03/29/2011 05:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation(s): Alaska Board of Fisheries (bof) | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 29, 2011
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION(S):
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Susan Jeffrey - Kodiak
John Jensen - Petersburg
Dr. William Brown - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation
to collect and make available to the public certain information
relating to water pollution; prohibiting certain mixing zones in
freshwater spawning waters; and requiring a public comment
period for certain sewage system or treatment works
modifications."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) FSH, RES
03/29/11 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN JEFFREY, Appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries (BOF).
JOHN FOX, Member
Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the three appointee
elects: Susan Jeffrey, John Jensen, and Dr. William Brown.
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries (BOF).
MAX WORHATCH, IV
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
ROBIN SAMUELSON, Fisherman
Bristol Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of John Jensen to the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF).
GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
RICK GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
STEVE BROWN, President
Concerned Area "M" Fishermen
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the three appointee
elects: Susan Jeffrey, John Jensen, and Dr. William Brown.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chairman
Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of John Jensen, as
appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
DR. WILLIAM S. "BILL" BROWN, PhD, Appointee
Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries (BOF).
RICK GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Dr. William Brown,
as appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Dr. William Brown,
as appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chairman
Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Dr. William Brown,
as appointee to the Alaskan Board of Fisheries (BOF).
ROBIN SAMUELSON, Fisherman
Bristol Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Dr. William Brown to the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF).
KARL JOHNSTONE, Vice Chair
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the three appointee
elects: Susan Jeffrey, John Jensen, and Dr. William Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 85, as prime sponsor.
LYNN KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition for HB 85.
BRIAN KRAFT, Lodge Owner
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85.
BRENDA DOLMA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 85.
MICHAEL SATRE, Executive Director
Council of Alaska Producers
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 85.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:06:03 PM
CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Thompson, Austerman, Kawasaki, and
Miller. Representatives Johnson, Pruitt, and Herron, arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION(S): Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
CONFIRMATION(S):
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF)
5:06:37 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business would
be confirmation hearings for appointees to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries (BOF).
5:07:15 PM
SUSAN JEFFREY, Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF),
stated her interest for serving on the Board of Fisheries (BOF),
and reported that she is currently serving a second term as an
elected official in Kodiak, which provides her a seat on the
joint City and Borough/Kodiak fishery advisory committee. She
described her history in the fishery industry, beginning as a
cannery worker. Commercial salmon fishing is a family business,
and she is a past co-owner of a crabbing boat. Fishing topics
have long been on her plate as a fisheries reporter for the
local newspaper and as a free lance writer. She said she has
respect, appreciation, and understanding of the public process.
CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony.
5:10:23 PM
JOHN FOX, Member, Fish and Game Advisory Committee, testified in
favor of the three BOF appointees, and specified that Susan
Jeffrey is an outstanding candidate and knows the issues. He
said she is well prepared, is approachable, and sorely missed as
a well informed fisheries correspondent for the local newspaper.
CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
5:12:03 PM
JOHN JENSEN, Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF),
introduced himself paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I was born in Petersburg, Alaska, February 16, 1951.
I am a lifetime resident of Petersburg. I graduated
from Petersburg High School in 1969. I attended
Yakima Valley College for one year before purchasing
my first fishing vessel and beginning my fishing
career. I am a third generation Alaska fisherman. I
have fished commercially since 1965. I have owned and
operated four fishing vessels from 1972-1993. I have
participated in fisheries in SE Alaska, Bristol Bay,
Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea/Aleutians, Alaska
Peninsula, Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and
Western Alaska. I have attended Merchant Marine
Training Services in Seattle, WA and acquired my
Master 100 G and Assistance Towing license.
MR. JENSEN finished, stating that he is interested in assisting
to preserve the fisheries through serving on the BOF.
5:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked:
What has been your approach, as a member of the BOF,
in dealing with the allocation of fish between
subsistence, sport, and commercial fisheries.
MR. JENSEN said it is important to keep it fair and balanced,
and referred to the allocation criteria and the eight
established points for consideration, which include the history
and participation of the user groups.
5:13:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired:
How have you supported actions, with your time on the
board, to address the low salmon runs on the Yukon
[River].
MR. JENSEN replied that last season net size was altered to
allow escapement, but, despite these efforts, the fishery
continues to decline. Another factor being addressed is the
ocean mortality of the Yukon River Chinook salmon.
5:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether the appointee serves on
the protocol committee of the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (NPFMC), and, if so, to make comment on the by-catch
situation in the Bering Sea.
MR.JENSEN indicated that a comprehensive plan exists for the
Bering Sea, and the council is on the verge of implementing
strategies specific to the Chinook by-catch. A recent
development is for the observer program to include vessels under
60 feet.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN continued to query whether the board
has taken a position to request the protocol committee to take
specific action, such as a cap limit on the by-catch.
MR. JENSEN answered that the BOF has discussed by-catch options,
but a position statement has not been issued by the board to the
council.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether the appointee has a
priority in mind, regarding sustainability of the resources,
when considering subsistence/personal use, sport, and commercial
fisheries.
MR. JENSEN responded that he considers the priority order to be:
sustainability, subsistence, and finally equal division between
other users.
CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony.
5:18:45 PM
MAX WORHATCH, IV, stated support for the appointee, and said Mr.
Jensen takes his work seriously, does the research involved, and
is fair minded as a commercial fisherman who also sport fishes.
5:19:38 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners
Association, expressed support for the appointee, and stated her
belief that Mr. Jensen's goal is to do what is best for the
state fishery resources. Further, she said he understands the
issues, the user groups, is respected by the public, and puts
science at the forefront when making decisions.
5:21:30 PM
ROBIN SAMUELSON, Fisherman, stated opposition to the appointee
and said that Mr. Jensen has done a marvelous job sustaining the
resources, but maintained that support for the coastal
communities of Alaska has not been a priority. He reported
that, as a board member, Mr. Jensen voted against every
recommendation from the local advisory committees and local
fishermen.
5:22:43 PM
GERALD McCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA),
stated support for the appointee, and said Mr. Jensen has
extensive experience from previous service on the board.
Further, he stated his belief that Mr. Jensen has a full
understanding of the issues.
5:23:30 PM
RICK GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), stated support for the appointee. He opined
that Mr. Jensen is experienced, courteous, thorough in his
deliberations, and has been around the state three times, as a
board member and gained a working knowledge of the issues.
5:24:26 PM
STEVE BROWN, President, Concerned Area "M" Fishermen, testified
in favor of the three BOF appointees. Specifically he reported:
that Sue Jeffrey has support from the central Gulf of Alaska
(GOA) area fishermen, echoed the comments of support for John
Jensen as an approachable, knowledgeable, experienced board
member, who gives appropriate consideration to decisions, and
said that Dr. William Brown, is a board member who brings a
unique, valuable, background in economy.
5:27:12 PM
REUBEN HANKE, stated support for the appointee, and said Mr.
Jensen has served the board well for the last nine years, and,
having commercially fished many areas of the state, brings a
wealth of firsthand knowledge.
5:27:55 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chairman, Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
stated support for the appointee, and said he is valuable,
qualified, and willing to explain any issues.
CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
5:29:05 PM
DR. WILLIAM S. "BILL" BROWN, PhD, Appointee, Alaska Board of
Fisheries (BOF), introduced himself paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I have served on the Board of Fish for one three year
term. The main reason I would like to be confirmed
for a second term is the same reason I applied in the
first place: I want to help preserve our fishery
resources for our children, grandchildren, and their
children. Managed correctly, our fish will last
forever; but only if managed correctly.
I think I bring two things to the Board of Fish.
First, my degree in economics - I hold a doctorate in
economics and spent over 20 years teaching college
before I retired in 2000 - provided training in
statistical methods, population dynamics, and the
economic rationale for fishery regulation. My
background in statistics proved especially valuable in
my first term on the Board because it enabled me to
understand and analyze the models used to estimate
optimal sustained yield and other key parameters
important in designing regulations. Second, my
training in economics also helps me understand and
calculate the economic impact of various fisheries
around the state. Biology matters and social issues
matter. But so does economic impact.
My first term on the Board was not uneventful, not by
a long shot. I didn't have a clue as to how much work
was involved; for example, we had 8,000 pages of
reading material for the Upper Cook Inlet meeting.
And as a member of the Board, I had to make tough
decisions, many of which were unpopular in some
circles. And while few were bashful in telling me
just how much they disliked a particular decision, I
know that my votes were the product of logic and
careful consideration. I take the Board seriously, I
recognized the importance, and I want to improve our
fisheries.
5:31:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN repeated the question he posed to the
previous candidate, asking whether the appointee has a priority
in mind, regarding sustainability of the resources, when
considering subsistence/personal use, sport, and commercial
fisheries.
DR. BROWN said he agreed with the response of the previous
appointee and said it would be hard to improve on Mr. Jensen's
answer; sustainability is by far the most important issue.
However, if any fish can be harvested, subsistence is the
priority, followed by a review of the allocation criteria to
reach a fair distribution among the other user groups.
5:32:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether Dr. Brown serves on the
protocol committee of the NPFMC, and queried whether the BOF
should be interactive in making recommendations regarding
sustainability and the by-catch issues, not only regarding
salmon, but halibut as well.
DR. BROWN answered that he does not sit on the protocol
committee. However, he opined that the board should be more
interactive, and noted that letters have been written. He said
that letters are nice, but it would be good if the BOF had more
authority. When the council makes decisions regarding the
halibut catch, it affects fisheries which the BOF are
responsible for, such as the ancient rock fish, which will now
become a target as the halibut charter fleet refocuses fishing
effort. He said, "So far, we're sort of the tail behind the
whole process."
5:34:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to Dr. Brown's statement that the
BOF should have an effect on the council, and asked how that
might be accomplished.
DR. BROWN said the Chinook salmon by-catch needs to be
dramatically reduced, salmon excluders should be included
throughout the trawl fleet, and hard caps need to be instituted
to close primary fisheries when bi-catch occurs. Chinook salmon
runs are in peril throughout the state, he opined, and the BOF
has attempted a variety of measures to improve the Yukon River
Chinook run, to no avail. The NPFMC needs to be more serious
about stopping the by-catch.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for an opinion on whether the BOF
needs to improve its relationship with Alaska subsistence users.
DR. BROWN stated that there is a set of criteria to follow, and
that subsistence is taken seriously. A new member on the board,
Michael Smith, is a subsistence advocate, bringing a better
understanding to the members. Relations with all constituents
should be improved, he opined.
5:37:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for an example of how Dr. Brown's
background in economics has helped with his service on the BOF.
DR. BROWN indicated that mathematical models on optimal yield
studies are used and he has been able to identify errors due to
his background in economics. Additionally, he gave an example
of his help in establishing the black cod fishery, in the
southeast region. He said he was a leading force to place a
sport limit on the fishery. Black cod is a high value catch,
and the board received resistance, but the data analysis for the
economic value of the catch share has proven valuable in
decisions regarding the fishery.
CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony
5:41:18 PM
RICK GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), stated support for the appointee and said
Dr. Brown's background in economics has been valuable given the
statistical models that the BOF relies upon.
5:43:00 PM
REUBEN HANKE, stated support for the appointee, echoed the
comments of the previous witness, and added that Dr. Brown comes
to the meetings well prepared, understands the statistical
models, and helps others to understand the numbers.
5:43:56 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chairman, Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
stated support for the appointee, and said Dr. Brown is
approachable, runs an effective committee, and understands the
statistics.
5:45:05 PM
ROBIN SAMUELSON, Fisherman, stated opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. Brown, and said that when five advisory
committees are met with opposition by the board, something is
wrong.
CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
5:46:50 PM
KARL JOHNSTONE, Vice Chair, Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF),
testified in favor of the three BOF appointees, and said
specifically that John Jensen's experience is valuable to the
board, and Dr. William Brown has benefited the board
particularly due to his background in economics.
5:49:05 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON reminded members that signing the reports,
regarding appointments to boards and commissions, in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection. There being no
objection, Chair Thompson announced that the names of Susan
Jeffrey, John Jensen, and Dr. William Brown would be forwarded
to the joint session of the House and Senate for confirmation.
The committee took an at-ease at 5:49 p.m.
HB 85-MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
5:49:56 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act requiring the Department of
Environmental Conservation to collect and make available to the
public certain information relating to water pollution;
prohibiting certain mixing zones in freshwater spawning waters;
and requiring a public comment period for certain sewage system
or treatment works modifications."
5:52:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 85, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
A water discharge permit is a privilege to use our
public water. Alaska waters receive varying amounts
of pollution under the parameters of discharge permits
as specified by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. Mixing zones are areas permitted in a
water body surrounding or downstream of a discharge
where state water quality standards may be exceeded
while the effluent plume is diluted by the receiving
water.
Current regulations allow freshwater spawning areas to
be designated as mixing zones if salmon are not
actively spawning (laying eggs) at the time of
wastewater discharge and allows a mixing zone in the
area even while other species are laying eggs. HB 85
would change that regulation to prevent discharge of
pollutants into any freshwater spawning area of the
species identified on the statutory list if they spawn
in nests.
HB 85 is also a public right-to-know bill. It seeks
to create accountability by allowing the public to
have clear and easy access to information regarding
the amount and nature of pollutants that are
discharged under permit into Alaska water.
HB 85 allows the public to be involved if a commercial
sewage lagoon is expanded by more than 50 percent of
its originally permitted size. Current law doesn't
adequately provide opportunity for public awareness
and involvement in a comment process for the expansion
of commercial sewage containment facilities.
5:57:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON queried whether HB 85 will, or may,
grandfather in existing waste water facilities that have mixing
zones, such as an unpermitted village wastewater mixing zone.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that existing facilities will be
grandfathered in.
5:58:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER questioned whether statute exists
regarding what constitutes water pollution, or if HB 85
establishes a definition.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the water quality standards,
established by the state, are used for determining amounts and
levels of discharges that can be permitted. He noted that the
bill specifies exceptions for streambed disturbance, water
turbidity, and private sewage systems. The mixing zone permit
designates discharge concentrations and identifies the areas of
a discharge plume where water quality standards must be met.
5:59:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled a situation where a permitted
discharge was allowed into a stream that did not initially host
a salmon run but later became a spawning area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged that this concern arose when
a manmade wastewater canal, in Valdez, had a pink salmon run
establish a spawning area, jeopardizing the facilities ability
to continue discharging, under an early version of the bill.
However, HB 85 addresses freshwater discharges only, and exempts
artificial channels, or settling ponds invaded by a listed
spawning species.
6:01:58 PM
LYNN KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated official opposition to
HB 85, and said the bill goes beyond what is necessary to
protect fish. She directed attention to the committee packet
and the written testimony provided by DEC [dated March 29,
2011].
6:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the DEC testimony, page 2,
paragraph 2, and read:
While these protections are not necessary from a
scientific perspective ...
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON surmised and asked:
It's not scientifically necessary to protect
anadromous salmon spawning streams from mixing zones.
So, what is your scientific evidence that supports
this statement.
6:03:30 PM
MS. KENT answered:
You don't need a flat out prohibition on mixing zones
in spawning areas for any fish, including salmon,
although DEC regulations do prohibit mixing zones in
salmon spawning areas. We say that because there are
certain contaminants that don't have a negative effect
on fish; fecal coliform is a good example of that. ...
A fecal coliform mixing zone ... wouldn't have any
impact on salmon or spawning salmon. ... We did, in
our DEC regulation revisions for mixing zones, go
ahead and retain the prohibition on mixing zones for
salmon spawning areas more for the public perception
issue than because there was a risk to salmon from
authorized mixing zones.
6:04:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER directed attention to the DEC written
testimony, page 1, and read:
Some pollutants cannot be reported in terms of
"amount", such as fecal coliform, radioactivity, and
turbidity.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked how these pollutants are measured.
MS. KENT responded that the water quality standards are usually
based on a concentration of contaminant in the water body. It
is not the measure of discharge, but the resultant
concentration, which is considered. The water quality standards
are based on micrograms per liter often referred to as parts per
million or trillion.
6:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated his understanding that DEC
prefers internal regulation to statutory law to govern this
issue.
MS. KENT explained that regulations, adopted in 1975, prohibited
mixing zones in anadromous fish spawning areas. The regulations
were changed in 2006 to allow mixing zones in non-salmon
spawning areas.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN argued that if DEC is already following
the parameters under regulation why would the department object
to having statute reflect the same language.
MS. KENT said that the bill goes beyond what is in current
regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to the DEC written testimony,
statement 5, and asked whether satisfactory, departmental action
has been taken on this point. [Statement 5 reads: HB 85 would
prohibit mixing zones that have become a fish spawning area
unless the discharge was from a public or private domestic
wastewater facility.]
MS. KENT answered yes.
6:09:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the DEC testimony document,
statement 4, which states that it is not necessary to protect
non-salmon species, from mixing zones, because they aren't
economically important. He said:
You don't recognize subsistence [use] as an
economically important activity. And smelt are a
major food/prey species for salmon, and ... help
support healthy salmon stocks. They aren't
economically important from that perspective.
MS. KENT maintained that a flat out prohibition on mixing zones
in non-salmon spawning areas is not necessary. A nineteen part
requirement check list is necessary to obtain a permit, which
considers all of the aquatic life in a stream.
6:11:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN queried whether documented cases exist
regarding domestic or industrialized discharge, which this bill
might help.
MS. KENT said that there are mixing zones that are authorized on
a temporal basis, allowing discharge into a stream as long as
fish are not present, and the bill would restrict these
discharges.
CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony
6:14:18 PM
BRIAN KRAFT, Lodge Owner, stated support for HB 85, and said
visitors expect to fish in unpolluted waters. Because of this
expectation, he said, charter operators are altering the type of
motors used on the river boats to minimize oil discharge. The
waterways should be kept as pristine as possible, as fishery
economics depends on the perception held by the public.
Additionally, there is a continuous cycle that needs to be
supported for the incubation of spawning fish.
6:16:57 PM
BRENDA DOLMA, stated support for HB 85, and said it is important
to protect the water and the perception that Alaskan salmon have
clean rearing conditions; an important image to maintain in
perpetuity.
6:18:55 PM
MICHAEL SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers,
testified in opposition to HB 85, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Council of Alaska Producers is a non-profit trade
association representing the producing large metal
mines and developmental projects in the state of
Alaska.
One of the many challenges of developing communities
and projects within our great state is managing the
impacts that we have on our aquatic resources. Every
community and camp generates some sort of wastewater
and most, if not all, projects have some sort of
process or contact water. If this water is to be
discharged back into the environment, there are very
strict water quality standards that must be met in
order to avoid impacting our surface waters.
Unfortunately, even with the best available treatment
technologies, it is still possible that treated water
may not meet our very stringent standards at the point
of discharge. This is why the State of Alaska, with
authority granted by the Clean Water Act and the EPA,
allows for the permitting of mixing zones in order for
wastewater that is slightly out of compliance to be
diluted into a permittable discharge.
These zones, whether they are in fresh or saltwater,
are permitted through a rigorous scientific process
and are truly a method of last resort to allow
communities and projects to meet water quality
standards.
In freshwater, the requirements for a mixing zone are
even stricter. Most importantly, if a proposed mixing
zone contains a spawning area for any of the five
Pacific Salmon species ... it cannot be permitted!
Mixing zones in freshwater spawning areas of other
fish must:
Meet statewide water quality standards plus other
conditions imposed by ADF&G and DEC.
Have an approved mitigation plan.
Not adversely affect the capability of an area to
support future spawning, incubation and rearing
activities.
Existing mixing zone regulations allow our communities
and our projects to meet our strict water quality
standards and ensure that we can strike a balance
between developing our state and protecting our
environment.
HB85 will disrupt this balance by introducing a
blanket prohibition on allowing mixing zones where any
anadromous fish spawn or where the resident fish redds
are located for the long list of fish species listed
in the proposed AS.46.03.065(2). This lack of
flexibility will place additional, possibly
insurmountable, hindrances on the development of our
state. CAP urges you to not pass the bill out of
committee.
6:24:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the bill only applies to
freshwater, and excludes saltwater zones. Neither does it apply
to turbidity mixing zones, and referred to the bill, page 3,
line 6, to paraphrase from the language, which read:
(c) The prohibition in (a) of this section does not
apply to a turbidity mixing zone for a suction dredge
placer mine or a mechanical placer mine that the
department finds, with the concurrence of the division
of the Department of Fish and Game that has
responsibility for fish habitat, will not adversely
affect the present or future spawning, incubation, or
rearing of fish included under (a) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that mixing zones are allowed,
during spawning times for a list of species, which includes:
Arctic char, Dolly Varden, lake trout, landlocked coho, king,
and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, sheefish and whitefish.
These are important subsistence species in Alaska's inland
waters. He said:
I think that DEC's comments that, "yes we have an
allowance, or grandfathering, for the wastewater
discharge," but they would like the ability to do
industrial pollutants, or industrial discharges that
are above the level on those spawning areas, that's
what I wish to say no to. ... Development should occur
in a way that protects our renewable resources, and
our fish species are important to all Alaskan
residents.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the committee packet
and the chart in the DEC handout titled, "Mixing Zones &
Spawning Areas," to point out that the "old" 2003 regulations
are what the department currently enforces, and align with the
provisions proposed in HB 85. The 2006 regulations have not
been approved by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and
the chart should be read bearing this in mind. He explained
that, since the original adoption in 1975 and through lack of
regulatory or statutory action, interpretation of the term
"spawning area" has changed. The department has written policy
and adopted regulations allowing higher levels of pollution,
based on the reinterpretation. The idea that pollution
discharges will not have future effects on an area where fish
spawn is dubious, he cautioned. He asked the committee to focus
attention on particular discharges, such as copper. The meaning
of concentration and the scope of a mixing zone are also
important to understand. He stressed:
I know DEC says ... "our [regulations] say we're not
going to influence future [conditions]." But unless
we know what those amounts are that are going out
there over time, then we're not going to really be
able to understand what the potential impact is.
That's what this bill is trying to get to: to make
sure that our renewable resources ... are protected.
6:29:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for comment on the testimony
statement that, "No problem has been identified that this bill
is meant to correct."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that it is difficult to determine
to which part of the bill the statement refers. However, he
said, HB 85 corrects the public having no knowledge of what
chemicals are being discharged and concentrating over time in a
particular system, by requiring understandable disclosure.
Also, DEC has allowed a vastly increased sewage lagoon
discharge, in a residential area without public notice or a
right to comment. Thirdly, he said mixing zones in areas of
subsistence fish populations are a problem. He said:
Can I go out and show you a fish kill? I want to
prevent that from ever happening, just like the
regulations were before 2003, that that was not
allowed, and I don't think it should be allowed now.
I think that development should go forward, but we
want responsible development ... done in a way that we
never have those problems where I can come to you and
say, 'Here's a picture of a big fish kill.' We never
want to see that, and that's what this bill is hoping
to accomplish.
6:31:56 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that HB 85 would be held.
6:32:31 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:32
p.m.