04/04/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HB186 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2011
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD
Karen Polley - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
BOARD OF GAME
Stanley (Stosh) L. Hoffman, Jr. - Bethel
Ted H. Spraker - Soldotna
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to the authority of the commissioner of fish
and game with regard to the importation or relocation of wood
bison in the state."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal
management program and relating to the extension; relating to
the review of activities of the Alaska coastal management
program; providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 106(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: WOOD BISON
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
04/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
03/07/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/16/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/23/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/25/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/30/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN POLLEY, Appointee
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as an appointee to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
STANLEY (STOSH) L. HOFFMAN, JR., Appointee
Board of Game
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as an appointee to the Board of Game.
TED H. SPRAKER, Appointee
Board of Game
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as an appointee to the Board of Game.
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chair
Kenai Soldotna Fish & Game Advisory Committee;
President, Safari Club International - Kenai Chapter
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the re-appointment of Mr. Ted
Spraker to the Board of Game.
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 106, provided
comments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:17 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Feige,
Seaton, Kawasaki, Dick, Foster, and Herron were present at the
call to order. Representatives Wilson, Munoz, and Gardner
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Big Game Commercial Services Board
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Big Game Commercial Services Board
1:08:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business is the
confirmation hearing of Karen Polley, appointee to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE passed the gavel to Co-Chair Seaton.
1:08:48 PM
KAREN POLLEY, Appointee, Big Game Commercial Services Board,
specified that she is interested in being on the Big Game
Commercial Services Board as a public member. She said her 40-
plus years as a resident of Alaska, during which she has hunted
and fished, qualify her. Furthermore, her travels throughout
the state have familiarized her with the geography of the state.
She informed the committee that she has served on the
Professional Teaching Practices Commission. Ms. Polley opined
that the Big Game Commercial Services Board attempts to ensure
that the behavior in the state is professional and ethical,
while managing the taking of big game with a wise resource
management focus. Ms. Polley reiterated that she would be
serving as a public member on the board.
1:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to Ms. Polley's opinion of
the special use guide areas, which has been controversial in the
past.
MS. POLLEY related that the guide use areas have been determined
and the [Big Game Commercial Services Board] is working on some
of the boundaries of these areas to include more state lands and
to make them match up with natural resource use areas. She
opined that the professional guides themselves are working to
manage those special guide use areas through some of the
regulations they are supporting with the Big Game Commercial
Services Board.
1:11:14 PM
MS. POLLEY, in response to Representative Herron, specified that
at this time she does not have an opinion as to whether she
likes or dislikes exclusive guide areas. However, she viewed
them as existing and needing proper management through a fair
and equitable process.
1:11:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, regarding big sheep, opined that the
current system allows outfitters to go to any drainage and
"vacuum up" all of the sheep and then move on to the next
drainage. Therefore, they have no reason to take care of the
target species or the region. He then asked if Ms. Polley would
rather have an exclusive system so that so many people aren't
preying on a small population, such as is the case with the big
sheep.
MS. POLLEY informed the committee that through the transporter
system, reporting of the game taken in these drainage areas goes
to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the Big Game
Commercial Services Board. The management of the sheep is then
the responsibility of several agencies, including ADF&G, [the
Bureau of] Land Management, and the Big Game Commercial Services
Board. She opined that the game resource taken from the
drainage areas must be managed as it's a public resource. To
make it exclusive to one group is inappropriate, she further
opined.
1:13:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining there was no one interested in
testifying, closed public testimony.
1:14:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to advance the confirmation of Ms.
Polley to the Big Game Commercial Services Board to the joint
session for consideration. There being no objection, the
confirmation was advanced.
1:14:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded members that signing the reports
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Game
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Game
1:14:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is the
confirmation hearings of Stanley (Stosh) L. Hoffman, Jr. and Ted
H. Spraker, appointees to the Board of Game.
1:15:26 PM
STANLEY (STOSH) L. HOFFMAN, JR., Appointee, Board of Game,
informed the committee that he is a life-long Alaskan who was
born in Bethel, obtained his education in the state, and has
worked in the state. Currently, Mr. Hoffman, Jr., is working
with the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, with which he has
worked for about the last five years. While living in Bethel,
Mr. Hoffman, Jr., has worked as a guide in Unit 19B and has been
a commercial fisherman on the Lower Kuskokwim River for about 30
years. Mr. Hoffman, Jr., explained that he is interested in
serving on the Board of Game because he has been involved in
some complex issues during the past few years [on the board] and
he would like to offer that knowledge. He opined that he would
be letting Alaskans down if he did not put his name back into
the hat.
1:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested Mr. Hoffman share his biggest
surprise and disappointment since being appointed to the Board
of Game two years ago.
MR. HOFFMAN, JR., said that there were lots of surprises from
the Bethel and McGrath areas. There were also lots of learning,
listening, and research during the process, he related. With
regard to disappointments, he said there were none. Although he
mentioned that being from rural Alaska he is often on the short
end of the stick as far as voting purposes.
1:19:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to the opinion of Mr. Hoffman,
Jr., regarding predator control. He also inquired as to whether
he had any creative ideas for increasing moose populations.
MR. HOFFMAN, JR., noted that Representative Dick was his teacher
30 years ago or so. He said that he supports predator control
when there is a need for it and the biology and studies show
that it is needed.
1:20:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining there were no further
questions or testimony, closed public testimony.
1:20:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to advance the confirmation of Mr.
Hoffman, Jr., to the Board of Game to the joint session for
consideration. There being no objection, the confirmation was
advanced.
1:21:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON then turned the committee's attention to the
appointment of Ted Spraker to the Board of Game.
1:21:29 PM
TED H. SPRAKER, Appointee, Board of Game, began by informing the
committee that he and his wife have three children, all of which
were born in Soldotna. In fact, one of the three children
continues to live and work in the state. He then told the
committee that he was raised in Wyoming where he also attended
college and graduate school, which he completed in 1973 and then
moved to Alaska shortly thereafter. Mr. Spraker related that he
has a bachelor's degree in Wildlife Management and a master's
degree in Range Management. He then related his work history in
Alaska, which began with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Southeast Alaska. He was then hired as an assistant wildlife
biologist by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) in
February 1974 and ultimately, was promoted to the position of
biologist for the Kenai Peninsula. Mr. Spraker related that
after 28 years of service he retired from ADF&G in 2002 and was
appointed to the Board of Game in 2003. He further related that
he has served as the Board of Game representative on the Big
Game Commercial Services Board since it began in 2004. Since
retirement, Mr. Spraker has served three terms on the Board of
Game under three different administrations. He said he looked
forward to another term to address the challenging issues of the
state. He noted that he is a long-time member of the Alaska
Trappers Association, a charter member of Safari Club
International, a 4-H Shooting Sport Instructor, and a lifetime
member of the National Rifle Association. Mr. Spraker told the
committee that he and his wife dedicate much of their spare time
to youth firearm safety and educational hunting programs. In
conclusion, Mr. Spraker stated that working with wildlife
management issues and the public has been a long career and he
continues to enjoy it. He expressed his hope to be confirmed
for another term in order to continue to work with the public
and the resources of the state.
1:25:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining there were no questions from
the committee, opened public testimony.
1:25:41 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, Chair, Kenai Soldotna Fish & Game Advisory
Committee; President, Safari Club International - Kenai Chapter,
opined that the re-appointment of Mr. Spraker to the Board of
Game would be beneficial as his experience is undeniable.
Furthermore, Mr. Spraker is always well prepared and listens to
the various viewpoints expressed at the Board of Game meetings.
Moreover, Mr. Spraker explains his viewpoint well as well as
that of the Board of Game. Mr. Spraker's knowledge with regard
to the predator management in the state is valuable. As a
biologist Mr. Spraker understands the science of matters as well
as the need to build a record on important issues such as
predator management. Furthermore, Mr. Spraker has received a
lifetime conservation award from Safari Club International and
the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC). Mr. Crawford informed the
committee that Mr. Spraker regularly attends the Kenai Soldotna
Fish & Game Advisory Committee meetings, which he believes Mr.
Spraker does throughout the Kenai Peninsula. Mr. Spraker also
attends the Alaska Trappers Association meetings regularly. He
reviewed the various other organization meetings that Mr.
Spraker attended. Mr. Crawford concluded by relating that Mr.
Spraker is a valued member of the committee that has much
support from the Kenai Peninsula.
1:27:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony. However, he noted that the committee
packet should include letters from the Alaska Federation of
Natives and Ahtna, Inc., in support of Mr. Spraker's re-
appointment.
1:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to advance the confirmation of Mr.
Spraker to the Board of Game to the joint session for
consideration. There being no objection, the confirmation was
advanced.
HB 186-WOOD BISON
1:29:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of fish and game with regard to the importation or
relocation of wood bison in the state."
1:29:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:29 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
1:30:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, speaking as the sponsor of HB 186,
paraphrased from the following sponsor statement [original
punctuation provided]:
Wood bison are an endangered species. The only herd of
Wood bison in the whole United States resides in the
Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, AK awaiting
release. They have been promised a 10-J exemption to
the Endangered Species Act.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game has planned for
years to introduce those bison into the Innoko River
drainage, close to the villages of Shageluk, Anvik,
Holy Cross and Grayling.
The people of that area have cooperated with ADF&G,
unaware of the potential long-term, irreversible
impact of introducing an endangered species.
The Federal Government has never passed up on an
opportunity to lock up Alaskan lands. Environmental
groups are not likely to wait long before filing
litigation against the 10-J exemption.
The history of Federal and State governments, combined
with the unwavering assault against development in
Alaska by environmental groups makes the introduction
of an endangered species an extremely risky venture
that should not be undertaken without serious
deliberation. This is not a scientific issue, nor a
food issue. It is a totally political issue with grave
long-term consequences for any region of the state.
This bill does not prohibit the introduction of the
Wood Bison. It simply requires that the introduction
occur with permission of the Alaska State Legislature.
This safeguards people of any area of Alaska from the
introduction of Trojan Bison without fully informed
counsel.
In 40 years of conflict in the Delta Junction area the
State of Alaska has done very little to resolve the
unintended consequences that occurred from the
introduction of Plains bison into the region in the
1920's. The unintended consequences that will result
from the introduction of Wood bison into the Innoko
area will be much more significant than those in the
Delta area. Those who think they will be eating Wood
bison in ten years will more likely become embroiled
in a lawsuit within two.
1:32:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK then presented an 8-minute video on wood
bison; the written transcript from which he paraphrased follows
[original punctuation provided]:
My main concern with the introduction of Wood Bison
into our area is that the people of Holy Cross, Anvik,
Shageluk and Grayling are going to end up a sad
"Whereas..." in a sad petition to Washington DC where
the government is no longer of by and for the people.
Once you know the facts, I don't think you will
consider it for a nanosecond.
The wood bison that ADF&G plans to introduce into our
district is the ONLY Wood Bison herd in the US.
Should we think for one minute that the Federal
Government will uphold their 10-J exemption to the
Endangered Species Act?
Should we think that the 10-j exemption will last one
weekend before Environmental groups file a law suit
against it? We won't be hunters. We will become
litigators in lawsuits!
I wanted the bison in the headwaters of the Stony
River until I learned the story. They are Trojan
Bison. Once we allow them through the gates, they will
destroy our country from within.
Look at Delta. They have Plains bison to hunt. Over
16,000 people apply for a permit each year and only
130 people get one. What will our chances be ten years
from now when bison hunts are opened? (If our lawyers
perform a miracle and protect us from the Federal and
environmental nonsense.)
Do we want all those outsiders hunting in our
backyard? Do we really think we will get a permit? Our
chances are better at the local bingo hall.
Have you read the 10-J exemption to the Endangered
Species Act. Here it is. There's nothing there that
makes me feel safe.
The Feds have never rescinded a 10-J exemption yet...
yet! When did the Feds pass up a chance to lie to
Alaskans and take our land? When did the Feds not lie
to Indians?
This is an endangered species we are talking about
bringing into our country. These are the ONLY Wood
Bison in the whole United States.
Look at the polar bears. Reliable sources say there
are five times more polar bears now than there were in
the 70's, but the Feds recently have taken charge of
120 million acres, from the Canadian border to below
Kotzebue. And the polar bears aren't even endangered.
I think the Feds are using the bears to lock up the
country.
Doyon folks didn't want the bison in the Minto Flats
and made sure they stayed in Portage.
Should we trust the Federal government?
Look at the Statehood Act
The Feds knew we didn't have many people to tax in
order to run the State government, so the Feds agreed
to develop the resources of Alaska. The state was to
get 90% of the revenue to run the state. That was the
Statehood Agreement act.
1:35:05 PM
With ANILCA, President Carter violated the Statehood
Act! The statehood act gave the State of Alaska 104 M
acres of land. ANILCA locked up an equal amount, 104 M
acres. The Feds promised they would NEVER do that
again.
Recently, President Obama, in violation of ANILCA, set
in motion the process to take another huge chunk of
Federal land in Alaska and lock that up too in the
name of "wild lands."
They lie. Not once, but always. They lied with the
statehood act, they lied with ANILCA, and now they are
doing it again. Who in the Federal Government could
sign a paper that you would believe?
I passed through Oregon when one Federal Judge shut
down most of the logging industry in that state
because of the spotted owl. Environmental groups said
the Endangered spotted owl only nested in old growth
trees, so they needed to be protected. Thousands of
people were put out of work because of the owl.
But the truth is the spotted owl loves to nest in old
pickup trucks and other such places. The
environmentalists used the owl to lock up the state
and put people out of work.
1:36:37 PM
Recently on the House floor we passed HJR 17 urging
the Federal Government to reconsider the situation in
Unalaska.
Unalaska had an exemption but the EPA revoked the
exemption that Unalaska had regarding their water and
secondary treatment plants. The EPA requirement is now
an unfunded mandate of $9.5 million for treatment for
cryptosporidium and there is NO cryptosporidium in
Unalaska! The secondary treatment mandate is between
$20-50 million. That totals over $6,500 for every man,
woman and child in the town of 4,370 folks.
When Unalaska appealed, the EPA said "Too bad." The
deadline for filling for an exemption had passed. They
don't care about the people of Unalaska.
The reason I mention this is that we will be trusting
in an exemption the same way Unalaska did.
Look how the Feds locked up the Tongass Forest.
Remember, the Statehood Agreement said that Alaskans
could develop resources on the Federal lands and the
state would get 90% of the revenue. Thousands of
people were put out of their jobs by the Federal
lockup of the Tongass. South East villages are dying
now because there is no economy. Do we think the Feds
care any more for us?
1:37:56 PM
Should we trust the environmental groups? Do we think
they will not immediately file a law suit against the
10-J exemption?
Do you remember how the environmental groups lied to
the people of Alaska during the predator control
issue? This is why we have a few moose in many parts
of the state. Environmental groups made big bucks on
the wolf issue, bleeding money out of the uninformed
people of the lower 48 to "save the wolves" that wiped
out our moose population.
They would love to take your case to court... the ONLY
wood bison herd in the United States.
This will be a big fund-raiser for them. They will
make millions of dollars by challenging the 10-J
exemption. We Alaskans have no way to fight back.
Should we trust our own State government? A herd of
Plains Bison have been in Delta since the 20's. They
are not an endangered species, but the Delta hunt is
so popular, the State has ignored the cries of the
Delta farmers for decades. The bison trampled $150,000
worth of barley just last year, but ADF&G hasn't done
a thing about it. If the State won't do something for
the Delta farmers, what makes us think they will do
something for us against the Federal Government when
the Trojan Bison have our land locked up?
1:38:55 PM
Concern
The bill I have submitted to the House only requires
the Department of Fish & Game to get permission from
the Legislature before introducing the Endangered
Bison into a location in Alaska. It doesn't prohibit
the introduction of bison; it just helps keep folks
from being buffalo-ed by the buffalo.
If the land gets locked up, does the State government
lose? No. Biologists still get to have their pet
project to study bison.
Do professional hunting groups lose? Well they will
lose the money they put into the project, but their
country won't be locked up.
Who is the loser? The people who will be hurt the most
are the people of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk and
Grayling, but the whole state will be negatively
affected as well.
1:39:34 PM
What is the best-case scenario?
In ten years we get a one-in-a-hundred chance to hunt
a bison, while competing with scores of outsiders in
our country.
What is the worst-case scenario? Your corporation
land, and all surrounding Federal and State land, will
be locked up while the bison roam free. We will spend
our lives in court, and some Federal judge no one
every voted for, who could care less whether we live
or die, will decide whether we can tiptoe on the
tundra.
The effect of the release of the Trojan Bison will be
irreversible. Once they are loose, the problems they
bring will never go away.
People of Holy Cross, Grayling, Anvik and Shageluk I
think introducing the bison into your backyard is a
HUGE mistake.
Some of your young guys will go out on a snowy winter
night to taste bison meat and will end up in Federal
prison for killing an endangered species. The bison
will be free roaming and the people will be locked up.
Let me make a suggestion. Tell Fish & Game you want
Plains bison like Delta, Fairwell and Copper River. I
bet Plains Bison taste just as good as Trojan Bison.
You will get all the benefits with none of the risk.
Tell Fish and Game to find another place for the
Endangered Bison.
The real solution is effective predator control to get
our moose back.
I fear that we will become a very sad "Whereas" in a
very sad petition to Washington DC that doesn't listen
to our Governor or any other entity in this state.
Consider the facts and get back to me. Thanks.
1:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK concluded:
Do you remember the Charlie Brown cartoon? Every year
Lucy promised not to pull the football away, every
year Charlie trusted her, and every year she found
another excuse to break her word and leave Charlie
Brown flat on his back. It's like that, the federal
government will find some excuse to break a promise,
they always do.
1:41:28 PM
[Co-Chair Seaton returned the gavel to Co-Chair Feige.]
1:41:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, in response to Representative Herron, said
that he is still trying to understand the definition of the term
nonessential experimental population, which he opined is being
redefined. In fact, the 10(j) exemption of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) is being re-worded so the people of Alaska
will have greater assurances. In further response to
Representative Herron, Representative Dick said that he hasn't
submitted comments to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regarding
the reclassification of the wood bison from endangered to
threatened. He related his opinion that there isn't any wording
of the 10(j) exemption that would make any difference,
particularly due to his mistrust of the federal government.
1:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked if Representative Dick had received
any film credits for the earlier presented film.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied no.
1:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to how [HB 186] will impact
the current bison in Portage and whether the legislation will
delay the existing proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said that he has had conversations with ADF&G
staff and learned that there is the possibility that this might
delay the moving of the bison one more year. He clarified that
he doesn't intend to cause delay, but rather to be sure those in
the area where the bison would be located are fully informed.
1:45:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised from Representative Dick's video that
it's not so much of an issue of trust of the federal government.
Rather, it's that if bison are introduced, the state is subject
to any nongovernmental unit bringing a lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK indicated that to be the case. He then
related that he trusts the current governor and commissioner of
ADF&G. However, he recalled times when past governors had no
concern for rural Alaskans. Therefore, he expressed concern
that in the future ADF&G won't be able to move these bison into
a place in Alaska without the consent of the legislature. In
this case, Representative Dick opined that residents of Anvik,
Shageluk, and Grayling have been given the positive side of
introducing wood bison, but don't understand the irrevocable
consequences.
1:47:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE then announced that HB 186 would be held over,
noting that public testimony will be taken on 4/6/11.
1:48:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2:06:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska
coastal management program; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and
providing for an effective date."
2:06:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related that he, Co-Chair Seaton, Representatives
Herron and Joule, and Deputy Commissioner Balash have spent a
great deal of time trying to address all of the issues with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The group has tried
to take into consideration all the wants, needs, and concerns of
the coastal districts while accommodating the governor's four
requirements. The group, he said, believes it has achieved
success through the forthcoming packet of amendments that adjust
the program while still maintaining its focus. He then directed
attention to the summary sheet of amendments, saying they will
be addressed in the order listed on the summary sheet.
2:08:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.27, Bullard, 4/3/11, which read:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
RETROACTIVITY AND REVIVAL. (a) The amendment to
AS 44.66.020(a)(5) made by sec. 3 of this Act is
retroactive to January 1, 2011.
(b) If, under AS 01.10.070(c), sec. 3 of this Act
takes effect on or after July 1, 2011, sec. 3 of this
Act is retroactive to July 1, 2011, and sections
repealed by sec. 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005, are revived. If
a revived section is amended by this Act, it is
revived as amended by this Act. The revived sections
are subject to repeal under sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005,
as amended by sec. 3 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:08:56 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that there is a legal memorandum
attached to Amendment 7. Amendment 7 provides for a drop dead
date of June 30 in the case of an unforeseen delay. Therefore,
retroactively reviving the statute wouldn't be a violation of
state law.
2:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that the amendments the
committee will consider today are to HB 106 as it has already
been amended.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied yes.
2:10:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee of its desire to review
each item rather than considering a large committee substitute
(CS). These amendments are offered to the original bill and all
amendments will be wrapped into a CS that can be reviewed prior
to moving the legislation out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
2:11:11 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
2:11:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE informed the committee that Amendment 8 requires
an annual report on the progress the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) has made in drafting and adopting ACMP
regulations.
2:11:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 8,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.28, Bullard, 4/2/11, which read:
Page 2, following line 53:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39.010 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Not later than January 20 each year, the
department shall prepare an annual report summarizing
the department's efforts to draft and adopt
regulations under this chapter and AS 46.40 during the
prior calendar year. The department shall notify the
legislature that the report is available and shall
also post the report on the department's Internet
website."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
There being no objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.
2:12:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved on to Amendment 9, which:
Provides that the Department shall provide planning
and consistency review data and information to members
of the governing body of a coastal resource district
or coastal resource service area. States that if the
department provides funds to implement or amend a
coastal district plan along with a restriction on the
use of the funds, they will specify the state statute
or federal regulation or statute that authorizes the
restriction.
2:12:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 9,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.30, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the duty of the Department of
Natural Resources to provide data and information to a
coastal resource district or area; relating to funds
provided to coastal resource districts; relating to
regulations adopted by the department regarding
persons authorized to participate in and to receive
materials relating to a consistency review;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39.040 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.39.040. Duties of the department. In
conformity with 16 U.S.C. 1451 - 1464 (Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972), as amended, the department
shall
(1) develop statewide standards for the
Alaska coastal management program, and criteria for
the preparation and approval of district coastal
management plans in accordance with AS 46.40;
(2) establish continuing coordination among
state agencies to facilitate the development and
implementation of the Alaska coastal management
program; in carrying out its duties under this
paragraph, the department shall initiate an
interagency program of comprehensive coastal resource
planning for each geographic region of the state;
(3) assure continued provision of data and
information to coastal resource districts and coastal
resource service areas to carry out their planning and
management functions under the program; in providing
data and information to a coastal resource district or
area under this paragraph, the department shall
provide the data and information to each member of the
governing body of the coastal resource district or the
board of the coastal resource service area and to
other persons as may be designated by the district or
area.
* Sec. 3. AS 46.39.040 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) If the department provides funds to a
coastal resource district or area to implement or
amend a coastal resource district's or area's coastal
management plan and the department provides a
restriction on how the funds may be used by the
district or area, the department shall specify the
state statute or federal statute or regulation that
authorizes the restriction.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.096(c) is amended to read:
(c) The regulations adopted by the department
under this section must, in an affected coastal
resource district, permit the members of the governing
body of the coastal resource district, the district's
coastal management plan coordinator, and the
district's community planner to participate in the
consistency review, and the regulations must require
the department or reviewing entity to provide the
persons described in AS 46.39.030(3) materials
relating to the consistency review. The regulations
must also include provisions for public notice and
provide the opportunity for public comment.
Regulations relating to public notice and public
comment [THE REGULATIONS] adopted under this
subsection may make distinctions relating to notice
based upon differences in project type, anticipated
effect of the project on coastal resources and uses,
other state or federal notice requirements, and time
constraints. However, a notice given under this
subsection must contain sufficient information,
expressed in commonly understood terms, to inform the
public of the nature of the proposed project for which
a consistency determination is sought, and must
explain how the public may comment on the proposed
project. Notices described in this subsection shall be
published on the department's Internet website. In
this subsection,
(1) "coastal management plan coordinator"
means the person designated, by a coastal resource
district, with development, maintenance, and
implementation of the district's coastal management
plan;
(2) "community planner" means the person
designated, by a coastal resource district, with
helping to formulate plans and making decisions
relating to the development of the district's natural
resources and community assets and the protection of
the district's water, land, and air."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:13:08 PM
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, directed attention to page 1, line 23, of Amendment
9. He expressed the need to be sure the "continued provision of
data and information to coastal resource districts and coastal
resource service areas" is available electronically. In some of
the reviews a C-plan will be submitted by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) as part of the information
supporting the project. It's not unusual for a C-plan to fill
four three-inch binders, which is costly in terms of copying and
mailing. Therefore, providing this information electronically
would go a long way.
2:14:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said providing the information electronically
would be totally appropriate. In fact, he said it's his intent
to allow the department or agencies to provide this information
by electronic means. He questioned whether the department is
comfortable with the discussion on the record or whether an
amendment to Amendment 9 would be necessary.
MR. BALASH responded that so long as there is a public record,
the department will be comfortable providing the information by
electronic means and won't reflect a higher cost [for the
distribution of the information] in the fiscal note.
2:15:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether the districts
involved are comfortable with receiving the data by electronic
means.
MR. BALASH clarified that the issue for the department is
whether it can send a thumb drive or CD; the information does
not have to be delivered in an e-mail.
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that allowing the data to be provided via
a CD and thumb drive is going to be adequate if that is
considered an electronic means and would satisfy everyone's
goals.
2:17:16 PM
MR. BALASH then directed the committee's attention to the
following language on page 2, lines 26-28, of Amendment 9:
"Notices described in this subsection shall be published on the
department's Internet website". The state maintains a public
notice website where all public notices from all state agencies
are noticed. Therefore, the requirement in Amendment 9 would be
new and reflected in a fiscal note. In practice, the state
avoids duplicate notices. Therefore, he suggested that the
department could provide a link on its website to the state
public notice website.
2:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised, though, that the department
will still contact a district personally, rather than expect the
district to keep checking the website.
MR. BALASH replied yes, adding that during the pre-review
process the department provides the costal district notification
prior to the completion of the application. Once the
application is deemed complete, all the information is noticed
and constitutes day one of the review.
2:19:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether it would make sense to
substitute "state's" for "department's" on page 2, line 27, of
Amendment 9.
2:19:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that unless the information is
categorized by subject matter, it would be less available to
those following the coastal management issues. However, he
opined that a link on DCOM's website to the notice of the
[coastal zone management information] would adequately meet [the
requirement].
2:21:24 PM
MR. BALASH said that this discussion helps, but pointed out that
the language on page 2, lines 26-28, of Amendment 9 would mean
the entirety of the notice would be placed on the department's
website. Therefore, the department wants to be sure it
understands what is to be accomplished in order that's it's done
correctly and the committee understands exactly what it's
requesting of the department. If a link would satisfy the
desire, then changing the term "published" to "posted" or some
other comparable word would be appropriate.
2:22:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised then that Mr. Balash is suggesting
changing the language of Amendment 9 so that the department can
place a link on its website to the already existing published
notice.
MR. BALASH confirmed that is his suggestion.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 to
Amendment 9, such that on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 the
term "published" would be replaced with "posted".
2:23:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referenced Representative Gardner's earlier
suggestion of replacing the term "published" with "available
through".
2:23:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Amendment 1 to Amendment 9. He then
moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment 9, which
would on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 replace the term
"published" with "made available".
2:24:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Amendment 2 to Amendment 9. He then
moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3 to Amendment 9, which
would on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 delete "published on"
and insert "made available through". There being no objection,
Amendment 3 to Amendment 9 was adopted.
2:25:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4
to Amendment 9, which would on page 2, line 2, of Amendment 9,
as amended, following the term "information" insert
"electronically or by mail if electronic means do not exist".
2:25:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. He then asked if the
department believes Amendment 4 to Amendment 9 will allow the
mailing of a digital copy rather than a paper copy.
MR. BALASH replied yes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON withdrew his objection.
2:26:16 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 to Amendment 9 was
adopted.
2:26:28 PM
MR. BALASH directed attention to Section 4 on page 2 of
Amendment 9, as amended. Section 4 makes a distinction between
who is involved and to what degree in a review versus who may
receive information. Although it's not a big deal, it's
important to reference because in the review process the
department wants to maintain that link between the locality, the
communities, and the participation in the review of projects.
2:27:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that the intent of Amendment 9, as
amended, is to include the management of the coastal district
and the coastal resource service area board in the process. The
goal is to avoid a situation in which a consultant designated by
a district is doing all the interaction with the department and
not keeping the folks in the coastal district aware of what is
happening. Requiring the information is provided to those folks
in the coastal district and members of the coastal resource
service area board attempts to keep as many people in the loop
as possible without infringing on the freedom of the board or
the district to designate the people they want to represent
them.
2:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the department would prefer in
Section 4(c) of Amendment 9, as amended, to have a numerical
listing of the following: members of the governing body of the
coastal district, coastal management plan coordinator, and
community planner.
MR. BALASH deferred to the lawyers.
2:29:46 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 9, as amended, was
adopted.
2:30:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved on to Amendment 10, which addresses
elevations of consistency determinations. Basically, if there
is an elevation during the consistency review process, the
disputes would be resolved by the commissioners from the
following departments: Department of Natural Resources, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and DEC. The commissioners
will issue a written order that was signed by at least two of
the commissioners that renders the final determination.
2:30:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that committee adopt Amendment 10, labeled
27-GH1965\A.31, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the review of certain
consistency determinations for a project in an Alaska
coastal resource district;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.40.096(d) is amended to read:
(d) In preparing a consistency review and
determination for a proposed project, the reviewing
entity shall
(1) request consistency review comments for
the proposed project from state resource agencies,
affected coastal resource districts, and other
interested parties as determined by regulation adopted
by the department;
(2) prepare proposed consistency
determinations;
(3) conduct elevations [COORDINATE
SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS] of proposed consistency
determinations prepared under (2) of this subsection;
an elevation [A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW] of a proposed
consistency determination under this paragraph
(A) may only be conducted [IS LIMITED TO A
REVIEW] by the commissioners of the resource agencies
[DEPARTMENT];
(B) may occur only if requested by
(i) the project applicant;
(ii) a state resource agency; or
(iii) an affected coastal resource
district; and
(C) shall be completed with the issuance of
a written order signed by at least two of the
commissioners of the resource agencies [DEPARTMENT]
within 45 days after the initial request for an
elevation [SUBSEQUENT REVIEW] under this paragraph;
(4) render the final consistency
determination and certification.
* Sec. 3. AS 46.40.096(o) is amended to read:
(o) The time limitations in (n) of this section
(1) do not apply to a consistency review
involving the disposal of an interest in state land or
resources;
(2) are suspended
(A) from the time the reviewing entity
determines that the applicant has not adequately
responded in writing within 14 days after the receipt
of a written request from the reviewing entity for
additional information, until the time the reviewing
entity determines that the applicant has provided an
adequate written response;
(B) during a period of time requested by
the applicant;
(C) during the period of time a consistency
review is undergoing an elevation [A SUBSEQUENT
REVIEW] under (d)(3) of this section.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.096(q)(2) is amended to read:
(2) "reviewing entity" means the
(A) Department of Natural Resources, for a
consistency review subject to AS 46.39.010;
(B) the commissioners of the resource
agencies, for the elevation of a proposed consistency
determination under (d) of this section;
(C) state agency identified in (b) of this
section, for a consistency review not subject to
AS 46.39.010.
* Sec. 5. AS 46.40.210 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(13) "elevation" means a review of a
proposed consistency determination by the
commissioners of the resource agencies."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:31:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 10 makes sure all of
the resource agencies are involved in the process. The
commissioners would have a 45-day time limit by which they must
act and issue a written order. The aforementioned ensures the
public is aware of the written order and its recommendations.
2:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if current elevations are directed
only to the commissioner of DNR.
MR. BALASH replied yes. In further response to Representative
Munoz, Mr. Balash, confirmed that the current law requires
action and a written order within 45 days. However, if there is
a single agency review conducted by an agency other than a
division within DNR, it would be a different commissioner
dealing with the elevation. Most reviews are conducted by DCOM
or some other DNR agency. Therefore, more often than not,
particularly since the 2003 changes, the elevations have been
handled by the DNR commissioner.
2:33:33 PM
MR. BALASH then directed attention to the language on page 2,
line 1, of Amendment 10, which read: "shall be completed with
the issuance of a written order signed by at least two of the
commissioners of the resource agencies". He noted that it's not
unusual to have four opinions among the three commissioners,
which calls into question what happens on day 46. In the
department's estimation, no action is the same as a denial, he
related. The aforementioned is how such would be treated in an
administrative appeal, to which an elevation is similar. Since
the statute doesn't say that, it would be better stated
explicitly. In response to Co-Chair Feige, Mr. Balash suggested
inserting on page 2, line 4, a new subparagraph (D) that read:
"if a written order is not issued within the 45 days, the
proposed consistency determination under (d)(2) is final". He
did acknowledge that the drafters would likely have their own
way of structuring the language.
2:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that if the
commissioners disagree with the determination and there has to
be a written order issued, then two of the commissioners would
sign the order. However, in the case in which the three
commissioners agree with the determination, he said he didn't
see a need for a written order.
2:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON posed a scenario in which there were
four items that were elevated to this level, and asked if each
item would be addressed separately with a written determination
for each. If there wasn't a written determination for one item
with 45 days, then she questioned whether the assumption would
be that the original determination would stand.
MR. BALASH clarified that the order signed by at least two
commissioners would need to specify which parts of that original
determination were being changed. In the case presented by
Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Balash said the proposed
determination finds the project inconsistent unless four
alternative measures are adopted by the applicant. If the
commissioners agreed with two of the alternative measures and
disagreed with the other two, the written order would need to
state as much, which is that the two items for which there is
disagreement aren't applicable to the final determination.
2:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined, "If it's put in there, then no
one has any questions." She suggested that if the original
written determination is not issued within the 45 days, it might
be better to specify in writing that the original determination
stands. Therefore, there is no question either way.
CO-CHAIR SEATON concurred with Representative P. Wilson. While
elevations are rare, the issue was strong enough to not be
resolved during the regular process. If there is no requirement
for a written decision, there is no way to know whether there
wasn't a meeting to consider the elevation or there was no
agreement. He opined that overall there would be much more
comfort and participation if it remains a written decision,
signed by at least two of the commissioners. Therefore, he
expressed his desire for the language [on page 2, lines 1-2, of
Amendment 10 to remain] as written.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that the committee is placing on
the record that it expects that no matter the decision, there
needs to be a written record that's issued.
2:43:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE remarked, "I don't think we disagree that there's
a requirement to have a written order." However, Mr. Balash
brought up an interesting scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that this entire process is a
process of coming together and making compromises.
2:44:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that she would like to incorporate
language to avoid the situation described by Mr. Balash.
Perhaps, there needs to be a fifth paragraph added that states:
"in the absence of a determination within the 45-day time
period, the proposed consistency determination stands". The
aforementioned language would at least avoid the problem
highlighted by Mr. Balash.
2:45:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:45 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
2:51:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that there are three different situations
that could arise when an elevation occurs during the review
process. One of which is addressed in subparagraph (C) on page
2, lines 1-4, of Amendment 10, whereby two of three
commissioners agree and issue a written order that is signed by
at least two of the commissioners. The other situation is one
in which all the commissioners agree. The third situation, as
posed by Mr. Balash, is one in which there is no agreement
between any of the commissioners and the question is how to
address that.
2:52:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that if no written order is
required, there is a fourth situation in which the commissioners
never meet. In such a situation the project sponsor proposing
an elevation never knows whether the commissioners met and
agreed with the proposed consistency determination or whether
they never met and reviewed the proposal because there is a way
for the commissioners to act without ever meeting or acting. He
opined that the only way to ensure that an elevation takes place
is to require a written determination. He further opined that
it's unfair to whoever is making the elevation to not know
whether the elevation was taken up or ignored in which case the
preliminary review standards are mandated.
2:54:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested that on page 1, line 20, subparagraph
(B), of Amendment 10 replacing "may" with "shall" would have the
effect of ensuring the commissioners of the resource agencies
meet.
2:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that changing the language of
Amendment 10 on page 1, line 20, subparagraph (B) to read:
"shall occur only if requested by" would mean no one else can
request it. She asked if it's necessary to maintain the term
"only" as without it the language would mean the same thing.
2:55:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the commissioners are acting on
whether a project is consistent or not.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that there has been an elevation, which
means there is a dispute raised by the applicant, the resource
agency, or the coastal district. That dispute is elevated to
the commissioners to decide.
2:56:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that the term "only" on page 1,
line 20 of Amendment 10 needs to remain otherwise a paragraph
(5) should be added.
2:57:13 PM
MR. BALASH, referring to Amendment 10, suggested that on page 2,
line 1, following "completed", inserting the following language:
", if granted,". The aforementioned change would require, as
with any administrative appeal for which there is a request for
reconsideration, two of the three commissioners to accept the
elevation and two of the three commissioners to grant and decide
the elevation.
2:58:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that he believes the desire is to have
the right of the resource agencies, a project sponsor, or
coastal district to elevate if there was disagreement in the
construction of the consistency review. If it's not able to be
worked out within the consistency review, it must be major
disagreement, he said. He said he wasn't sure having the
decision predicated on reviewing the information reaches the
desired goal.
2:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that on page 1, line 18, of
Amendment 10 the language should be changed to read as follows:
"shall be conducted by the commissioners of the resource
agencies if requested by". Therefore, an elevation has to be
conducted if requested by someone who has standing to request
it.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the change proposed by Mr. Balash to
Amendment 10 on page 2, line 1, following "completed" inserting
the following language: ", if granted," and Representative
Gardner's suggested change from "may" to "shall" would address
the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded yes, because the applicant,
resource agency, or coastal resource district knows they had to
have the review.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that they still should have a
written finalization; whatever the outcome, it needs to be
written.
3:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to what happens if [the
elevation] isn't granted.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that then the commissioners
say no and the earlier determination remains. However, if it's
related in a written report, then there won't be any doubt
regardless of the outcome.
3:01:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that Representative
Gardner's proposal to change the language on page 1, line 18, of
Amendment 10 from "may" to "shall" means that the commissioners
will conduct elevations. However, the suggested "if granted"
language is problematic because it means the commissioners will
have decided the determination prior to the review and thus he
didn't favor inserting the "if granted" language.
3:02:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the committee would recess until
6:00 p.m.
6:14:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE reconvened the meeting at 6:14 p.m.
Representatives P. Wilson, Herron, Munoz, Foster, Dick, Gardner,
Kawasaki, Seaton, and Feige were present at the call back to
order.
6:15:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
At AS 46.40.096(q)(2)(B) after "resource agencies"
Insert "or a deputy commissioner in the same
department"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 10
was adopted.
6:15:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that Amendment 10, as amended, was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 10,
as amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 10, as
amended was adopted.
6:16:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 11,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.32, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Delete "relating to the approval of district
coastal management plans by the Department of Natural
Resources;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.40.070 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 46.40.070. Requirements for department
review and approval. (a) The department shall approve
a district coastal management plan submitted for
review and approval if the
(1) district coastal management plan
(A) meets the requirements of this chapter
and the district plan criteria adopted by the
department; and
(B) does not conflict with the statewide
standards adopted by the department; and
(2) enforceable policies of the district
coastal management plan
(A) do not duplicate, restate, incorporate
by reference, rephrase, or otherwise modify or adopt
state or federal statutes or regulations;
(B) are not preempted by state or federal
law; and
(C) do not arbitrarily or unreasonably
restrict uses of state concern.
(b) The enforceable policies in a district
coastal management plan submitted for review under
this section may establish new standards or
requirements that are within the authority of a state
or federal agency unless the state or federal agency
specifically objects.
(c) In reviewing and approving a district
coastal management plan under (a) of this section, the
department may not require a district to designate
areas for the purpose of developing an enforceable
policy.
(d) In this section, "specifically objects"
means that a written objection to the enforceable
policy that establishes the new standards or
requirements is filed with the department by
(1) the commissioner of a state agency;
(2) the head of a federal agency operating
in the state;
(3) the official responsible for a federal
agency's operations in the state; or
(4) legal counsel for a federal agency
operating in the state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
6:17:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 11 addresses the AS
46.40.070 requirements for departmental review and approval,
such that it specifies the adequately addressed standards of
what can be approved for enforceable policies. He characterized
Amendment 11 as cleanup language.
6:18:08 PM
MR. BALASH recalled that Representative Munoz had concerns when
the language in [AS 46.40].030, which would [require that
[enforceable policies] don't duplicate or adopt by reference
state or federal regulations, was removed. The language was
reinstated on page 1, lines 16-18, of Amendment 11. Amendment
11 repeals and reenacts AS 46.40.070, which addresses the
requirements for departmental review and approval of local
plans. He reviewed the requirements of the district coastal
management plan and the enforceable policies of it, as specified
in Amendment 11. Section 2(b) in Amendment 11 addresses the
concern expressed by a number of districts with regard to
whether state and/or federal statutes and regulations adequately
address an issue of concern by the coastal districts. Section
2(b) specifies that so long as there is not a regulation on the
matter and the state or federal agency that has authority for
the matter doesn't object, a coastal district can develop a
policy on that matter, bring it forward as part of the local
plan and development, and adopt that enforceable policy. He
pointed out that Section 2(d) identifies who can object. In the
case of a state agency, the objection would come from the
commissioner while within the federal government the objection
would come from the head of or legal counsel for that agency in
Alaska. Mr. Balash expressed hope that Amendment 11 strikes the
appropriate balance by eliminating the subjectivity in the
statute and allows the process to move forward in a clear
fashion whereby everyone knows the rules.
6:22:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:23:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that attached to Amendment 11 is a
legal opinion. He then pointed out that due to the following
new language in Amendment 11: "does not conflict with statewide
standards adopted by the department", there need to be language
changes throughout the legislation. Therefore, Co-Chair Seaton
moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 11, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In the following sections:
AS 46.40.010(d) Development of Alaska coastal
management program
AS 46.40.030(a) Development of district coastal
management plans
AS 46.40.040(a) Statewide standards and district plan
criteria
AS 46.40.070 Requirements for department review and
approval
AS 46.40.180(b) Approval of plans in coastal resource
service areas
Delete "meet the Statewide Standards"
Insert "does not conflict with Statewide Standards
adopted by the department"
CO-CHAIR SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Feige, confirmed that
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 11 would standardize the
language throughout HB 106 in terms of statewide standards for
plans.
6:25:42 PM
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 11
was adopted.
6:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection to Amendment 11,
as amended.
6:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON then objected to Amendment 11, as amended.
He highlighted that although a lot of work went into Amendment
11, it doesn't include criteria for objecting. He then removed
his objection.
6:27:08 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 11, as amended was
adopted.
6:27:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 12,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.33, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39 is amended by adding new
sections to article 1 to read:
Sec. 46.39.005. Alaska Coastal Policy Board. (a)
The Alaska Coastal Policy Board is created in the
Department of Natural Resources. The board consists of
the following:
(1) five public members appointed by the
governor subject to confirmation by the legislature in
joint session, the public members shall include, one
at-large member from any coastal resource district and
four members from a list composed of at least three
names from each region, nominated and submitted by the
coastal resource districts of each region; one public
member shall be appointed from each of the following
regions:
(A) northwest Alaska, including, generally,
the area of the North Slope Borough and the Northwest
Arctic Borough; and the Bering Strait area, including,
generally, the area of the Bering Strait regional
educational attendance area;
(B) southwest Alaska, including, generally,
the area within the Lower Yukon, Lower Kuskokwim, and
Southwest regional educational attendance areas and
the Lake and Peninsula and Bristol Bay Boroughs; and
the Kodiak-Aleutians area, including the Kodiak Island
and area of the Aleutians East Boroughs and the area
of the Aleutian, Adak, and Pribilof regional
educational attendance areas;
(C) Upper Cook Inlet area, including the
Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough; the Lower Cook Inlet area, including,
generally, the Kenai Peninsula Borough; and the Prince
William Sound area, including, generally, the area
east of the Kenai Peninsula Borough to 141 West
longitude; and
(D) Southeast Alaska, generally the area
east of 141 West longitude;
(2) each of the following designated
members:
(A) the commissioner of environmental
conservation;
(B) the commissioner of fish and game;
(C) the commissioner of natural resources;
(D) the commissioner of transportation and
public facilities.
(b) Public members serve staggered terms of
three years. Except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4),
each member serves until a successor is appointed and
qualified. A public member may be reappointed. A
public member may be removed for cause.
(c) The board shall designate cochairs, one of
whom shall be selected from among the public members
appointed under (a)(1) of this section and one from
among the members designated in (a)(2) of this
section.
(d) If a member serving under (a)(2) of this
section is unable to attend, a deputy commissioner in
the same department may attend and act in place of the
member. The names of alternates serving under (a)(2)
of this section shall be filed with the board.
(e) Three public members and three designated
members of the board constitute a quorum. However,
action may be taken only upon the affirmative vote of
a majority of the full membership of the board.
(f) The board shall meet at least four times a
year and as often as necessary to fulfill its duties
under this chapter and AS 46.40. Meetings may be held
and members may vote telephonically, except one board
meeting a year shall be held in person.
(g) Public members of the board are entitled to
per diem and travel expenses authorized by law for
members of boards and commissions.
(h) Administrative support for the board shall
be provided by the division in the department
responsible for coastal and ocean management. The
director of the division in the department responsible
for coastal and ocean management, under direction of
the cochair designated by the board from the
individuals listed in (a)(2) of this section, may
contract with or employ persons as necessary to assist
the board in carrying out the board's duties and
responsibilities.
(i) The board shall make recommendations to the
department relating to the approval or modification of
a district coastal management plan under
AS 46.40.060(b).
* Sec. 3. AS 46.39.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.39.030. Powers of the department. The
department may
(1) apply for and accept grants,
contributions, and appropriations, including
application for and acceptance of federal funds that
may become available for coastal planning and
management;
(2) contract for necessary services;
(3) consult and cooperate with
(A) persons, organizations, and groups,
public or private, interested in, affected by, or
concerned with coastal area planning and management;
(B) agents and officials of the coastal
resource districts of the state, the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board established in AS 46.39.005, and federal
and state agencies concerned with or having
jurisdiction over coastal planning and management;
(4) take any reasonable action necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter or AS 46.40.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.060 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.40.060. Review and approval by the
department. (a) If, upon submission of a district
coastal management plan for approval, the department
finds that the plan meets the provisions of this
chapter [AND THE STATEWIDE STANDARDS AND DISTRICT PLAN
CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DOES NOT
ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT OR EXCLUDE USES
OF STATE CONCERN], the department may approve the
district coastal management plan, or may approve
portions of the district plan that meet those
requirements.
(b) If the department finds that a district
coastal management plan is not approvable or is
approvable only in part under (a) of this section, it
shall submit the plan to the board for review. The
board shall review the plan and make recommendations
relating to whether the department shall approve or
modify the district coastal management plan in whole
or in part [DIRECT THAT DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLAN
SUBMITTED BY THE COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT BE
MEDIATED. IN MEDIATING THE DEFICIENCIES, THE
DEPARTMENT MAY CALL FOR ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN
THE DISTRICT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MEET WITH OFFICIALS
OF THE COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
DIFFERENCES].
(c) After the board has reviewed the district
coastal management plan and submitted recommendations
under (b) of this section [IF, AFTER MEDIATION, THE
DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED], the department
shall enter findings and, by order, may require
(1) that the district coastal management
plan be amended to satisfy the provisions of this
chapter [OR MEET THE STATEWIDE STANDARDS AND DISTRICT
PLAN CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT];
(2) that the district coastal management
plan be revised to accommodate a use of state concern;
or
(3) any other action be taken by the
coastal resource district as appropriate.
(d) The superior courts of the state have
jurisdiction to enforce orders of the department or
commissioner of natural resources entered under (c) or
(e) of this section.
* Sec. 5. AS 46.40.060 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) A person affected by a decision of the
department under this section may request
reconsideration of the decision within 15 days of the
issuance of a decision made by the department under
(c) of this section. The request must be in writing
and must include a statement of the specific changes
desired. The commissioner of natural resources may
review the department's decision on the basis of the
request and determine whether the decision should be
changed. The commissioner may issue a determination in
writing within 20 days of the issuance of the
decision. If the commissioner takes no action, the
request for reconsideration shall be considered as
denied. Denial of a request for reconsideration shall
be considered a final administrative order and
decision of the department.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.39.005 is repealed.
* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: MEMBERS OF THE ALASKA COASTAL POLICY
BOARD; STAGGERED TERMS. (a) Notwithstanding
AS 44.39.005(a), added by sec. 2 of this Act, within
30 days after the effective date of this section, the
municipalities of each region identified in
AS 44.39.005(a)(1) shall submit to the governor the
names of three persons from the region qualified under
AS 44.39.005(a), added by sec. 2 of this Act.
Notwithstanding AS 44.39.005, added by sec. 2 of this
Act, within 60 days after the effective date of this
section, the governor shall appoint, from the lists of
names submitted under AS 46.39.005(a)(1), one member
from each region and one at-large member to serve on
the Alaska Coastal Policy Board established by
AS 46.39.005, added by sec. 2 of this Act. The
governor shall appoint the public members to three-
year staggered terms. The governor shall specify the
term of each member appointed subject to this section.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of
AS 46.40.060(b), as amended by sec. 4 of this Act, a
review by the Alaska Coastal Policy Board relating to
a district coastal management plan, or a portion of a
district coastal management plan, shall be delayed
until all the public members of the board are
appointed under (a) of this section.
* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Section 6 of this Act takes
effect only if secs. 1 - 8 and 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005,
take effect."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. If sec. 6 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect on the date that secs. 1 - 8 and 18, ch.
31, SLA 2005, take effect."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 10 of this
Act, this"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion.
6:27:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 12 would establish an
Alaska Coastal Policy Board that will consist of five public
members appointed by the governor as well as the commissioners
of DEC, ADF&G, DNR, and the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities. Of the five public members, one will serve
at-large and the remaining four members will be nominated from
the regions representing the coastal districts within the
region. There won't be any alternates for the public members,
but deputy commissioners can serve as alternates for the
commissioners of their respective departments. Co-Chair Seaton
clarified that although a quorum can be established with three
public members and three designated members or their alternate,
a majority of the entire board, five votes, will be required to
take action. The board will meet four times per year, one of
which will be an in-person meeting. Members can meet and vote
telephonically. Co-Chair Seaton related that the purpose of
this is to keep the board involved in policy review and making
and ensuring that the program does not suffer from failing to
get together and addressing problems face-to-face.
6:29:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to page 3 of Amendment 12, provides
the authority for the department to contract or employ a person,
as necessary, to provide administrative support. However, it is
not a requirement for the department to do so. He then reviewed
Section 4 of Amendment 12, which proposes new language to AS
46.40.060, which he hoped would result in a cohesive and
expedited review process. Amendment 12 includes a provision
that allows an individual to submit a request for
reconsideration within 15 days [of the issuance of a decision]
and provides 20 days for the commissioner to respond in writing.
The remaining language of Amendment 12 is transition language.
6:32:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that Amendment 12 represents a
considerable amount of work and respects the desires of the
coastal districts to have more of a voice in the process while
also respecting the desires of the governor and industry to have
fixed timelines with regard to the consistency review.
6:32:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
6:32:59 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:33 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
6:45:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 12, which would insert a new subsection
(j) on page 3 after line 10, as follows: "Duties of the board
shall provide a forum for representatives of affected interests
to discuss and attempt to resolve issues relevant to this
chapter, AS 46.40, and to the coastal uses and resources of the
state; the division shall annually solicit issues and make
recommendations to address the issues to the department
commissioner."
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 12
was adopted.
6:46:45 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 12, as amended, was
adopted.
6:47:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt the following
letter of intent [original punctuation provided]:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes
made to the Alaska Coastal Management Program under HB
106 will increase the ability of Alaska Coastal
Districts and Coastal Resource Service Areas to draft
strong Coastal District Plans and increase the number
of enforceable policies that will be approvable by the
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. It
is the intent of the Legislature that these changes
will allow the Alaska Coastal Management Program to
meet the concerns of coastal residents while
developing Alaska's diverse coastal resources.
6:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that not all districts will need to
increase the number of enforceable policies, and therefore it
might be better to delete the language "and increase the number
of" and replace it with "with", such that the letter of intent
would read as follows:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes
made to the Alaska Coastal Management Program under HB
106 will increase the ability of Alaska Coastal
Districts and Coastal Resource Service Areas to draft
strong Coastal District Plans with enforceable
policies that will be approvable by the State of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. It is the
intent of the Legislature that these changes will
allow the Alaska Coastal Management Program to meet
the concerns of coastal residents while developing
Alaska's diverse coastal resources.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if there is any objection to the
aforementioned change to the letter of intent.
6:49:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He clarified
that the letter of intent doesn't mandate that every district
increase the number of enforceable policies, but the intent of
the "rewrite" is to allow an increase in the number of
enforceable policies in the coastal districts throughout the
state. Therefore, removal of the language "and increase the
number of" from the letter of intent invites the question of
whether [the intent] is have the same number of enforceable
policies that exist now.
6:51:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her support for the proposed
amendment to the letter of intent because it's not necessarily
the intent to create more enforceable policies, but rather that
the coastal districts are able to do what they need to do.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred.
6:51:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK suggested that if the concern isn't in
regard to the quantity, perhaps the language "and increase the
number of" could be replaced with the language "more specific
and accurate" enforceable policies.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that before the committee could address
Representative Dick's suggestion, it needed to dispense with the
proposed change already before it.
6:52:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred with Representative Munoz. If the
coastal districts and service areas are allowed to draft
stronger district plans, one could expect that there might be
more enforceable policies. However, it is not necessarily the
committee's intent to increase the number of enforceable
policies.
6:53:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that the goal of this "rewrite" is to
address the problems the coastal districts have experienced and
the constraint with regard to the number of issues that could be
addressed in enforceable policies. He emphasized that the
letter of intent was written to acknowledge the problem of the
number of enforceable policies that were approvable by the
department, while recognizing that there will be more
enforceable policies.
6:54:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE remarked that although there may be more
enforceable policies, it isn't the intent to increase the number
of enforceable policies. He opined that the enforceable
policies need to be based on a solid foundation. The desire, he
further opined, is to make the plans and the standards for those
enforceable policies stronger and more clearly defined.
6:55:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that the language "and increase
the number of" shouldn't remain in the letter of intent because
many of those enforceable policies included designated areas
that are no longer included.
6:56:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the language "better defined enforceable
policies" would be more appropriate.
6:56:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed concern with not recognizing that more
than half of the enforceable policies of coastal districts have
been rejected. He then reminded the committee that the letter
intent is [not a mandate/requirement].
6:57:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON maintained his objection.
6:57:57 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:58:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Kawasaki,
P. Wilson, Herron, Munoz, Foster, Dick, and Feige voted in favor
of the amendment to the letter of intent. Representative Seaton
voted against it. Therefore, the amendment to the letter of
intent was adopted by a vote of 8-1.
6:59:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved that the committee adopt the HB
106 letter of intent, as amended. There being no objection, the
HB 106 letter of intent, as amended, was adopted.
6:59:59 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:01:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the committee is now being
provided with a proposed committee substitute (CS) that
incorporates all the amendments made to date, except the
conceptual amendments made this evening.
7:01:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 27-GH1965\I, Bullard, 4/4/11, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
7:02:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:02 p.m. to 7:09 p.m.
7:09:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE called the committee back to order.
7:09:46 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:10:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection Version I.
There being no further objection, Version I was before the
committee.
7:10:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Version I, as follows:
Page 2, line 21;
Delete "subject to confirmation by the legislation in
joint session, the public members"
7:10:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
7:10:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that the purpose of Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Version I is to conform the work draft to the
Legislative Legal Services opinion that the board members
wouldn't be confirmable by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Version I was adopted.
7:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if Version I includes all the
amendments the committee adopted today.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied yes, save the conceptual amendments.
7:13:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved that the committee adopt the
conceptual amendments to Amendments 9, 10, 11, and 12 [which
were previously adopted during this hearing] to Version I.
There being no objection, those conceptual amendments were
adopted.
7:14:56 PM
MR. BALASH noted that the department will have to develop a
fiscal note that will reflect the projected fiscal year (FY)
2012 operating budget requirements for DCOM. The fiscal note
will also include the increments associated with the changes to
the substance of the law made by this committee, particularly in
terms of the funds necessary to support the activity of the
board.
7:15:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE reminded everyone that a considerable amount of
effort and diplomacy went into putting the CS together. He
opined that this CS represents an excellent compromise between
all parties and much of the credit for that compromise goes to
Representative Herron.
7:16:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON thanked the co-chairs, Mr. Balash, and the
members of the committee for their work.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSHB 106, Version 27-
GH1965\I, Bullard, 4/4/11, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
7:17:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes and clarified
that the fiscal notes will be pending. He then removed his
objection.
7:17:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced then that there being no further
objection, CSHB 106(RES) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
7:17:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:17 p.m. to 7:19 p.m.
7:19:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Big Game Commercial - Polley#2.docx |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Game - Hoffman.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Game - Spraker.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Letters of Support for Ted Spraker.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Hearing Request.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB0186A.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB186-DFG-WC-04-01-11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| Bison Damage _ 2010.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DBWG Recommendations 1 11 11 (2).doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Endangered Species Law and Policy.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Federal Register Vol 76 No 26.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Wood Bison Back Up - A.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - B.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - C.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - D.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| Proposed Downlisting to Threatened.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 1.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 3.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 4a.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 106 Amendment 9 -A.30 & Amendment 10 - A.31.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Letter of Intent.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 11 - A.32.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 12 - A.33.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 7 - A.27.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 8 - A. 28.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment Summary 4.4.11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 1 - A.2.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 6 - A.16.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Conceptual Amendment Changing statewide standard references 4.4.11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |