    In                                                               
further  response  to Representative  Tarr,  he  agreed that  the                                                               
public would have  an opportunity to comment  and appeal bonding.                                                               
He  added  that the  commissioner  would  always be  required  to                                                               
consider  whether  a  bond  is   required,  based  on  scientific                                                               
information.    The  ADF&G  has  a  familiarity  with  mitigation                                                               
measures  and restoration,  so the  department can  determine the                                                               
exact  cost.   He  recalled  that this  provision  requires a  $5                                                               
million bond and must be justified in writing.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
10:46:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (e)(1)(C)(i) and (ii) on Page 10, lines 18                                                                  
      through 29, formerly (h)(1)(c) on Page 10, lines 25                                                                   
     through 27:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
       Former  (h)(1)(c) was deleted. This  specified that a                                                                
     permit  may  only  be  issued  if  it  will  not  cause                                                                    
     substantial damage under the now deleted (e).                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     ? In  its place, new subsections  (e)(1)(C)(i) and (ii)                                                                
     were inserted.  These new subsections specify  that the                                                                
     commissioner may  only issue  a major  permit if  it is                                                                    
     determined that  an activity's  adverse effects  can be                                                                    
     prevented or  if the  effects can  be minimized  to the                                                                    
     extent  necessary   to  protect  anadromous   fish  and                                                                    
     anadromous fish  habitat, the  affected habitat  can be                                                                    
     restored to the extent  necessary to protect anadromous                                                                    
     fish  and anadromous  fish habitat,  or the  effects of                                                                    
     the activity  can be otherwise mitigated  to the extent                                                                    
     necessary  to protect  anadromous  fish and  anadromous                                                                    
     fish  habitat.  This  determination  is  subject  to  a                                                                    
     request for reconsideration.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING related  that former  (h)(1)(c) was  deleted, which                                                               
specified that a  permit may only be issued if  it will not cause                                                               
substantial damage under the now deleted  (e).  In its place, new                                                               
subsections   (e)(1)(C)(i)   and   (ii)  were   inserted.      He                                                               
characterized this  subsection as being  a mirror to  the initial                                                               
draft  assessment  previously  discussed where  the  commissioner                                                               
must  determine whether  a  permit  may be  issued  based on  its                                                               
effects  on  anadromous  fish  habitat.     In  the  final  draft                                                               
assessment, the commissioner could only  issue a permit, which is                                                               
challengeable,  that when  an activity's  adverse effects  can be                                                               
prevented, if  the adverse  effects can  be minimized  to protect                                                               
anadromous fish or fish habitat, or  if the affected areas can be                                                               
restored, or other mitigation measures can be taken.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  emphasized  that  even   if  the  effects  can  be                                                               
minimized to protect anadromous  fish or fish habitat, permittees                                                               
are still  required under the  mitigation section of the  bill to                                                               
restore or take other mitigation  measures, which is in line with                                                               
the current process, he said.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
10:48:54 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (g)  on Page  11, line  14 through  Page 12,                                                                
     line 1,  formerly Subsection (j)  on Page 11,  lines 12                                                                    
     through 24:                                                                                                                
     ? Clarified that the bond  may be initiated and held by                                                                    
     the  department or  another state  agency  on Page  11,                                                                    
     line 18.                                                                                                                   
     ? Added language  on Page 11, line 26  through Page 12,                                                                    
     line  1 to  specify that  the commissioner  may at  any                                                                    
     time raise, lower,  or eliminate the bond  if they find                                                                    
     that  it is  more or  less  than what  is necessary  to                                                                    
     complete  the  mitigation  measures.  Furthermore,  the                                                                    
     department  must  provide  public   notice  of  such  a                                                                    
     change.  These  actions are  subject  to  a request  of                                                                    
     reconsideration   by  an   interested  person   or  the                                                                    
     applicant.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING reviewed subsection (g)  and added the rationale for                                                               
this change.   He explained  that a process currently  exists for                                                               
bonding projects through DNR and  the Department of Environmental                                                               
Conservation  (DEC), noting  a  mining  reclamation statute  also                                                               
exists.    The  goal  through  the  state  bonding  pool  was  to                                                               
streamline the  process and not necessarily  require two separate                                                               
bonds for a project.   Instead, it gives the department authority                                                               
to accept  a bond that  was posted  through the state  bond pool,                                                               
for  example, if  the  DNR  was taking  the  lead  on an  overall                                                               
project but required a concurrent fish habitat permit.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:50:02 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING, referring  to language on Page 11,  line 26 through                                                               
Page 12, line  1, explained this would allow  the commissioner to                                                               
adjust or  release the bond,  for example,  to raise the  bond if                                                               
the  project  does  not  go  well  and  the  bond  needed  to  be                                                               
increased.     It  requires  public   noticing  and   allows  for                                                               
challenges.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING related a scenario in  which a bond was required for                                                               
fish habitat  due to mitigation  measures that were  not complied                                                               
with under the  permit but once the permittee  complied, the bond                                                               
would no  longer be  necessary.  This  provision would  allow the                                                               
commissioner to  adjust or  release the  bond.   The commissioner                                                               
would also  have the authority  and flexibility to  raise, lower,                                                               
or release  the bond and  it requires public noticing  and allows                                                               
for challenges.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
10:51:20 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred to and reviewed  the next change in "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (h) on Page 12, lines 2 through 8:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       Added  a new subsection  (h)(2) on lines 5  through 6                                                                  
     specifying that  the department may receive  the amount                                                                    
     of  the bond  from another  state agency  in lieu  of a                                                                    
     separate bond from the applicant.                                                                                          
       Added  a new subsection  (h)(3) on lines 7  through 8                                                                  
     specifying that a bond required  in this chapter may be                                                                    
     part  of   another  bond  held  or   initiated  by  the                                                                    
     department or another state agency.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING explained  that  subsection  (h)(2) was  conforming                                                               
language, such that this could be part  of a bond that is held by                                                               
another state  agency and  it does  not have  to be  two separate                                                               
bonds  for   the  same  activity;   and  subsection   (h)(2)  was                                                               
conforming language.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
10:52:07 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  stated  that  numerous changes  were  made  to  AS                                                               
16.05.887, the  permit conditions and mitigation  measures, which                                                               
would be covered next.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred to and reviewed  the next change in "HB 199                                                               
Explanation of  Changes Version  N to I,"  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (a)  on Page  12, line  17 through  Page 13,                                                                
     line  14, formerly  Page 12,  line 4  through Page  13,                                                                    
     line 10.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Sec.   16.05.887  Permit   conditions  and   mitigation                                                                
     measures.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
       Deleted lines  8 through 9 from  the previous version                                                                  
     of the  bill, which  stated that the  "commissioner may                                                                    
     not   issue  a   permit  for   an  activity   that  the                                                                    
     commissioner determines." These  two lines prefaced the                                                                    
     deleted subsections (a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:52:40 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.   GRUENING  reviewed   the  changes   for  the   deleted                                                                    
subsections  (a)(1), (2),  (3), (4),  and (5)  individually,                                                                    
beginning  with subsection  (a)(1),  which  read as  follows                                                                    
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
       Former Subsection (a)(1) was  deleted (Page 12, lines                                                                  
     10  through  11). This  subsection  had  stated that  a                                                                    
     permit may not  be issued if it  will cause substantial                                                                    
     damage under the now deleted AS 16.05.885(e).                                                                              
     o In its  place, new subsection (a)(1)  was inserted on                                                                  
     Page 12, lines 20 through  21. This language was in the                                                                    
     in  previous  subsection  (a) and  was  moved  down  to                                                                    
     (a)(1) for structural purposes.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  explained  that   subsection  (a)(1)  was  deleted                                                               
because substantial  damage was  very definite  and did  not give                                                               
any leeway for the extent of  the damage.  For example, a culvert                                                               
might not be placed because  it permanently eliminated anadromous                                                               
habitat.   It  recognized  that any  project  would eliminate  at                                                               
least some small  square footage of habitat.   He offered another                                                               
example,  a dam  built  on what  was  previously anadromous  fish                                                               
habitat, which is  now permanently altered by the  dam and cannot                                                               
be  restored.   Former subsection  (a)(1) was  replaced by  a new                                                               
subsection (a),  which is  existing language  that was  moved for                                                               
structural purposes.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
10:54:10 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING reviewed the changes in subsection (a)(2),                                                                         
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       Former Subsection (a)(2) was  deleted (Page 12, lines                                                                  
     12  through  13). This  subsection  had  stated that  a                                                                    
     permit  may  not be  issued  if  it necessitates  water                                                                    
     treatment,  groundwater  pumping,  or  other  means  of                                                                    
     mechanical,   chemical,   or  human   intervention   in                                                                    
     perpetuity.                                                                                                                
     o In its  place, new subsection (a)(2)  was inserted on                                                                  
     Page  12,   lines  22   through  23.   This  subsection                                                                    
     specifies   that  the   commissioner  must   require  a                                                                    
     permittee to  implement the activity  in a  manner that                                                                    
     the   commissioner   has    determined   will   protect                                                                    
     anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING read  former subsection  (a)(2),  then stated  that                                                               
many issues arose with this  subsection since many things require                                                               
human intervention in perpetuity:   a bridge, dam, culvert, road,                                                               
or  municipal wastewater  discharge plant.   Numerous  unintended                                                               
consequences  arose  with  the   language  in  former  subsection                                                               
(a)(2), he  said.  It  was better  to give the  commissioner some                                                               
discretion  with  what  shall  not  be  permitted  and  to  allow                                                               
citizens of Alaska to participate  in the process [via the public                                                               
notice and  public comment  process].   In its  place, subsection                                                               
new (a)(2)  was inserted  in recognition of  when the  current AS                                                               
16.05.871  was   repealed  and   reenacted,  that   required  the                                                               
department to protect anadromous fish  and fish habitat no matter                                                               
what  activity  occurred.   He  explained  that the  wording  was                                                               
slightly  different  than  current  statute  but  retaining  this                                                               
provision  was important  especially  given  the enhanced  public                                                               
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:56:15 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING, referred  to former  subsection (a)(3),  which was                                                               
deleted [page 12,  lines 14-15], which read  as follows [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       Former Subsection (a)(3) was  deleted (Page 12, lines                                                                  
     14  through  15).  This  subsection  specified  that  a                                                                    
     permit  may  not  be  issued  if  it  will  replace  or                                                                    
     supplement  a  wild  fish population  with  a  hatchery                                                                    
     dependent fish population.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING characterized  the  issue of  supplementing a  wild                                                               
fish  population  as  a  difficult one,  since  nobody  wants  to                                                               
replace  a   wild  fish  run   with  a   hatchery-dependent  fish                                                               
population.  He highlighted a new  process that has not been used                                                               
much in  Alaska, called "conservation hatcheries."   This process                                                               
has  been  used  in  certain  places in  the  Lower  48  and  may                                                               
ultimately  be  of  interest  if   Alaska  experiences  more  run                                                               
failures.   He  described  "conservation  hatcheries," which  use                                                               
geneticists to pair the genetics  of fish being produced with the                                                               
natural  wild run;  one  that ensures  genetic  variation.   This                                                               
would enhance  the wild fish  population with a  hatchery process                                                               
but "conservation  hatcheries" are not geared  toward production.                                                               
He  characterized it  as  geared towards  animal  husbandry.   He                                                               
pointed out  another concern raised  by some hatcheries  was that                                                               
if a hatchery  was in an anadromous waterway and  strays from the                                                               
hatchery were  supplementing a wild  run, such that  the hatchery                                                               
could be prohibited from obtaining a permit.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
10:58:13 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON  referred to the  bonding on page  11, line                                                               
18,  of  HB 199  [Version  I]  which  speaks  to the  bond  being                                                               
initiated and  held by  the department  or another  state agency.                                                               
He  asked  for  further  clarification  if  there  were  disputes                                                               
between  ADF&G's assessment  or  DNR how  the  disputes would  be                                                               
resolved and if ADF&G's commissioner held "the tie breaker."                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING responded  that this pertained to a  new process, so                                                               
he would  give his best  guess.  A Title  16 permit would  not be                                                               
issued without the [ADF&G] commissioner's  authorization.  He was                                                               
unsure of how  disputes would be resolved;  however, he suggested                                                               
that  ADF&G and  DNR would  try to  work together  to come  to an                                                               
amicable  resolution.   He  further suggested  that  it might  be                                                               
addressed in  a regulations project if  HB 199 were to  pass.  He                                                               
offered to review it for the next draft.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:00:16 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
RON  BENKERT, Fish  & Game  Coordinator,  Anchorage Area  Office,                                                               
Division of  Habitat, Alaska Department  of Fish &  Game (ADF&G),                                                               
echoed Mr. Gruening's sentiment.   He offered his belief that the                                                               
department  would develop  an MOU  [Memorandum of  Understanding]                                                               
between  the state  agencies to  address how  the agencies  would                                                               
address a bonding system together.   He related that typically an                                                               
ADF&G  bonding  specialist would  work  with  applicants and  the                                                               
other departments.   If a dispute arose, it would  be elevated to                                                               
the commissioner  level and the  commissioners could  resolve the                                                               
issue and meet mutual goals, he said.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:01:21 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON  said he thought  this may be  something he                                                               
would like to see explored more as the bill evolved.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:01:37 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  continued the  explanation of  subsection (a).   He                                                               
referred  to  subsection (4),  which  read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       Former Subsection (a)(4) was  deleted (Page 12, lines                                                                  
     16  through  17).  This  subsection  specified  that  a                                                                    
     permit may not be issued  if it will dewater anadromous                                                                    
     fish habitat for a period  likely to cause permanent or                                                                    
     long-lasting adverse effects to that habitat.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.   GRUENING    explained   that   this    created   unintended                                                               
consequences; for example, any structure  placed on an anadromous                                                               
fish habitat, such as a dam,  that it would dewater that affected                                                               
anadromous  fish habitat.   He  reiterated attempting  to be  too                                                               
prescriptive  "tied the  hands" of  projects the  state needs  to                                                               
move forward to achieve a vibrant economy.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:02:48 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     ? Former Subsection (a)(5) was  deleted (Page 12, lines                                                                  
     18  through  19).  This  subsection  specified  that  a                                                                    
     permit  may  not  be  issued  if  it  will  permanently                                                                    
     relocate all  or portions of  a river, lake,  or stream                                                                    
     if  the   relocation  will   disrupt  the   passage  of                                                                    
     anadromous fish.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING offered  an example  related to  road construction.                                                               
During  road construction,  the  Department  of Transportation  &                                                               
Public  Facilities (DOT&PF)  must  block passage  of  fish for  a                                                               
short  period of  time.   He characterized  the thorough  process                                                               
used,  including that  fingerlings and  smolt would  be collected                                                               
and relocated to the portion of  the river that was unaffected by                                                               
the project.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:04:38 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
BEN WHITE, Environmental Manager,  Division of Statewide Design &                                                               
Engineering  Services,  Department  of  Transportation  &  Public                                                               
Facilities (DOT&PF), answered that  with respect to fish windows,                                                               
timing,  and   construction,  that  the   department's  preferred                                                               
alternative was  to avoid road  work when  fish are present.   In                                                               
instances with  short construction  windows, the  department will                                                               
block off  the stream and  either staff fish biologists  or ADF&G                                                               
biologists will  relocate the fish  from one side of  the project                                                               
to the other.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
11:05:28 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON  asked whether that also  pertained to fish                                                               
that were not in the Anadromous Waters Catalog.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE  acknowledged the department migrates  resident fish as                                                               
well as  anadromous fish; for  example, Arctic grayling  or Dolly                                                               
Varden have been moved.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EDGMON  related   his  understanding   that  the                                                               
DOT&PF's  practice would  be the  same  and all  species of  fish                                                               
would be relocated.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. WHITE agreed that it was the department's typical practice.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  referred to  the Fishway  Act, AS  16.05.841, which                                                               
required fish passage.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
11:06:35 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (b) on  Page 12, line 24,  formerly page 12,                                                                
     line 2:                                                                                                                    
        Subsection (b)  on page  12, line  27. Inserted  "to                                                                  
     protect  anadromous fish  and anadromous  fish habitat"                                                                    
     after  "actions."  This  simply clarifies  the  purpose                                                                    
     behind the mitigation measures.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING reviewed the changes  to subsection (b), noting that                                                               
this subsection provides the intent  for mitigation measures.  He                                                               
explained  that the  language in  subsection (b)(1)  [Version N],                                                               
read   "limit"  significant   adverse  effects,   not  "prevent,"                                                               
however,  subsection  (b)(2)  required that  if  adverse  effects                                                               
cannot   be  "prevented,"   they   must  be   "minimized."     He                                                               
characterized  this as  a conforming  change, which  was also  in                                                               
line with the  ADF&G's current process, not codified.   The ADF&G                                                               
would  first attempt  to  "prevent" the  effects  of activity  on                                                               
anadromous  fish, if  that  is not  possible  it "minimizes"  the                                                               
effects,  and  lastly, the  department  would  "restore" or  take                                                               
other mitigation measures, he said.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
11:07:52 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     ?  Subsection (b)(2)  on Page  13, lines  1 through  3.                                                                  
     Inserted  "or changing"  after  "limiting"  on line  1.                                                                    
     Inserted   "or   other  manageable   qualities"   after                                                                    
     "implementation" on  lines 2  through 3.  This addition                                                                    
     adds more flexibility regarding  how the department can                                                                    
     minimize effects.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  said this change  was suggested by  the Legislative                                                               
Legal   and   Research   Services  attorney   to   provide   more                                                               
flexibility.   Adding  language "or  other manageable  qualities"                                                               
provided more flexibility.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:10:19 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     ? Subsection (b)(3)  on Page 13, line  6. Deleted "and"                                                                  
     and inserted  "or." It made  more sense to  require the                                                                    
     department to restore habitat  or take other mitigation                                                                    
     measures,   rather  than   restore  habitat   and  take                                                                    
     mitigation  measures.   Sometimes,  restoring   is  the                                                                    
     mitigation measure  that needs  to be taken  whereas in                                                                    
     some instances,  other mitigation measures may  be more                                                                    
     appropriate.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     ?  Subsection (b)(3)  on Page  13, lines  6 through  7.                                                                  
     Inserted   "that   the  commissioner   determines   are                                                                    
     necessary  to protect  anadromous  fish and  anadromous                                                                    
     fish habitat" after "measures."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                              
MR.  GRUENING explained  that  it  made more  sense  to have  the                                                               
department restore  habitat "or"  take other  mitigation measures                                                               
rather  than  do both  restoration  and  taking other  mitigation                                                               
measures.     In  fact,  sometimes  restoring   habitat  was  the                                                               
mitigation measure  being taken; for example,  one cannot restore                                                               
habitat on which  a dam sits; however,  other mitigation measures                                                               
could be taken.   This would allow the [permit  conditions] to do                                                               
more than just restore habitat, which provides more flexibility.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING referring  to the  change in  subsection (b)(3)  on                                                               
Page  13, lines  6 through  7, explained  that this  specifically                                                               
inserted  the  language  specifically  into  the  mitigation  and                                                               
restoration   necessary  for   protecting  anadromous   fish  and                                                               
anadromous fish habitat.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:10:45 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection  (a)  on  Page  13,  lines  15  through  23,                                                                
     formerly on Page 13, lines 11 through 26:                                                                                  
     Sec. 16.05.889 Reconsideration of determinations.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     ?  Added  new subsections  (a)(1),  (2),  and (3)  that                                                                    
     specify that  requests for reconsideration  are limited                                                                    
     to whether a proposed  activity should be classified as                                                                    
     a  minor  or major  permit,  a  final determination  to                                                                    
     issue  or refuse  to issue  a permit,  the amount  of a                                                                    
     required  bond,  the reduction  of  the  amount of  the                                                                    
     bond, or the  elimination of a bond  requirement for an                                                                    
     activity.    An   interested    person   can    request                                                                    
     reconsideration of  any determination  that is  part of                                                                    
     the  final  determination.  Previously,  an  interested                                                                    
     person   could  request   a   reconsideration  of   any                                                                    
     determination at  any point along the  process, leaving                                                                    
     room for abuse.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  said  that  provisions were  added  to  allow  for                                                               
reconsideration of  determinations.  This sets  up the activities                                                               
and the points at which  activities can be appealed. For example,                                                               
major permits have a public  appeal process whereas minor permits                                                               
do not.  This provision, AS  16.05.889, would allow the public to                                                               
challenge  the  consideration of  whether  the  permit should  be                                                               
classified as a major or minor  permit, he said.  This subsection                                                               
clarified  at what  point in  the process  challenges can  occur,                                                               
including the commissioner's final  determination to issue or not                                                               
issue a permit, and the amount of the bond.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
11:12:44 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  explained that the  prior draft [Version N]  set up                                                               
numerous determinations  and it allowed for  someone to challenge                                                               
for  reconsideration  at any  point  in  the permitting  process.                                                               
This could  result in reconsideration  at 15-20  different points                                                               
along the process,  which seemed like a cumbersome way  to try to                                                               
permit a  project.   He reiterated that  these changes  allow for                                                               
appeals, but only at certain points in the permitting process.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
11:13:17 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (b) on Page 14, line 20:                                                                                      
     ? Added  language to specify that  the commissioner may                                                                    
     wave  fees   if  the  applicant   or  permittee   is  a                                                                    
     governmental agency.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  said it seemed  odd the  DOT&PF would be  charged a                                                               
fee by the ADF&G, so it was removed.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:13:38 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Subsection (a) on page 15, line 9:                                                                                     
     ? Changed  the wording  so that the  grandfather clause                                                                    
     applies  to  facilities,   activities,  operations,  or                                                                    
     projects  that  have  in full  force  and  effect  "all                                                                    
     authorizations required by law"  instead of simply "all                                                                    
     required state authorizations."                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  related that this  concern was  specifically raised                                                               
by the  Alaska Power Association.   He explained  that Snettisham                                                               
Hydroelectric facility  provides significant power to  the Juneau                                                               
community   and  it   has  authorizations   that  predate   state                                                               
authorizations,  including  a  federal  authorization.    It  was                                                               
important  to include  all  required  authorizations rather  than                                                               
limiting it to state authorizations.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:14:25 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING referred  to the next change in  "HB 199 Explanation                                                               
of  Changes Version  N to  I,"  which read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 15, lines 24 through 29:                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Sec. 16.05.899 Enforcement Authority.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     This  is  a  new   section  that  gives  authority  for                                                                    
     departmental employees  designated by  the commissioner                                                                    
     to  directly  issue citations  for  a  violation of  AS                                                                    
     16.05.871-16.05.901  or  a   regulation  adopted  under                                                                    
     those statutes  if it  is not  a misdemeanor  and there                                                                    
     are  is  probable  cause to  believe  a  violation  has                                                                    
     occurred.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  stated that  this bill  creates an  opportunity for                                                               
ADF&G to pursue violations rather  than a misdemeanor charge.  He                                                               
explained that currently the only  enforcement available to ADF&G                                                               
is  to  charge  violators  with   misdemeanors.    This  made  it                                                               
cumbersome and  difficult to  prosecute violators  since charging                                                               
someone under  an unclassified misdemeanor would  require working                                                               
through  a prosecutor  and district  attorney to  determine if  a                                                               
case  will  move forward.    This  would allow  designated  ADF&G                                                               
employees to issue a citation to a violator.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:16:08 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN recalled  previous discussions  with ADF&G                                                               
and  DNR  on  structures  built  under  land-use  permits.    The                                                               
department  has  indicated it  does  not  have the  authority  to                                                               
prevent  unauthorized  structures from  being  built.   He  asked                                                               
whether this enforcement provision "has any teeth."                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING said  that  [AS 16.05.899]  does  not affect  DNR's                                                               
authority.   He  characterized this  provision as  one "that  has                                                               
teeth"  and was  requested  by  those staff  in  the  field.   He                                                               
related a  scenario in which  a biologist observed three  or four                                                               
people  driving  through an  anadromous  stream,  tearing up  the                                                               
stream  bed.   Under  this enforcement  provision, the  biologist                                                               
could  issue  a  bailable  citation, which  makes  it  much  more                                                               
effective.    Another  example  would be  if  ADF&G  inspected  a                                                               
project and  discovered non-compliance of permit  conditions, the                                                               
ADF&G's staff could issue a citation, he said.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN  suggested   that  the  [committee]  might                                                               
consider [adding  enforcement authority for] DNR  also since ATVs                                                               
and  other vehicles  could disturb  anadromous fish  streams that                                                               
would fall under the DNR permitting process, he said.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:19:18 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  directed attention  to the next  change in  "HB 199                                                               
Explanation  of Changes  Version N  to I,  which read  as follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
      Section 10 on Page 15, line 30 through Page 16, line                                                                    
     2:                                                                                                                         
       Former Section  8 (Page 15, lines 13  through 17) was                                                                  
     split  into two  parts  at the  request  of the  Alaska                                                                    
     Court System so that  the violation and the misdemeanor                                                                    
     were not housed in the same subsection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  explained  that   the  violation  and  misdemeanor                                                               
provisions are cited separately in  Version I, which he described                                                               
as an accounting function.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:19:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING recapped  the major  provisions in  HB 199,  noting                                                               
that he would not have  time to do a section-by-section analysis.                                                               
He  pointed  out  that  every  provision  in  the  bill  provided                                                               
additional protection  for fish  and fish  habitat.   The Fishway                                                               
Act was updated to repeal a  loophole.  For example, the loophole                                                               
would  allow  a  permittee  to establish  a  hatchery  below  the                                                               
blockage  or to  pay money  to  establish or  enhance an  offsite                                                               
hatchery instead of providing for  fish passage.  This bill added                                                               
a two-tier  permitting system, including a  provision that allows                                                               
"minor" permits  to be issued  immediately.  Major  permits would                                                               
be  afforded  more  scrutiny  and  allow  the  public  to  become                                                               
completely involved in  every step of the process.   Further, the                                                               
public can review the department's  reasoning and scientific data                                                               
used  in  on  determinations,  he   said,  as  well  as  have  an                                                               
opportunity  to challenge  or comment  on  a project.   The  bill                                                               
would also add the authority for  ADF&G to bond for projects, and                                                               
it  expanded   enforcement  authority  for  violations   and  for                                                               
biologists to issue violations in the field.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:21:48 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING continued  to summarize HB 199.  He  stated that the                                                               
bill  would  establish  criteria   the  ADF&G  commissioner  must                                                               
consider   and  publish   when   issuing   a  determination   for                                                               
considering adverse effects on anadromous  fish and fish habitat.                                                               
Further, the bill  would establish a process  by which mitigation                                                               
measures must be taken.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GRUENING  reiterated  that  everything  in  the  bill  would                                                               
increase protections for fish.   He opined that although the bill                                                               
may  not  contain  everything  that everyone  wanted,  it  was  a                                                               
reasonable product  that allows  responsible development  to move                                                               
forward.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING stated  that the bill would place  an amazing amount                                                               
of scrutiny on a process that  does not currently exist, he said.                                                               
Most importantly,  this bill would provide  for public engagement                                                               
of  Alaskans in  the  process,  which is  very  important to  the                                                               
sponsor, he  said.   He recalled that  the public  involvement in                                                               
the process was important to  the Board of Fisheries (BOF), other                                                               
state agencies, and industry participants.   Most parties believe                                                               
that  Alaskans  deserve  to  be   informed  and  be  involved  in                                                               
projects.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
11:22:53 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR STUTES  remarked that  she was  happy with  the bill.   She                                                               
advised that  HB 199,  Version I, was  still a  working document.                                                               
She concurred  with Mr.  Gruening that HB  199 [Version  I] would                                                               
provide  additional  protection  for  Alaska's  fisheries.    She                                                               
acknowledged  that  [Version  I]   was  not  as  restrictive  for                                                               
economic development  as the previous version  [Version N], which                                                               
would  have  prevented  the proposed  Cordova  hydroelectric  dam                                                               
[Power Creek hydroelectric plant] from  moving forward.  It would                                                               
also   have  prevented   the  expansion   of   the  Terror   Lake                                                               
hydroelectric project in  Kodiak.  She emphasized  that the state                                                               
needs these projects.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:24:30 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EDGMON asked  for definition  of major  and minor                                                               
permits.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING answered  that it was not  100 percent prescriptive.                                                               
He responded  that a  minor permit is  one that  the commissioner                                                               
determined  would  not  cause adverse  effects  whereas  a  major                                                               
permit  is  one that  the  commissioner  has determined  has  the                                                               
potential to  cause adverse  effects.   The bill  further details                                                               
the criteria that the commissioner  must consider when making the                                                               
determination and the public process.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:25:46 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON  acknowledged that he was  still struggling                                                               
with the  thresholds under  AS 16.   He was  unsure how  the bill                                                               
would  handle conflicting  viewpoints by  agencies.   He was  not                                                               
clear  if  the ADF&G  would  have  a  subservient role  to  other                                                               
agencies in  development projects.   He  said he  did not  want a                                                               
discussion on  AS 38; however,  he did  want to strike  that fine                                                               
balance between  being overly prescriptive while  still providing                                                               
necessary protections the bill attempts to achieve.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING acknowledged his point.   He advised that currently,                                                               
and  in HB  199 [Version  I],  the commissioner  [ADF&G] has  the                                                               
ultimate authority over  whether Title 16 permits  are issued for                                                               
anadromous  fish habitat.    In  instances in  which  a Title  16                                                               
permit would  be part  of a  larger project,  such as  a National                                                               
Environmental Policy  Act of 1969  (NEPA) or  a US Army  Corps of                                                               
Engineers (USACE) project, the ADF&G  commissioner would not make                                                               
the final decision on whether a project will move forward.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:28:11 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  STUTES  explained that  ADF&G  has  authority to  withhold                                                               
permits.   She offered her  belief that  in instances in  which a                                                               
Title 16  permit was  necessary that  if the  department withheld                                                               
the permit,  it would effectively  prevent a project  from moving                                                               
forward.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING  agreed.   He clarified  that if  the ADF&G  did not                                                               
issue a  permit for activity  on anadromous fish or  fish habitat                                                               
was required,  that activity could  not go forward.   He deferred                                                               
to Mr. Benkert.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. BENKERT responded that the  ADF&G uses a collaborative effort                                                               
and  process  when the  department  works  with other  state  and                                                               
federal  agencies.     The  department  coordinates   with  other                                                               
agencies on what  permits will be issued.  He  agreed that if the                                                               
ADF&G did not  issue a permit then the applicant  must figure out                                                               
how to move  the project forward without  affecting fish habitat,                                                               
he said.  He stated that not  issuing the permit would not kill a                                                               
project, but the  applicant may need to  restructure the project,                                                               
so it did not require a permit.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
11:30:48 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  NEUMAN requested  that  staff  familiar with  the                                                               
ADF&G  and  DNR permitting  process  be  present to  discuss  the                                                               
current process and how it changed [under the bill].                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:31:21 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  asked for  the  timeframe  for the  comment                                                               
period and  whether it was for  30 days as for  many other public                                                               
comment periods.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. GRUENING answered  that the public comment period  was for 30                                                               
days.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:31:41 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  complimented the  sponsor.  She  offered her                                                               
belief that Version I was  an improvement.  She acknowledged that                                                               
Title 16 has  not really been updated since statehood.   She said                                                               
she appreciated  all the time that  her staff spent on  the bill.                                                               
She said  it was a  big step forward  to have the  public comment                                                               
component in the  bill, so Alaskans can be more  engaged and feel                                                               
like they have an opportunity to  weigh in on projects with their                                                               
concerns.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
11:32:16 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  STUTES commended  the work  her staff,  Mr. Gruening,  put                                                               
into working  on the  issues in  the bill  and in  explaining the                                                               
changes in bill versions for the committee.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
11:32:32 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  STUTES  announced that  she  would  be setting  this  bill                                                               
aside.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
[HB 199 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 199 ver N 01.19.18.pdf HFSH 4/3/2018 10:00:00 AM
HB 199
HB 199 Explanation of Changes version N to I 04.02.18.pdf HFSH 4/3/2018 10:00:00 AM
HB 199
HB 199 Sectional Analysis ver I 04.02.18.pdf HFSH 4/3/2018 10:00:00 AM
HB 199
HB 199 ver I 03.30.18.pdf HFSH 4/3/2018 10:00:00 AM
HB 199