02/27/2018 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB386 | |
| HB272 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 27, 2018
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative David Eastman
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Mike Chenault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Justin Parish
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 386
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels; relating to
the registration of vessels; relating to certificates of title
for vessels; relating to the duties of the Department of
Administration; relating to the duties of the Department of
Natural Resources; establishing the derelict vessel prevention
program; establishing the derelict vessel prevention program
fund; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act establishing the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 272 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to electronic possession of certain licenses,
tags, and identification cards issued by the Department of Fish
and Game; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 260 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to commercial fishing entry permits;
establishing regional fisheries trusts and fisheries trust
regions; relating to commercial fishing entry permits held and
leased by a regional fisheries trust; relating to the duties of
the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 188(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 386
SHORT TITLE: VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) FSH, FIN
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 272
SHORT TITLE: TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/12/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) FSH, RES
02/13/18 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: FISH & GAME LICENSES;ELECTRONIC FORM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
01/08/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/20/18 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/20/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: CFEC: BD. SALARY;STAFF CLASSIFIED SERVICE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/17 (H) FSH, FIN
05/02/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/22/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/22/18 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/27/18>
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: COMM. FISH. ENTRY PERMITS; LOANS; TRUSTS
SPONSOR(s): KREISS-TOMKINS
03/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/17 (H) FSH, L&C
04/13/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/13/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/20/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/20/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/25/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/25/18 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
01/25/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/30/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
01/30/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/20/18 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/20/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 386.
PATRICIA-NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN, Staff
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 386, on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Paul Seaton.
RACHEL LORD, Executive Secretary
Alaska Association of Harbormasters & Port Administrators
(AAHPA)
Homer, Alaska (AAHPA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions on HB 386.
KRIS HESS, Chief of Operations
Central Office; Division of Mining, Land and Water (DML&W)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 386.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, testified on HB 272.
CARL PORTMAN, Deputy Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 272.
BARRY WHITEHILL, Board Member
Alaska Chapter
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (AKBHA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272.
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
JOEL ELROD
Greater Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce (GCVCC)
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
JOE MEEHAN, Coordinator
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 272.
KIM SKIPPER, Staff
Representative Dan Saddler
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the prime sponsor of
HB 260, Representative Dan Saddler.
MORGAN FOSS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 260.
MATT GRUENING, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes to the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 231, Version D.
MINTA MONTALBO, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and presented the
section-by-section analysis of HB 231.
FATE PUTMAN, Commissioner designee; Chairman
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 231.
REID MAGDANZ, Staff
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes in the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 188, Version L.
BEN STEVENS, Director
Hunting and Fishing Task Force
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 188
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President; General Counsel
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HB 188.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:33 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives
Stutes, Neuman, Kreiss-Tomkins, Tarr, and Eastman were present
at the call to order. Representative Edgmon and Chenault
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 386-VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
10:04:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 386, "An Act relating to abandoned and derelict
vessels; relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the duties of the
Department of Administration; relating to the duties of the
Department of Natural Resources; establishing the derelict
vessel prevention program; establishing the derelict vessel
prevention program fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:05:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, said that
derelict vessels have long been a problem that costs the state
and municipalities significant money and heartache. He
previously introduced a derelict vessel bill in 2013, House Bill
131, to try to make a better system. Previously, the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) had the sole responsibility for
cleaning up, yet the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities had responsibility for some communities so
interagency problems occurred. He referred to the PowerPoint
presentation and to slide 3 titled "A Guy Walks into a Bar,"
which depicts a photo of two vessels that tried to come into the
Homer harbor but were turned away. Once the vessels were turned
away, they were anchored up across the bay from the Homer Spit.
During the winter, the bilge pumps failed, the vessels sank, and
an oil spill leaked into the cove. The previous bill required
that operators turned away from harbors could not store the
vessels for over 14 days without removing all the hazardous
materials. He recalled the derelict vessels just mentioned cost
the state $360,000 to remedy, including haul out and storage.
10:08:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the harbormasters and statewide
task force meetings hashed out the derelict vessel issue; that
HB 386 requires accountability such as title information, which
would be like the title registration for vehicles under the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The purpose would be to deter
derelict vessels from coming to Alaska.
10:10:15 AM
PATRICIA NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that Rachel Lord would
present a PowerPoint.
10:11:13 AM
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN said that the State of Alaska was home to
aging vessels that are moored or deposited in Alaska harbors,
shorelines and in State tidelands. Many of these vessels have
fallen into ill repair, leading to their abandonment in the
waters of Alaska. The State of Alaska, its municipalities and
ultimately Alaska citizens will be accountable for these
derelict and abandoned vessels without legislative action.
Alaska waters are home to over 9,400 vessels. By 2025, the
Alaska fleet will include roughly 3,100 vessels more than 45
years old. In addition, there are approximately 68,000 boats
registered in the state.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN stated that current state regulations for
disposal and cleanup of these aging vessels contain "no teeth".
The state does not have a change of ownership tracking system
for vessels. Derelict vessels present navigation and
environmental hazards and disposal of derelict vessels falls to
the state or local municipalities without the financial means to
recover costs.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN stated that HB 386 would provide a process
through the Department of Administration (DOA) and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to stanch the accumulation
of derelict and abandoned vessels in Alaska. It would initiate
ownership tracking of a vessel that was like the process used
for motor vehicles through the DOA. It would require a title
for nondocumented vessels and expand the registration process.
It would update and increase fines upon conviction of unlawful
abandonment of a vessel. It would provide a nominal increase in
state registration fees and would create a requirement and fee
for state vessel titles.
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN related that the DNR would establish and
administer a derelict vessel prevention program. It would
outline a process for abatement of a derelict vessel while
balancing the public's rights with those of a vessel owner. It
would update and increase fines upon conviction of unlawful
abandonment of a vessel and provide due process to a vessel
owner with notices and hearings prior to impoundment or
disposal. She closed by stating that HB 386 would take an
important step toward responsible vessel ownership to address
the current and future derelict vessel issues in Alaska.
10:14:17 AM
RACHEL LORD, Executive Secretary, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters & Port Administrators (AAHPA), stated that the
AAHPA consisted of 250 members who represent most of the ports
and harbors throughout Alaska. She began a PowerPoint
presentation on derelict vessels.
10:15:15 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to the quote on slide 2, titled
"What's the Problem?" which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
"By 2025, the Alaska fleet will include roughly 3,100
vessels between 28' and 59' that are more than 45
years old...the Alaska fleet also includes 75
passenger vessels, tugs, and barges over 50 years
old..."
MS. LORD stated that the quote was taken from a McDowell Group
report that was done for the Alaska maritime industrial support
sector. This statement was considered a positive goal for ship
building; however, this highlighted a problem, that Alaska does
not have a "cradle-to-grave" plan for vessels. She directed
attention to a link to a YouTube https://youtu.be/S-SFGTzlA1g
that a private citizen created which illustrated the problems of
derelict vessels in Steamboat Slough in Bethel.
10:16:04 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 3, titled "A Guy Walks into a Bar,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
We love our boats, and we depend on our coasts and
rivers for transportation, commerce, and quality of
life. But there is no denying the immense cost of
owning and maintaining a boat. Those costs only
increase over time.
MS. LORD explained that boats can last for decades; however,
what happens is a vessel gets passed on to the next person and
as a boat ages it often has been passed on to a person least
able to maintain the vessel to keep it afloat. She
characterized this as a national problem.
10:17:25 AM
MS. LORD turned to the next slice, titled "Jakolof Bay 2012-13,"
which consisted of a photograph of a boat that sank. She
stated that the photograph depicts one of two boats that sank on
Christmas Eve in 2012 in Jakolof Bay. She explained that the
person who purchased the boats in Sand Point traveled to Kodiak,
then on to Seldovia and Homer, but was not allowed into those
harbors.
MS. LORD explained currently the statutes to address the problem
have minimally addressed derelict vessels. These statutes were
enacted in 1976 and minimally updated in 2013 under House Bill
131. Municipalities who have the authority to address derelict
vessels have been doing so; for example, Homer Kodiak, Cordova,
and CBJ [Juneau] all have strong ordinances to protect customers
and the [harbors], the working infrastructure, against vessel
owners who cannot pay moorages and endanger other vessels. At
the end of the day, the state and the smaller communities who do
not have the funding to afford them legal protections become the
[financial] losers.
10:19:11 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 5, titled "A growing Problem,"
depicting a map, and which read, in part, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
ADNR has begun a database, but it is far from
complete. There are nearly 200 documented derelicts
across Alaska. we know many more exist, and the
number will continue to increase.
MS. LORD turned to slide 6, titled "The Public Pays The Price,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
With outdated statutes, our municipalities and state
agencies are unable to effectively prevent and manage
derelict vessels. Alaskan waters are a default
dumping ground.
MS. LORD stated that Washington has improved and strengthened
its derelict vessel laws in the past five years, which tends to
encourage dumping vessels in Alaska since Alaska really has
become a very soft target.
10:20:11 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to slide 7, titled "Solutions in HB
386," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Over a two-year period, the Derelict Vessel Task Force
identified major barriers and solutions to improve
derelict vessel prevention and management in Alaska.
MS. LORD added that the AAHPA, the Alaska Clean Harbors Program
created a voluntary ad hoc Derelict Vessel Task Force, with open
participation.
10:21:07 AM
MS. LORD continued with slide 8, titled "Task Force
Participants," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
ADNR, Mining Land & Water
ADEC, Spill Prevention & Response
ADOT, Ports & Harbors
ADF&G, Habitat
USCG, Sectors Anchorage & Juneau/Div. of Waterways
Management
NOAA, Marine Debris Program/Restoration
EPA, Response Region 10
AAHPA (Bethel, Homer)
Orutsararmiut Native Councils
Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office
Alaska Marine Response
MS. LORD stated that the task force, consisting of state and
federal agencies, [and participants listed on this slide], met
for nine full days over a two-year period. The Derelict Vessel
Task Force (DVTF) had pro bono legal support from the law firm
Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, a firm with extensive experience
in issues related to derelict vessels and admiralty law.
10:22:03 AM
MS. LORD stated that the genesis of HB 386 came from the work of
the DVTF, whose participants reviewed case studies, current
methods used for disposing of derelict vessels and how those
methods could be improved, and other states' remedies for
derelict vessels. She characterized HB 386 as a strong bill,
one that was vetted by stakeholders, who assessed and reviewed
the current derelict vessel situation in Alaska.
MS. LORD provided a brief section-by-section analysis of HB 386,
noting that Sections 1-8 were changes to AS 05.25, the
watercraft chapter. The goal of the DVTF was to make as few
changes as possible, noting the state's boating safety program
was established in AS 05.
10:23:03 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 9, titled "Registration and Titling,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Agencies and municipalities have found establishing
ownership is one of the major hurdles to hold owners
responsible for derelict vessels. Requiring all
vessels operating in Alaska to be registered with DMV,
and beginning a titling system for vessels similar to
that in place for motor vehicles, are commonsense
solutions to improve accountability.
MS. LORD stated the DVTF determined that the only changes that
were necessary to AS 05.25 related to vessel ownership.
Currently 68,000 vessels are registered in Alaska; however, the
state does not know how many documented vessels are in Alaska's
waters. The provisions in HB 386 would expand the universe of
registration to include documented vessels, which has been done
in at least 26 other states, including Washington. She related
that currently vessel registration fees are $24 every three
years. The bill would increase this to $30 every three years.
The other change in AS 05 would be to establish a titling
program for the state, which would not apply to documented
vessels but would require titles for non-documented vessels in
Alaska. This would provide personal property protection for
owners, just as for vehicle owners. Boat trailers have
considerably less liability than a boat to people over time and
this bill would regulate vessels and trailers to be more in line
with the current DMV vehicle registration system.
10:25:11 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 10, titled "Increase Clarity" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Agencies and municipalities statewide need increased
clarity for defining a derelict vessel ownership, and
for the impoundment process including clarified
hearing and notice requirements. SB updates Chapter
30.30 to bring clarity and improve utility of the
statutes.
MS. LORD explained that the remainder of the bill were changes
to derelict vessels under AS 30.30, which was written in 1976.
The DVTT rewrote that chapter in its entirety. Currently,
before a derelict vessel such as the Akutan could be dealt with,
agencies and municipalities must determine whether the vessel
would be considered as "abandoned" or as a "derelict vessel."
This definition matters because the path for impoundment and
disposal process differs depending on how a vessel is defined,
she said. This bill would dramatically improve clarity since it
would define all abandoned vessels as derelict vessels under AS
30.30. It would also clarify what it means to own a vessel, as
well as the impoundment process. Some have argued that the
state law may not be constitutional in terms of due process
under federal admiralty law. The provisions in HB 386 improve
due process for boat owners and spell out the process for
noticing, impoundment, and hearings for vessels deemed to be
derelict vessels.
10:27:05 AM
MS. LORD directed attention to slide 11, titled "Enforcement
Authority & Increased Penalties," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Current statutes restrict enforcement of derelict
vessel laws. One major way to reduce vessel sinkings
and prevent owners from walking away is to provide for
enforcement of the chapter to hold owners accountable
and prevent derelict vessels from sinking on public
waters.
MS. LORD stated that the current statutes limit enforcement for
derelict vessels. The provisions in HB 386 would increase the
enforcement authority and penalties and allow for civil
penalties instead of restricting derelict vessels only to
criminal penalties. The current enforcement of writing stern
letters to vessel owners has not worked and this bill would
improve enforcement.
10:27:40 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 12, titled "Clarified Liability," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Hearing concerns from agencies and public, Task Force
members acknowledged that it is important to be clear
that a vessel owner is liable for all costs associated
with the impoundment, storage and removal of a
derelict vessel.
MS. LORD said that it was difficult to hold someone liable for
walking away from an old boat when he/she does not have any
financial resources. The DVTF decided it was important to hold
these derelict vessel parties liable, regardless of their
financial resources. It was important to have strong laws that
can be enforced; that when the state and municipalities have
strong laws people are informed not to get into irresponsible
situations with vessels. The bill provides clarity for vessel
owners and enforcement authorities that vessel owners are liable
for all costs associated with impoundment, storage and removal
of derelict vessels.
10:28:36 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 13, titled "Streamlined Capacity,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Outside states have found significant improvement in
derelict vessel prevention and management by
streamlining their efforts through a statewide
program/point person. Having a point person at ADNR
will concentrate work that is currently being done by
numerous staff, will reduce overall costs, and
increase efficacy of derelict vessel management.
MS. LORD indicated that the bill would provide provisions for
the creation of a derelict vessel prevention program under DNR.
She reported that some DNR agency members attended a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conference on
derelict vessels. These staff returned feeling positive once
they realized that none of the states have the funds to dispose
of derelict vessels. States that have established a "point
person" and funded a proactive program to handle derelict
vessels have found the problem diminished over time. She said
that language within HB 386 was permissive to allow creation of
a derelict vessel prevention fund and to allow the legislature
to appropriate funds for the program. Currently, the public
does not have any state or local agency staff to contact about a
derelict vessel that has been abandoned on state waters even
though abandoned vessels routinely happen. She explained that
HB 386 allows DNR the statutory authority and capacity to
streamline the work related to derelict vessels. In fact, DNR
as managers of the state's public land and water, currently must
perform the work. Unfortunately, these staff must work on a
case-by-case basis to deal with abandoned derelict vessels, she
said.
10:30:30 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 14, titled "Cradle-to-Grave," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Addressing vessel disposal was outside of the scope of
the Task Force, but must be addressed. Through the
derelict vessel prevention program, the state will
have the opportunity to begin looking at options for
vessel disposal, scrap, and salvage solutions that can
benefit the private sector and be a reasonable
alternative to vessel abandonment.
MS. LORD characterized the cradle-to-grave view of vessel
management as important, noting that the DVTF had plenty of
ideas but did not solve the issues. She pointed out that the
bill contained permissive language within the prevention program
section to allow the department to consider some cradle-to-grave
options. Alaska does not have a lot of financial capacity, but
she said the state could still consider long-term planning
options related to derelict vessels to remove boats from
waterways before they sink.
10:31:25 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 15, titled "Juneau Empire Editorial
Oct. 15, 2015, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources...lacks
even the authority to fine...for littering.
...In places like Bethel, which has a dumping ground
called Steamboat Slough, the problem of derelict and
abandoned boats long ago broke the surface of public
awareness.
...we could instead simply mandate the registration of
all boats --commercial and recreational alike--through
the DMV. We could also mandate that boats of a certain
size, like all cars, carry insurance sufficient to
cover their salvage.
At the very least, we could grant the Department of
Natural Resources the simple authority to levy fines
on those who pollute Alaska's waters.
MS. LORD said that when the sunken tug Challenger sunk in
Gastineau Channel in 2016, that numerous people wrote letters.
She directed attention to the final sentence on the slide, taken
from an editorial in the Juneau Empire, which read, "At the very
least, we could grant the Department of Natural Resources the
simple authority to levy fines on those who pollute Alaska's
waters." She stated that this was something HB 386 will do.
10:32:01 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 16, with quotes from a Washington State
newspaper, the Chinook Observer, March 22, 2017, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
"Too many people get in over their heads, and their
dreams of ship renovation or making money from scrap
become a nightmare for the citizens of this state and
the marine environment.
...'A hole in the water into which you pour money' is
a famous definition of a boat. To the maximum extent
possible, we must ensure taxpayers are not the ones
doing the pouring."
10:32:20 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 17, titled "HCR 53 1990" which read, in
part, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHEREAS the state does not currently have statutory
authority to impose liability on the owners of
abandoned vessels...
MS LORD noted the slide had a copy of a resolution from 1990
that identified the problem; however, nothing happened until
2013, and now, in 2018, the derelict vessel law is just being
brought forward.
10:32:55 AM
MS. LORD turned to slide 18, titled "Akutan Dutch
Harbor/Unalaska," and commented that there were many articles on
the Akutan that members could read. She said that she was aware
of only three vessels impounded by DNR under the derelict vessel
laws: two in Katchemak Bay, and the Akutan, which was impounded
in December at Unalaska. She stated that the state,
municipality, and federal governments worked on a creative
solution to dispose of the Akutan. She turned to slide 19,
titled "Questions," and asked members if they had any questions.
10:34:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked about the annual cost for derelict
vessels.
MS. LORD deferred to the DNR but noted that there was not
funding set aside. She acknowledged that considerable staff
time has been spent on derelict vessel and in terms of pollution
response, that the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and the US Coast Guard have funds for cleanup.
10:36:00 AM
KRIS HESS, Chief of Operations, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), responded that the DNR does not have funding set aside
for derelict vessel disposal. Anything that the agency does on
derelict vessels must be taken from the operating budget.
10:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how much has been spent on derelict
vessels.
MS. HESS answered that in 2017, the DNR did not expend funds.
In 2018, the DNR expended funds for disposal of the Akutan in
the amount of $36,000. The City of Unalaska agreed to reimburse
those costs, she said.
10:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that a vessel becomes
derelict after it anchors any place it is not supposed to do so.
He offered his belief there could be many instances in which a
person would anchor a vessel for safety or other reasons. He
asked for further clarification that would address the timeframe
for the definition of "derelict vessel."
MS. LORD said that the definition for derelict vessel was
derived from current statutes. She explained that AS 30.30 has
several definitions for abandoned and derelict vessels, which
were combined. She referred to AS 30.30.030, related to
applicability. She stated that the DVTF worked with the DNR on
the definition and limitation on applicability. The chapter
does not apply in safety situations, she said.
10:39:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to page 12, line 22, of HB 386
and asked whether the language expanded the definition of
derelict vessel.
MS. LORD responded by advising that the goal was to be as clear
as possible; for example, some people might consider moored to
be tied to a dock versus anchored in open water. She stated
that the language would also apply to municipalities without
ordinances or other laws; this chapter needed to provide
explicit clarity to give them the protection and ability to
address derelict vessels under state law. The additional
language was more to provide clarity than to expand the
definition, she said.
10:41:45 AM
MS. NICKELL-ZIMMERMAN responded that the bill sections had been
thoroughly addressed by Ms. Lord.
10:42:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said it was disconcerting to her that the
state does not have financial resources to put towards the
problem of abandoned and derelict vessels. She expressed an
interest in exploring funding especially since these vessels
could impact fisheries along Alaska's coastline.
10:43:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that she would set HB 386 aside.
[HB 386 was held over.]
HB 272-TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE
10:43:41 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act establishing the Tangle Lakes State
Game Refuge; and providing for an effective date."
10:44:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HB 272 was presented two weeks ago, and a PowerPoint
described the nature of the bill. He briefly recapped the bill,
noting the bill was introduced because of an interest in
creating the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge by people along the
highway corridor. He stated that he received an e-mail
yesterday from Marty Parsons, DNR, and read a quote from the
email, as follows, "Our research indicates that there are no
active claims in the Tangle Lakes area under consideration in
Representative Josephson's current legislation." His staff
presented a PowerPoint that showed a handful of claims in the
Southeast Alaska corner of the proposed TLSGR, but those are not
currently active.
10:46:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to a memo from Mr. Robert
Tobey, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), dated December 19, 2002 to the Copper
Country Alliance. He read a portion of the last paragraph of
the memo [in members' packets], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
It is my position that the importance of the Denali
Block as wildlife habitat, tourist destination, sport
fishing, subsistence food gathering and trapping area
exceeds all mining value. All these uses except
mining have minimal impact on the land and are
renewable yearly. Certainly an impact study and cost
benefit analyses are warranted in view of the high
value of current uses compared to an unknown mining
value.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that this was a "friendly
letter" from Governor Murkowski's administration. He referred
to a letter of March 2008 from Cliff Judkins, Chairman, Board of
Game [in members' packets], who asked for immediate discussion
and immediate consideration of a game refuge in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON emphasized that the concept of a state
game refuge in the Tangle Lakes area has been considered for
some time and continues to be requested.
10:47:48 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 272.
10:48:32 AM
CARL PORTMAN, Deputy Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), testified in opposition to HB 272. The RDC encourages
the exploration and responsible development of Alaska's natural
resources, he said. He stated that creating a new refuge would
restrict or eliminate the potential opportunities in the Tangle
Lake area, including mineral development. Further, it would
create new restrictions to land use at a time when the state
faces fiscal and other challenges.
MR. PORTMAN pointed out that Alaska already contains 70 percent
of the federal national park lands, 85 percent of the federal
national wildlife refuges, and two of the largest parks in the
nation, and many other state conservation units such as game
refuges. The RDC supports multiple use of lands, such as
recreational use and other potential uses. The state must focus
on ways to show that Alaska is open for business. He urged the
committee to reject HB 272.
10:50:09 AM
BARRY WHITEHILL, Board Member, Alaska Chapter, Backcountry
Hunters and Anglers (AKBHA), stated that the AKBHA has long
supported the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge (TLSGR). He stated
that this area has been the breadbasket for Southcentral Alaska
for subsistence and recreational hunting, fishing, and berry
picking. Many members know that the Denali Highway has been the
premier route for tourist destinations. It certainly has the
archeological protections in place for some of the segment, and
some Fairbanksans travel to the area to hunt and fish. He
acknowledged the importance of hunting and fishing to Alaskans.
He offered the AKBHA's support for the TLSGR.
10:51:48 AM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), stated that the sponsor's statement states the potential
for nonrenewable activities in the region could irreparably
damage the environment. A century of experience shows this
premise, that one must choose between renewable and nonrenewable
resources to be false.
MS. CROCKETT said the Denali Highway region around the proposed
refuge has been the subject of mineral exploration since the
turn of the century and modern mining exploration increased in
this region in the 1990s. While most of the activity occurred
outside the proposed refuge area, work has occurred within and
substantial exploration has taken place to the north where
access would be impeded by the refuge. History has shown that
nearby large mines have not created long-term impacts asserted
by the sponsor, and have, in fact, avoided the impact through
the mining industry's expensive regulatory process. Most of the
recent exploration has been helicopter supported with little
ground impact. Neither DNR or ADF&G have found that exploration
has caused significant effects on recreational wildlife.
MS. CROCKETT said that when the same refuge was proposed about
ten years ago, the DNR stated that very few people using the
Tangle Lakes area, or the Delta Wild and Scenic River even knew
that metal exploration was occurring in the area. Most of the
proposed refuge area was within DNR's Tangle Lakes
Archaeological District Special Use Area, enacted in 2003. At
the time, DNR assessed the area and concluded that unrestricted
motorized recreation had the greatest potential to cause
significant impact to cultural and heritage sites in the area.
For that reason, DNR enacted rules to manage recreation in the
area, which is a vehicle for additional rules if they become
necessary.
10:53:30 AM
MS. CROCKETT stated that if the area is not closed it was likely
to be explored again. She characterized the area as highly
mineralized host to the incredibly rich Kennecott copper
deposits. The significant potential of minerals has been
included in the recently published list by the US Geological
Survey (USGS) of minerals that are critical to national defense
and the economy. A secure supply of domestic sources of these
minerals is a priority for our country and it should be for
Alaska, as well, she said.
MS. CROCKETT said that it has been proven in Alaska that the
state does not need to make a choice between the environment and
resource development. The AMA strongly opposes the proposed
refuge in HB 272.
10:54:20 AM
JOEL ELROD, Greater Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce (GCVCC),
stated that the GCVCC offered its opposition to HB 272, for many
of the same reasons that Mr. Portman mentioned.
10:54:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 272.
10:55:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for further clarification on the
health of the Nelchina Caribou herd and if the numbers were
increasing or decreasing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he did not know. He
commented that at least 40 people have written in support of HB
272, expressing their concerns about the health of the Nelchina
caribou herd. This was also referenced in the previous letter
mentioned by the Chairman of the Board of Game in 2008 and the
Division of Habitat, ADF&G in 2002. He stated that this bill
was about protecting that herd.
10:56:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that the bill had no Finance
Committee referral and had two zero fiscal notes; however, both
fiscal notes referred to absorbing the costs of the bill into
current budgets. He said that state agencies have complained
that they cannot accomplish their responsibilities within
current budgets. He stated that any costs associated with the
bill should be reflected in the fiscal notes and offered that
the legislature needed quality fiscal notes from the
administration in order to accurately formulate a budget.
10:58:20 AM
JOE MEEHAN, Coordinator, Division of Wildlife Conservation
(DWC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), answered that
as the fiscal note stated, the division would add the new duties
associated with the proposed refuge into the division's existing
workload.
10:58:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked at what point in time the ADF&G
would absorb so much work that the department could no longer
absorb more and would require additional funding.
MR. MEEHAN said he could not answer that question. He explained
that the management plan development permit applications were
prioritized based on public interest and needs. He acknowledged
that the division would need to prioritize requests.
10:59:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT further asked what would be left off the
current workload to make this happen.
MR. MEEHAN said that the current workload includes administering
management plans, permit reviews, and field operations. He
stated that primarily field operations deal with monitoring
resources, encouraging public use and education. He could not
specifically identify what would be dropped if the new refuge
was created. He further stated that the division would
obviously have to juggle priorities dealing with the type of
field activities that the ADF&G engage in for refuge areas.
11:00:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked about the earlier question regarding the
Nelchina caribou herd.
MR. MEEHAN offered to respond back to the committee with
information on the Nelchina caribou herd.
11:01:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his concerns about the herd by
the ADF&G 16 years ago were probably dated. He related his
understanding that the state had taken steps to address those
concerns. He also expressed concern that potential revenue from
mining in the proposed region would be lost, which concerned him
because the state currently faces a fiscal crisis. He
characterized this bill as looking through the lens of
supporting mining or opposing mining. Those who think mining is
good for Alaska would not likely support the bill but those who
oppose mining would probably find HB 272 to be a "great bill."
11:02:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that the committee received a lot more support
for the bill than opposition to the bill. She related that the
bill has two zero fiscal notes and it has come to light that
there are no mining claims in the area.
11:02:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for further clarification as to
whether there were no mining claims within the proposed TLSGR or
if there were no active mining claims.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that there were mining claims
in the Amphitheater area north of the border of the refuge. He
further responded that yesterday Mr. Marty Parsons, Deputy
Director, Division of Mining, Land & Water, DNR stated, "There
are no active claims in the Tangle Lake Area under consideration
in the current legislation."
11:04:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report HB 272 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Edgmon,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and Tarr, voted in favor of reporting HB 272
from committee. Representatives Chenault, Neuman, Eastman voted
against it. Therefore, HB 272 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 4-3.
11:05:19 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:05 a.m. to 11:07 a.m.
HB 260-FISH & GAME LICENSES;ELECTRONIC FORM
11:07:54 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 260, "An Act relating to electronic possession of
certain licenses, tags, and identification cards issued by the
Department of Fish and Game; and providing for an effective
date."
11:08:23 AM
KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Representative Dan Saddler, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that HB 260 seeks to use a smartphone as an
electronic device to display digital hunting and fishing
licenses provided the means to move forward to the digital age.
11:09:01 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 260 and after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
HB 260.
11:09:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding of the
intention of HB 260 was to take a photo of a hunting or fishing
license and to allow digital hunting and fishing licenses on
smartphones and present it to an officer if required to do so
[as proof of license]. He asked whether this extended to the
"OFL license," which is the [sport fishing, hunting and trapping
identification card for senior Alaska residents].
MS. SKIPPER deferred to ADF&G to respond.
11:10:38 AM
MORGAN FOSS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), responded the
department's interpretation was that the bill was written in
such a way as to allow permanent identification cards to be
displayed on electronic devices.
11:10:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for further clarification on
overlap between this bill and SB 16 before the legislature.
MS. SKIPPER answered that SB 16 and HB 129 were omnibus bills
that included many other components and electronic licensing was
just one. The sponsor decided to keep electronic ADF&G licenses
separate in this bill.
11:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that he was a member of the
National Assembly of Sportsmen's caucus (NASC), which discussed
the issue of electronic licensing extensively and many states
have moved to electronic display of licensing to reduce
paperwork and for the convenience for those who have
smartphones. He asked how many states have enacted this type of
electronic display of sport licenses.
MS. SKIPPER was unsure of the number of states; however, she did
know that Virginia and Missouri were among them. Some states
also allowed electronic game "tags" to be displayed, but ADF&G
did not want to do so currently, but other states were moving in
that direction.
CHAIR STUTES said the bill has been widely supported.
11:12:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report HB 260 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 260 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
11:12:49 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:12 a.m. to 11:16 a.m.
HB 231-CFEC: BD. SALARY;STAFF CLASSIFIED SERVICE
11:16:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 231, "An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; and providing for an effective
date."
11:16:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 231, labeled 30-GH1053\D, Bullard,
2/14/18 [Version D] as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES advised that the motion could not be adopted as the
committee lacked a quorum.
[The committee proceeded as though the motion had been
withdrawn.]
11:17:35 AM
The committee took a brief at ease.
11:17:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 231, labeled 30-GH1053\D, Bullard,
2/14/18, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version D was before the committee.
[CHAIR STUTES listed the individuals available to testify.]
11:19:11 AM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced himself.
11:19:16 AM
MINTA MONTALBO, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration (DOA), introduced herself.
11:19:23 AM
MR. GRUENING stated that the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 231, Version D, represents efforts between the bill
sponsor, the administration, representatives of the United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), and the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC). He stated that the changes were a consensus
of all parties.
11:19:50 AM
MR. GRUENING referred to page 1, line 9, to Section 1 of HB 231.
He stated that this reduced the number of commissioners on the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) from three to two.
He offered to explain more on this later. The next change
occurred on page 1, lines 13-14, which specifies that a vacancy
on the commission does not impair the ability of a single
commissioner to exercise all powers of the commission. Since
the proposed CS for HB 231 removed one commissioner, if a
vacancy occurs, this gives the commissioner to exercise the full
authority of the commission in adjudicatory proceedings,
transactions, and day to day activities.
MR. GRUENING directed attention to page 2, lines 3-5, which
specifies that a single member of the commission constitutes a
quorum. He stated that another change will be necessary in
proposed Section 3. On page 2, line 3-6, the proposed CS for HB
231 read, "A single member [TWO MEMBERS] of the commission
constitutes [CONSTITUTE] a quorum for the transaction of
business, for the performance of a duty, or for the exercise of
a power of the commission.
MR. GRUENING explained that the intent was for this to apply for
the transaction of business and the performance of duty when
there was not a vacancy; but only when a vacancy occurred would
it include the exercise of a power of the commission. He stated
that further clarification was necessary to clarify which
instances the single commissioner can exercise all powers of the
commission and when the commissioner can transact business and
perform duties. The sponsor wanted to avoid an instance in
which there was not a vacancy and the commissioner was able to
exercise the full powers on an adjudication simply when the
other commissioner was not available. However, the sponsor
would like a single commissioner to be able to transact business
or perform his/her duties for day-to-day routine work.
11:22:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that a single
commissioner would have the authority to sign off on matters.
He expressed concern that the Governor would have the power to
keep a position vacant and therefore one commissioner would have
significant power.
MR. GRUENING said that he had not had any discussions with the
administration; however, he understood the concern.
11:23:22 AM
MR. GRUENING directed attention to proposed Section 4, on page
2, lines 6-10, AS 16.43.060 of HB 231. He read from the
document titled "CS HB 231 Explanation of Changes," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 4: Modified from original bill. This section
maintains the current statutory salary at Range 27 for the
commissioner serving as chair, as the chair is expected to
perform additional duties and functions. The original bill
reduced the chair's salary to a Range 24. The salary range
for the second commissioner continues to be reduced from
Range 27 to 24, as in the original bill.
MR. GRUENING explained that the chair would have direct
oversight of the other commissioner and would have the final
say. Further, the chair would absorb the duties of the
executive director. He further explained that the it seemed
appropriate to leave the chair at a range 27, since the chair
would have direct oversight, but to set the second commissioner
at a range 24.
11:24:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the chair is currently selected
and if that would be changed with the proposed HB 231.
MR. GRUENING responded that the current chair is selected by the
governor, but the current bill does not change that process.
CHAIR STUTES responded that is correct.
11:24:39 AM
MR. GRUENING said there were no changes to Section 5. He then
directed attention to proposed Section 6, on page 2, lines 15-19
to proposed AS 16.43.119(f), which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
(f) In case of a tie vote between commissioners in an
adjudicatory proceeding, the decision of the hearing
officer is the final administrative decision of the
commission subject to review by a superior court under
AS 44.62 (Administrative 22 Procedure Act).
MR. GRUENING explained that the process. Initially a hearing
officer issues a decision and if the party seeking an
adjudication appeals the decision it goes to the commissioner.
In the event the two commissioners have a 1-1 tie, this language
would allow for the original hearing officer's decision to
become the decision of the commission. He clarified that this
was due to removing one of the commissioners in statute.
11:25:33 AM
MR. GRUENING stated that there was no change to Section 8 of the
proposed CS for HB 231, Version D. This section matched Section
5, related to removing employees from exempt service, he said.
MR. GRUENING said that there were no changes to Section 9 in the
proposed CS for HB 231, Version D.
11:25:48 AM
MR. GRUENING directed attention to proposed Section 10, to page
3, lines 14-16 of Version D. He explained that this language
was added to satisfy Article 1, Section 15 of Alaska State
Constitution, which specifies that the state cannot
retroactively reduce someone's pay under the impairment of
contract's provision. The current commissioner's salaries will
remain at the current amount, but any reappointments would be
made at the lower amount.
11:26:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for clarification in the case that
the governor appointed a new chair if the former chair's salary
would be reduced.
MR. GRUENING answered that he would defer to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission to respond.
11:27:39 AM
FATE PUTMAN, Commissioner designee; Chairman, Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G) introduced himself.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related his understanding that the
current Chair of the CFEC serves at a range 27. If the governor
decided to appoint a new chair, would the former chair become a
range 24.
MR. PUTMAN related his understanding that the governor appoints
the Chair of the CFEC to serve a two-year term. Once the two-
year term is up, the governor could appoint a new chair and that
person would serve at a range 24.
11:28:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN further asked whether it because the
governor has appointed someone new as a chair that creates this
change or if it was because that former chair's term was up, and
the person was being reappointed to a new term.
MR. PUTMAN answered no; that it was because the two-year term of
that chairmanship was finished, even though the person could
still serve on the commission for a four-year term. The
chairmen serve for two years but could then be designated as a
non-chairman once the chairmanship has run out and the person
would serve as commissioner, he said.
11:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for additional clarification on
changes for exempt positions. He further asked for the staff
level of the CFEC and whether this would affect them.
MR. GRUENING responded yes. He deferred to Mr. Putman.
11:30:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that one of the
sections [Section 5] would remove employees from exempt service.
He asked whether the two [commissioners] would be exempt and how
many staff the CFEC has and if they would be exempt.
MR. PUTMAN responded that the two commissioners would remain in
the exempt service and the staff would be classified, meaning
unionized, if HB 231 was adopted.
11:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said an issue raised has been the backlog
of lawsuits and settlements. This bill would reduce the number
of commissioners from three to two. He asked whether there was
there a proposal or other remedy to rectify this issue.
MR. PUTMAN stated that it is the intent of the chairman and
staff to resolve the outstanding cases at the CFEC. He
estimated the backlog at 13 cases pending from 25-35 years ago.
He emphasized his intent to review and resolve these cases
through settlement with the potential appellees. He explained
that when the cases are pending each of the appellees receive an
interim-use permit, which allows them to fish until their cases
are resolved. He reported that two cases have been resolved.
He reiterated his intent to resolve the remaining 13 cases
within the next year or two.
11:32:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN raised the matter of authority over staff.
He asked whether the bill changes the authority of the chair.
He asked for further clarification on how staff would be managed
and the structure of the CFEC as it falls under the ADF&G.
MR. PUTMAN stated that when employees move from exempt to
classified status, they are protected through the collective
bargaining agreement; however, exempt employees can be hired and
fired at will. Classified employees are subject to a process,
including progressive discipline before they can be terminated.
He stated that the chairman will serve as the executive director
and he/she would make determinations about hiring and
recommendations for firing of underperforming staff.
11:33:26 AM
MR. GRUENING said he had finished with the changes.
11:33:42 AM
CHAIR STUTES referred to an earlier comment on a 1-1 tie. She
pointed out that there was an appeal process and the party can
appeal to the superior court.
11:34:10 AM
MS. MONTALBO gave a section-by-section analysis of HB 231. She
directed attention to Section 1, which would reduce the number
of commissioners appointed to the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) from three to two, she said.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 2, to AS
16.43.030(c), which would allow a single commissioner to
exercise the powers and duties of the commission, when there is
a vacancy on the commission.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 3, which will need to
be amended, as Mr. Gruening previously mentioned but for now
this change addresses the need to establish a quorum of one
commissioner.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 4, which would amend
AS 16.43.060, which would provide that the member serving as
chair will be paid a step in Range 27. It would also adjust the
salary range from 27 to 24 for the other commissioner.
11:35:06 AM
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 5, which would amend
AS 16.43.080(a), by removing language placing employees of the
commission in the exempt service.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 6, which adds a new
subsection (f) to AS 16.43.110, which would provide that tie
votes between commissioners will be settled by the hearing
officer.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 7, which would amend
AS 16.43.960(d) to allow for cause hearings to be conducted
before one commissioner and a hearing officer.
11:35:40 AM
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 8, which repeals AS
39.25.110(11)(D). She referred to the statute text being
repealed under subparagraph (D) of AS 39.25.110(11), which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 39.25.110. Exempt service. Unless otherwise
provided by law, the following positions constitute
the exempt service and are exempt from the provisions
of this chapter and the rules adopted under it:
(11) the officers and employees of the following
boards, commissions, and authorities:
(A) [Repealed, Sec. 13 ch 43 SLA 1994];
(B) Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation;
(C) Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority;
(D) Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission;
(E) Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education;
(F) Alaska Aerospace Corporation;
(G) [Repealed, Sec. 23 ch 11 SLA 2013].
MS. MONTALBO mentioned that change goes along with transferring
employees from exempt service to classified service.
11:36:08 AM
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 9, which would add
transition language to uncodified law, which stipulates
commission staff members will be appointed to classified
services upon the bill's effective date; and if the classified
position has a lower rate of pay, a staff member's salary will
be held at the rate received in exempt service until such time
as the classified rate meets it.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section 10, which adds an
applicability clause to uncodified law to stablish that salary
changes outlined in Section 4 of this bill will apply to
commissioners appointed after the bill's effective date.
MS. MONTALBO directed attention to Section [11], which sets
effective date as immediate.
11:37:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if there was any scenario in which a
hearing officer could act as a tie breaker.
MR. GRUENING offered his belief that the answer was no. He
described the current process, such that the hearing officer
makes an initial review, issues a decision, which is forwarded
to the [CFEC] commissioners who make an adjudication. He said
there was not any process in which the hearing officer casts a
final vote in a tiebreaker. He explained at that point it would
be decided by the superior court.
11:38:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON offered his belief that it would violate
the chain of due process, if that were to occur.
11:38:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he noticed that it has been
customary for courts and even this committee to have an odd
number of members to resolve the potential of tie votes. He
asked why not just go to one commissioner.
MR. GRUENING responded that only having one commissioner would
result in only one point of view, which could lead to room for
abuse. He said that there was a certain value to having more
than one commissioner since the second commissioner could raise
a different point of view. He characterized it as being a
little "heavy handed" to have only one commissioner set in
statute.
11:39:23 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 231 and after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
HB 231. She asked to set HB 231 aside.
[HB 231 was held over.]
HB 188-COMM. FISH. ENTRY PERMITS; LOANS; TRUSTS
11:39:52 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 188, "An Act relating to commercial fishing entry
permits; establishing regional fisheries trusts and fisheries
trust regions; relating to commercial fishing entry permits held
and leased by a regional fisheries trust; relating to the duties
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; and
providing for an effective date."
11:40:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, speaking as prime sponsor of HB
188, pointed out a proposed committee substitute (CS) [Version
L] that was conceptually discussed at a previous committee
hearing on 2/22/18 incorporates changes for issues raised during
committee hearings. He pointed out letters from the Bering Sea
Fishing Corporation and Afognak Corporation in support of the
bill, and one from BBFA. He said his staff would answer
specific questions.
11:41:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 188, labeled 30-LS0389\L, Bullard,
2/22/18 as the working document. There being no objection,
Version L was before the committee.
11:41:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his gratitude to the
Legislative Legal and Research Services attorneys for all their
work and for working through these revisions in a timely and
helpful manner.
11:42:14 AM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, offered to explain changes between the prior CS for HB
188 as it was at the start of the 2018 legislative session
[Version M] to the proposed CS for HB 188, Version L. He stated
that he would quickly review these changes but offered to
provide more detail if needed.
11:42:48 AM
MR. MAGDANZ indicated he would be working from a document titled
"Summary of Changes, ver U ver L | HB 188 Regional Fisheries
Trusts." He directed attention to the heading after paragraph
one, titled "ver M - Ver L." The first change was to remove
three references to Alaskans entering fisheries or Alaska
communities to improve the constitutionality of the bill.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that [Version L] would add Section 29, which
arose from committee discussions for emergency transfers.
Section 29 of Version L would provide that a regional fisheries
trust must approve the emergency transfer of any permit that has
been temporarily transferred from the fisheries trust. The
emergency transferee must also be qualified under [AS
16.44.080], the provisions covering the original temporary
transferee.
MR. MAGDANZ said the next changes begin on page 13, lines 18-20,
to Section 30, and Section 32 [on page 15, lines 21-26, to
proposed AS 16.43.850 subsections (c) and (d), which would
reword the language to conform with the addition of Section 35.
He directed attention to proposed Section 35 [AS 16.43.844(d)]
on page 16 [lines 29-28]. He explained that the CFEC
commissioners flagged some changes to the prior version which
could have affected how demerit points are assessed to people
who are emergency transferees. The addition of Section 25 would
ensure that the status quo remains the same for individual
permit holders and that the same rules would apply to a
temporary transferee.
11:44:48 AM
MR. MAGDANZ directed attention to proposed Section 36, which was
amended to clarify the original intention.
MR. MAGDANZ directed attention to page 19, lines 6-15, to
proposed Section 39, AS 16.43.960(l). He stated that the
previous version did not reflect the original policy intent in
terms of when a temporary transfer could be revoked in cases in
which the temporary transferee's fishing privileges were
suspended. These changes remedied that issue.
11:45:35 AM
MR. MAGDANZ identified the next two changes to proposed AS
16.44.010(b)(2) and (3) [Section 41], which were in line with
the first change mentioned, to remove references to state
residents because [Version L] would allow the temporary transfer
to be made to anyone. This change deletes a provision that
would allow the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) to audit fisheries trusts and that function
and responsibility would be with the Legislative Audit Division
[Legislative Agencies and Offices]. He explained that the
sponsor continues to work with the DCCED on the regulatory
authority in the bill. As those discussions are ongoing,
Version L, would eliminate one section that referred to specific
regulatory authority because it caused some confusion, he said.
MR. MAGDANZ said the next change would add proposed AS
16.44.050(d) to allow a fisheries trust board to prohibit
certain individuals from receiving temporary transfers from the
fisheries trust. Version L would give a fisheries trust
authority to choose to prohibit temporary transfers to anyone
who already holds a limited entry permit in another fishery or
who has had their fishing privileges suspended by CFEC.
MR. MAGDANZ stated the next change [to proposed AS 16.44.060(b)]
would clarify that only one fisheries trust was eligible to hold
any given type of limited-entry permit. He explained that was
always the sponsor's intention; however, the prior version was
not totally clear on that matter. This language also would
allow fisheries trusts more flexibility in the types of permits
they acquire; he directed attention to the language in AS
16.44.060(c).
11:47:20 AM
MR. MAGDANZ said the next few changes to proposed AS
16.44.060(d) and (e) were non-substantive. The change to
proposed AS 16.44.070(b) referred to an issue raised by
Representative Eastman at the previous hearing, which is that
the six-year cap is a lifetime cap and was not a cap per
fishery.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the change to proposed AS 16.44.080 [on
page 27, lines 1-23 of Version L] was in response to feedback
from fishermen and gives the fisheries trust greater ability to
ensure that anyone bidding on a permit would be able to safely
and successfully participate in the fishery.
11:47:59 AM
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the change to proposed Section 56 [page
31, beginning on line 23 of Version L] simply clarifies that
fishery trust regions should encompass both land and water area
in the state. The change to proposed Section 56, (a)(1) would
change the date the department should use when drawing fisheries
trust boundaries, he said. The last change was to proposed
Section 56, (b)(2) which states that all fisheries trusts shall
have at least five communities, he said. He explained that the
regional structure does not work very well if the region
consists of only one or two communities.
11:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether he could address what
happens when someone applies to multiple fisheries.
MR. MAGDANZ related his understanding that if an individual was
selected as a temporary transferee by a fisheries trust, the
person could not just back out of it at-will; therefore, anyone
should be careful before applying to multiple trusts.
11:49:39 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
11:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referring to a letter of opposition [not
specifically identified], asked whether the sponsor had
considered any of the ideas expressed.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that the idea described at the end of the
letter is complicated. He was unsure if the sponsor has had
time to fully evaluate if the concerns had merit or value in the
specific recommendations.
11:51:26 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 188.
11:51:55 AM
BEN STEVENS, Director, Hunting and Fishing Task Force, Tanana
Chiefs Conference (TCC), said the TCC was a regional non-profit
and tribal consortium for the 42 villages of Interior Alaska.
He also served on the advisory panel to the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC); however, his comments were
limited to his role as director. The fishing industry provides
the most viable opportunities for fishermen to earn a living in
communities along Alaska's coastline. It has been well
substantiated that there has been a huge decline in the number
of limited entry permits held by local fishermen. This decline
represents lost jobs, lost opportunities and economic distress
for fishermen, their families, and the communities.
MR. STEVENS said that the regional fisheries trust program
envisioned in HB 188 would complement efforts already being made
in the western coastal communities of the Bering Sea, as well as
fisheries in the communities in the Gulf of Alaska. The
regional fisheries trust shows significant promise to restore
opportunities to those fishermen who need it the most. He
stated that rural communities stand to benefit greatly from
retention and restoration of access to those fisheries. He
offered TCC support for HB 188 to make this a reality. He
characterized HB 188 as a "no nonsense" bill. He urged members
to move HB 188 out of committee and the legislature as soon as
possible.
11:54:49 AM
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President; General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), asked to testify in support
of HB 188. The AFN believes in thriving economic and culturally
vibrant communities in all Alaska, especially in rural coastal
communities of Alaska, she said.
MS. BORROMEO stated that when the full board met on February 13
there was adamant support for this bill because the AFN believes
it is essential to bringing back sustainable economies in rural
coastal communities. These fisheries trust have a real
potential for making a difference in these communities. She
concluded by stating that AFN was firmly behind this bill and
she urged members to move it out of committee today.
11:56:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony on HB 188.
11:56:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that the committee has held numerous hearings.
She offered her belief the bill needed some additional work;
however, it was time to move it forward. She directed attention
to the two fiscal notes in members' packets, a zero-fiscal note
from the Division of Banking & Securities, Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED). The fiscal
note from the Division of Economic Development estimated a cost
to the state of approximately $476,200 in the first year and
$400,000 in subsequent years; however, these fiscal notes have
not been updated to proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
231, Version L.
11:57:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 188, labeled 30-LS0389\L [Version L], out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
188(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
11:58:43 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:58
a.m.