03/31/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB3 | |
| HB46 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 31, 2009
10:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 3
"An Act authorizing an Alaska regional development organization
to use the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission as an
informational resource."
- MOVED SB 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"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 AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 3
SHORT TITLE: CFEC AS INFORMATION RESOURCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) CRA, RES
02/05/09 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/09 (S) Moved SB 3 Out of Committee
02/05/09 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/06/09 (S) CRA RPT 3DP 2NR
02/06/09 (S) DP: FRENCH, THOMAS, MENARD
02/06/09 (S) NR: OLSON, KOOKESH
03/02/09 (S) RES AT 4:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/09 (S) Moved SB 3 Out of Committee
03/02/09 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/03/09 (S) RES RPT 5DP
03/03/09 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, WIELECHOWSKI, STEVENS,
STEDMAN, FRENCH
03/18/09 (S) OLSON CHANGED NR TO DP ON 2/6 CRA
REPORT
03/18/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/18/09 (S) VERSION: SB 3
03/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/09 (H) FSH, CRA, FIN
03/31/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) FSH, RES
03/31/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff
Senator Donald Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 3 on behalf of Senator Olson,
prime sponsor.
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, presented HB 46.
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Representative Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 46, answered questions
on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Seaton.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 46.
KIMBROUGH MAUNEY, AmeriCorps Volunteer
Alaska Center for the Environment
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 46.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:19:50 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:19 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, Keller, Munoz, and Buch were present at the
call to order. Representative Millet arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
SB 3-CFEC AS INFORMATION RESOURCE
10:20:05 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 3, "An Act authorizing an Alaska regional
development organization to use the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission as an informational resource."
10:20:59 AM
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff, Senator Donald Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Senator Olson, prime sponsor,
explained that SB 3 would simply allow the Alaska Regional
Development Organizations (ARDORs) to obtain public information
from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) at no
cost. This public information won't include any confidential
information. The objective of SB 3 is to help with the ARDORs
modest budget. He noted that the CFEC supports SB 3 and has
characterized the loss of revenue as minor and of no concern.
He then pointed out that the legislation has a zero fiscal note
and no known opposition at this point.
10:22:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to which ARDORs qualify for
SB 3.
MR. BENINTENDI answered that there are about 18-20 ARDORs that
would qualify, of which 8 are heavily involved in the seafood
industry and more likely the target of this legislation. The
legislation would help in terms of planning and anticipating
economic trends. However, he specified that all 18-20 ARDORs
could take advantage of what's proposed in SB 3.
10:23:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if this legislation would apply to
the Fairbanks Economic Development Council, the Juneau Economic
Development Council, as well as some of the rural
[organizations].
MR. BENINTENDI replied yes.
10:23:19 AM
CHAIR EDGMON inquired as to why this service, which he
anticipated is already being provided to the ARDORs, needs to be
specified in statute.
MR. BENINTENDI related his understanding that the CFEC is
currently providing this free service, although not universally.
However, agencies are mandated to charge for certain services,
such as public documents. The desire with the legislation, he
explained, is to ensure that everything is being done "by the
book" and thus the matter needs to be addressed in statute
rather than regulation.
10:24:14 AM
CHAIR EDGMON disclosed that he and Mr. Benintendi were staffers
when the legislation creating the ARDORs was passed in 1992.
The ARDORs have always received a small amount of funds, about
$50,000, from the state. Although this legislation doesn't
represent a significant amount of revenue for some of the
ARDORs, for the smaller ARDORs this legislation will likely have
a meaningful impact.
10:25:08 AM
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated support for SB
3, which he said isn't a significant revenue loss. He
reiterated Mr. Benintendi's assurance that no confidential
information will be disclosed based on the passage of SB 3. The
CFEC, even with the passage of SB 3, will still fall under AS
16.05.815 and thus individual information from fish tickets will
continue to be held confidential. Basically, SB 3 removes the
charge for the data preparation. He noted that he, too, was a
legislative staffer when the ARDORs were created. Of the at
least a dozen ARDORs, about eight are considered coastal areas.
10:27:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH requested examples of the kinds of requests
the CFEC receives beyond those that are data.
MR. HOMAN informed the committee that generally the type of
information requested has to do with regional fish catch levels,
participation, and other specific data. In further response to
Representative Buch, Mr. Homan said that the CFEC maintains an
extensive web site that has information for every community in
which a fish is landed. A bit more effort is required to narrow
the information to regions.
10:29:03 AM
CHAIR EDGMON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
10:29:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report SB 3 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
10:30:07 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:30 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.
HB 46-MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
10:33:56 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "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."
10:34:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the prime sponsor of HB 46, informed the committee that for
many years there has been a prohibition against having a
pollution mixing zone in a spawning area. A spawning area, he
explained, is an area in which anadromous fish or redds exist.
A redd is a nest. The previous prohibition didn't apply to
broadcast spawners and that would remain in HB 46. Most of the
freshwater fish, subsistence reliance fish, and salmon species
reproduce using redds. He noted that under a previous
administration ADF&G changed the definition of "spawning area"
from an area and a place to a place and a time. Therefore,
there was the notion of a temporal spawning area, such that so
long as the fish weren't laying eggs at the time the area wasn't
considered a spawning area. The aforementioned is problematic
due to the delicateness of the eggs. This legislation attempts
to reestablish the protection that existed prior to Governor
Murkowski's Administration. Therefore, mixing zones in a
spawning area wouldn't be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that a mixing zone is an area in
a water body that's allowed to be polluted to a level above the
state water quality limits. He noted that a mixing zone permit
has to be obtained from the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). The permit specifies the size of the area
in the fresh water body where the water quality standards can be
exceeded. The measurement of the standards occurs at the
outside of the [discharge] area. He noted that some zones are a
mile long from the point of discharge to the point at which the
concentration is measured. At this point, the public doesn't
have a way of translating the concentration reported to DEC in
terms of how much of each contaminant is being dumped in a year.
Therefore, HB 46 would require new or renewed permits to report
the estimated amount of contaminant as well as the already
required reporting of the concentration and the volume.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that HB 46 requires a public
comment period when the size of a sewage treatment facility is
expanded by 50 percent or greater. He pointed out that the
committee packet includes documentation of a situation in which
there was a sewage disposal area that grew from 1,500 gallons
per day to 6,000 gallons per day 20 years later. In this case,
the residents weren't allowed to comment on this administrative
change to the permit. Therefore, HB 46 protects the public when
expansion is greater than 50 percent by providing for a public
comment period. This legislation, he opined, is consumer
protection legislation.
10:42:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then informed the committee of a proposed
amendment that would insert the language "commercially operated"
on page 3, line 24, following the language "for a". The
aforementioned change clarifies that the sewage treatment
facility is commercially operated. He characterized the
aforementioned as a drafting error. With regard to the fiscal
note, Representative Seaton explained that the legislation was
drafted so that it wouldn't have to apply to all the permits in
existence. Therefore, the fiscal note is somewhat confusing.
He clarified that no existing permits will have to apply until
the permit has to be reissued or modified, at which point the
permittee would be provided the instructions regarding what is
required to be reported. He presumed that DEC would utilize a
spreadsheet with the calculations, which could be easily posted
on the department's web site. This isn't something that will
have to be supervised, he further clarified.
10:45:50 AM
CHAIR EDGMON noted that the committee packet includes some
conceptual amendments that the committee will address at the
next hearing on SB 46.
10:46:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that one of the amendments provides
a definition of the language "useful life" in order to be clear
as to the specific statutory reference to "useful life" that
would be used. The specific definition of "useful life" is as
follows: "the anticipated time in which a facility can continue
to be operated without replacement or major renovation."
10:46:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if DEC or ADF&G reviews the area
for spawning grounds prior to issuing or granting a permit
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that the department has a
registry for anadromous fish. Furthermore, [ADF&G] is consulted
when there's a mixing zone permit in order to review the area or
require the permittee to provide certain information regarding
what is present in the area.
10:48:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if the registry is upgraded as
requirements change.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied yes, the anadromous registry is
updated as reports are submitted. He related his understanding
that there isn't an all-Alaska survey every year, but the
anadromous stream designations are updated. This legislation,
he clarified, only addresses fresh water, not marine water.
Furthermore, HB 46 specifies that artificially constructed ponds
or channels that are later invaded by fish species cannot be
declared a spawning area. He posed an example in which a fish
species invades the settling pond of a mine as one in which the
aforementioned would apply.
10:50:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that currently
mixing zones have been issued for seafood processing, placer
mines, oil and gas related facilities, large mines, fertilizer
plants, et cetera. She inquired as to how many business or
municipal entities will be affected by HB 46.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that HB 46 includes a
grandfather clause, and therefore any area that was invaded
after the permit would be classified as an artificially
constructed pond or channel. Therefore, such areas wouldn't be
classified as a spawning area. He highlighted that fish do move
around. He noted that another proposed amendment to page 3,
line 5, would insert the following language: ", or for an area
where spawning was ongoing at the time of initial authorization,
if that authorization occurred more than five years prior to the
effective date of the bill." The aforementioned addresses those
village wastewater facilities that weren't permitted or
authorized.
10:52:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to how many businesses or
municipal entities will be impacted.
10:53:09 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, related his understanding that the existing DEC
regulations for the spawning area allowance haven't yet been
certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Therefore, there would be no businesses impacted by the changes
proposed in HB 46 because no mixing zone permits in spawning
areas have been granted. He noted that the committee packet
includes a list of the authorized mixing zones in 2006. A
number of those listed are for salt water and this legislation
only addresses fresh water.
10:54:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the legislation returns
the mixing zone language that was in place prior to the
Murkowski Administration. He emphasized that every mine in the
state was permitted under the conditions in place prior to the
Murkowski Administration, save the POGO Mine. The question, he
stated, is whether to have criteria to protect the state's
renewable resources. The bill contains no language that will
prevent any operation from being permitted, if the operation
meets the state's water quality standards. The only time a
mixing zone is required is when the discharge into the stream
doesn't meet the state's water quality standards. The question
then is how far downstream will the area of water that doesn't
meet the state's water quality standards be located, he noted.
10:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to how the fish processing
facilities on the Nushagak River, a major spawning area, would
be impacted by HB 46.
CHAIR EDGMON clarified that the seafood processing facilities
are located in the salt water portion of the river, and HB 46
only addresses fresh water.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that HB 46 only addresses
spawning areas, not migration routes. He reminded the committee
that there was a certified initiative that had language similar
to that in HB 46 except that the definition of "spawning area"
referred to anywhere that fish spawned, reared, or migrated
through. That initiative wasn't forwarded, he noted. The
initiative would've resulted in no mixing zones in any of the
waters in the state.
10:58:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to how many mixing zones
currently exist in spawning waters.
MR. FLORA recalled that he has information regarding placer
mines that were authorized with timing restrictions in spawning
areas. Although he offered to provide that information to the
committee, he suggested that perhaps it would be more
appropriate for the department to update its materials. He
noted that currently 59 placer mines are operating under a
general permit, with site specific fresh water mixing zones.
Whether those are authorized for spawning areas would have to be
detailed by the department. He mentioned that HB 46 does
include a blanket exemption for placer mine turbidity mixing
zones, which has been a bone of contention for previous versions
of the legislation. Therefore, the sponsor wanted to "take that
off the table" and protect all the mom and pop businesses and
the placer mines in order to allow a turbidity mixing zone so
long as DEC approves such, in consultation with ADF&G.
11:00:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised then that placer mines are
exempt, and therefore the sponsor must trust that DEC can
recognize a spawning area for placer mines.
MR. FLORA clarified that's the case for turbidity mixing zones.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that often in placer mine
operations, turbidity has been used as a replacement for
arsenic. This turbidity would be from stirring the water, not
putting anything in the water, he clarified. This legislation
exempts the turbidity requirement. However, if ADF&G and DEC
find that there is a placer mine that will put out enough silt
that it will bury a spawning ground, ADF&G would object to the
permit. Although there are turbidity zones that are 1.5 miles
in length, settling ponds are often used rather than turbidity
zones. The intention, he specified, is to protect, on an
ongoing basis, the environment that is necessary for the state's
sustainable resources without placing unreasonable restrictions
on the mining industry.
11:03:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether current statutes don't
protect spawning beds. She also asked whether DEC is currently
accomplishing levels of sustainability with the state's spawning
areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that to date the EPA hasn't
implemented the regulations allowing DEC to grant pollution
mixing zones in spawning areas. This legislation is a proactive
step to reestablish the language that existed [prior to the
Murkowski Administration] when all of the large mines were
operating. He opined that it's important for the legislature to
take a stance on the best means for allowing mixing zones in
relation to spawning areas.
11:06:03 AM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, began by relating that the division
is a bit confused regarding the reasons for HB 46 or the
problems it intends to solve. She related that the division
isn't aware of any water quality damage or concerns with the
existing policy or with DEC's existing water quality
regulations. Currently, a very rigorous permitting program is
in place, a program that includes water quality monitoring and
reporting. In fact, many provisions in HB 46 seem to duplicate
already existing protections. For example, regulations already
prohibit mixing zones in anadromous salmon spawning areas. The
aforementioned is a special protection that has been DEC's
regulations since 1975. Furthermore, the requirement in Section
3 of HB 46 for public notice of specific permit modifications of
domestic wastewater discharges duplicates existing state law and
regulation in AS 46.03.110 and 18 AAC 15 respectively. The
aforementioned laws already require public notice for permits as
well as for any significant permit modifications. Moreover,
existing law applies to all permitted facilities not just
domestic wastewater and sewage facilities.
MS. KENT then opined:
In our view, the details of protecting water quality
really ought to be left to the agencies where we can
look at very site specific issues, the conditions
associated with a discharge and the water body where
we can consult with the biologists at Fish & Game and
make those decisions based on sound science. We
already have a duty under state statute to set and
enforce standards for prevention of pollution and for
protection of Alaska's environment, including water
quality. The legislature has directed us, in past
statutes, under AS 46.03.070: ... "to determine what
qualities and properties of water indicate a polluted
condition, actually or potentially deleterious,
harmful, detrimental, or injurious to aquatic life or
their growth and propagation." We think it's entirely
appropriate that the legislature hold us accountable
for setting and enforcing standards for water quality.
However, HB 46 seems to delve into some very specific
types of facilities, very specific permittee
monitoring and reporting requirements, and even into
specific contaminants. Finally, we don't believe that
the new data collection and reporting requirements
that the bill places on permittees really provides
important value. The bill requires permittees to
collect new data, including the amount of pollutant
and to submit a new annual report to the department.
By way of background, for most pollutants our water
quality standards, which are set in regulation, are
based on a concentration of the pollutant that can be
present in the water body without having an adverse
impact on fish or other aquatic life. The wastewater
discharge permit limits, in the permits that we issue,
are also generally expressive of the concentration of
the pollutant in the district. And that data is
already required to be collected by the permittee,
reported to DEC, and is available to the public. And
this is very important because it's the concentration
of the contaminant in the water body that has the
potential effect on fish or other aquatic life; it's
really not the pounds or the amount of a pollutant
discharge. So, we are thinking that this new
permitting requirement for reporting on amount of
pollution doesn't provide valuable information to the
public because it can't be compared with any
regulatory standards. And it really can't be used to
determine if there's any impact or potential impact on
aquatic life.
MS. KENT then turned to the fiscal note and opined that there is
a fiscal impact associated with HB 46. The DEC will need to
revise its regulations to implement the new permittee reporting
requirements, upgrade the permit data system, and produce on an
ongoing basis a new annual report to be posted on the web.
11:11:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that for many
years there were provisions that didn't allow a mixing zone in a
spawning area. In fact, he further related his understanding
that the aforementioned statutory language was the framework
under which most mining operations and municipal wastewater
operations were permitted.
MS. KENT confirmed that DEC's old and existing regulations
prohibit mixing zones in salmon spawning areas, with one
exception. She explained that the exception is one in which a
facility with a permitted discharge that's invaded by a spawning
area can retain its authorized mixing zone so long as it meets
all the other permit conditions for mixing zones. The old and
existing DEC regulations continue to prohibit mixing zones in
spawning areas for other listed fish, the same fish that are
listed in HB 46. However, the following exceptions exist: a
mixing zone that is authorized when no fish spawn in the area
but do so later and if the discharged substance doesn't impact
aquatic life.
11:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the language in HB 46 regarding
mixing zones in resident spawning areas is the language that
existed prior to the Murkowski Administration
MS. KENT responded that the language is similar; however, HB 46
defines spawning area in a manner that's very different from the
long-standing practice by the Division of Habitat. The division
has defined spawning areas to include a temporal aspect, and
therefore ADF&G considers when spawning is occurring when it
evaluates projects that might impact a water body. The
aforementioned is considered in order to determine whether a
mixing zone permit could be authorized in those areas where
there is intermittent discharge by having permit restrictions
that avoid spawning areas and times and have no impact on
present or future spawning. In fact, under the old regulations
permits for mixing zones have been authorized with timing
restrictions that avoid spawning times and impacts to spawning,
incubation, and rearing.
11:15:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the issue of the public
process and public notice. He directed attention to an October
23, 2007, e-mail to Louie Flora from Renee Evans. Ms. Evans
says, "The public process occurs at the time the State permit is
first issued. A public notice is not required to
administratively continue a permit or to renew or amend the
permit. The process for renewing a permit is found in
regulation at 18 AAC 15.100." He then pointed out that 18 AAC
15.100 (d) says, "An application for a renewal of a permit, or
amendment to a permit or variance, will be treated in the same
manner as the initial application, except that public notice or
hearing will not be provided for applications for renewal or
amendment." Representative Seaton asked if Ms. Kent is saying
that the department is no longer operating under those
regulations.
MS. KENT directed attention to 18 AAC 15.100 (c), which in part
read: "A permit or variance authorizes only that operation
specified in the permit or variance. Any expansion,
modification, or other change in a facility process or operation
which might result in an increase in emissions or discharges, or
might cause other detrimental environmental impacts from the
permittee's facility, requires a new permit or variance." That
new permit would have to go through a new public process per 18
AAC 15.100(d).
11:17:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he finds that interesting
because he has shared with DEC the problems that have resulted
in the expansion of DEC's permit, such as with the [Homer Honey
Bear Septage Disposal Facility]. Furthermore, the
aforementioned e-mail specifies that there won't be a hearing on
the application for renewal or amendment, citing 18 AAC
15.100(d).
MS. KENT said that although she isn't familiar with the
particulars of the [Homer Honey Bear Septage Disposal Facility],
it is possible that a facility has increased its discharge
volume under a general permit and DEC didn't make it to public
notice on the renewal of that permit. However, generally if
there is a significant change in the discharge, that permit
would go out to public review when the permit is reissued.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that in this case there have been
public objections due to the expansion of the facility without
public notice. Therefore, there was the need for statute to
address the public notice.
MS. KENT remarked that Representative Seaton may be referring to
a situation in which the general permit has an upper limit on
the amount of discharge and a facility that is covered under the
general permit with a smaller discharge subsequently increases
its volume, but remains within the limits of the general permit.
The aforementioned situation could result in the facility
increasing its discharge, remaining covered under the same
permit conditions, and not having a separate public notice
during the life of the general permit. However, once the
general permit is renewed, public comment would be taken. She
noted that [general permits] are under a five-year rotation
basis.
11:21:01 AM
CHAIR EDGMON inquired as to the normal circumstances for
development when DEC authorizes a mixing zone permit [with the
temporal aspect]. He asked if the development would be a placer
mine or Title 16 activity.
MS. KENT explained that when a facility applies for a permit,
the permittee is required to report whether they believe their
discharge may be in a spawning area. The permittee's claim is
not all that's relied upon, she noted. If there's a chance that
the discharge will be into a fresh water spawning area, the
application and permit information are provided to ADF&G for
input. The practice of DEC is to have the Division of Habitat
biologist review whether or not the area is a spawning area and
provide times when the area is a spawning, incubation, or
rearing area. Therefore, if the discharge can be made
intermittently to avoid spawning, incubation, and rearing, the
facility may still be permitted under current law. If there is
not a window of opportunity during which the discharge could
avoid impacts to spawning or future spawning, then the permit is
denied.
11:23:24 AM
CHAIR EDGMON related his understanding that all of the major
mines, save the POGO mine, were permitted under the language
proposed in HB 46. Therefore, he questioned what type of
development would occur today that would allow mixing zones to
occur in spawning areas.
MS. KENT answered that placer mines is development for which
timing restrictions have been utilized to avoid spawning. The
state also has sewage lagoons throughout the state that retain
the water and have an occasional discharge, which are often
timed to avoid impacts to spawning. There are also drinking
water systems with filter backwash that allow discharges at
times when there wouldn't be an impact to spawning. She noted
that the mines have been permitted largely because they
discharge in areas that aren't spawning areas.
11:24:51 AM
CHAIR EDGMON inquired as to the occurrence level of issuing
permits for mixing zones in spawning areas.
MS. KENT noted that DEC's data base doesn't have a field to
allow a mixing zone search. However, a review of the database
in 2006 found that there are about 450 mixing zones authorized
in the state. Many of those mixing zones are in marine waters,
which HB 46 would not impact. The facilities with mixing zone
permits include oil and gas, seafood processing, mining,
construction, and timber facilities. In further response to
Chair Edgmon, Ms. Kent specified that there are no [commercial]
wastewater discharge permits at the Pebble Mine at this point as
the mine is still in the exploration phase.
11:26:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH requested a report regarding the process
with the [Homer Honey Bear Septage Disposal Facility].
MS. KENT agreed to do so.
11:27:39 AM
KIMBROUGH MAUNEY, AmeriCorps Volunteer, Alaska Center for the
Environment, spoke in favor of HB 46. She then opined that
agencies need to be strict and serious about protecting spawning
grounds and fresh water habitats. This pro active legislation
will help secure the state's future fish populations. Ms.
Mauney opined that factoring in time of spawning seems dangerous
due to climate changes that can alter life cycle patterns.
Furthermore, the agencies seem to need clarity on defining
spawning grounds and their location, which HB 46 appears to
address. Recalling her work on a small cruising vessel in
Southeast Alaska in the summer and noting that she holds a
degree in oceanography, Ms. Mauney said that tourists recognize
the fragility of contaminants to the flora and fauna along fresh
water streams. In response to the earlier question regarding
how many businesses would be impacted, she said that it doesn't
matter because it would be all the better for businesses to pay
more attention to their discharge and perhaps develop more
innovative ways to address discharge. In conclusion, Ms. Mauney
encouraged the committee to protect fish, spawning grounds, and
migration routes whenever possible in order to maintain a stable
and prosperous fish population.
11:31:05 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that public testimony would be kept open
and HB 46 would be held over.
11:31:39 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:31
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CurrentlyAuthorizedMixingZones.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| DEC2006QandA.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB46--DECGeneralPermit.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB46--PermitRenewAmendRegs.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| SB3--3.31.09Packet.PDF |
HCRA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM |
SB 3 |
| HB46--2007TestimonyDEC.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB46--SponsorStatementandSectional.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB46--HoneyBearCorrespondence.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB46--List of Past Supporters.PDF |
HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM HFSH 1/28/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |