Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124

03/14/2011 01:00 PM RESOURCES

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHJR 19(RES) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         March 14, 2011                                                                                         
                           1:05 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair                                                                                             
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Alan Dick                                                                                                        
Representative Bob Herron                                                                                                       
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz                                                                                             
Representative Berta Gardner                                                                                                    
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Neal Foster                                                                                                      
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19                                                                                                   
Urging  the United  States Senate  to ratify  the United  Nations                                                               
Convention on the Law of the Sea.                                                                                               
     - MOVED CSHJR 19(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
HOUSE BILL NO. 174                                                                                                              
"An  Act relating  to the  period in  which a  permit authorizing                                                               
activities  in the  state related  to mineral  resources, oil  or                                                               
gas,  or   transportation  projects  is  valid   when  activities                                                               
authorized  by  the  permit  have  been  stayed  by  a  court  or                                                               
administrative order."                                                                                                          
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
HOUSE BILL NO. 89                                                                                                               
"An  Act authorizing  the commissioner  of  natural resources  to                                                               
offer bedload  material for disposal  for flood  control purposes                                                               
in exchange for a percentage of  the profit from the sale of that                                                               
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8                                                                                                    
Urging the United States Food  and Drug Administration to deny an                                                               
application to  sell genetically engineered salmon  in the United                                                               
States;  urging  compliance with  the  provision  of P.L.  110-85                                                               
(Food  and  Drug  Administration  Amendments Act  of  2007)  that                                                               
requires the Commissioner  of Food and Drugs to  consult with the                                                               
National  Marine Fisheries  Service of  the National  Oceanic and                                                               
Atmospheric  Administration regarding  a report  on environmental                                                               
risks  associated with  genetically engineered  seafood products;                                                               
and urging  that product labeling requirements  include the words                                                               
"Genetically Modified" prominently displayed  on the front of the                                                               
package if the application is  approved by the United States Food                                                               
and Drug Administration.                                                                                                        
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
BILL: HJR 19                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY                                                                          
SPONSOR(s): ECON. DEV., TRADE & TOURISM                                                                                         
03/07/11       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/07/11       (H)       EDT, RES                                                                                               
03/08/11       (H)       EDT AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124                                                                             
03/08/11       (H)       Moved CSHJR 19(EDT) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/08/11       (H)       MINUTE(EDT)                                                                                            
03/09/11       (H)       EDT RPT CS(EDT) 7DP 1DNP 1NR                                                                           
03/09/11       (H)       DP: GARDNER, THOMPSON, MUNOZ, JOULE,                                                                   
                         TUCK, FOSTER, HERRON                                                                                   
03/09/11       (H)       DNP: KELLER                                                                                            
03/09/11       (H)       NR: OLSON                                                                                              
03/14/11       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
BILL: HB 174                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING STAYED PERMITS                                                                                           
SPONSOR(s): FEIGE                                                                                                               
02/25/11       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/25/11       (H)       RES, JUD                                                                                               
03/14/11       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
BILL: HB  89                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: EXTRACTION OF BEDLOAD MATERIAL                                                                                     
SPONSOR(s): SEATON                                                                                                              
01/18/11       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/14/11                                                                               
01/18/11       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/11       (H)       RES, FIN                                                                                               
03/14/11       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
BILL: HJR  8                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): KAWASAKI                                                                                                            
01/18/11       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/11       (H)       FSH, RES                                                                                               
02/10/11       (H)       FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
02/10/11       (H)       Moved CSHJR  8(FSH) Out of Committee                                                                   
02/10/11       (H)       MINUTE(FSH)                                                                                            
02/14/11       (H)       FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 6DP                                                                                 
02/14/11       (H)       DP: HERRON, MILLER, PRUITT, JOHNSON,                                                                   
                         KAWASAKI, THOMPSON                                                                                     
03/11/11       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/11/11       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/14/11       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
ROB EARL, Staff                                                                                                                 
Representative Bob Herron                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Reviewed the provisions of HJR 19 on behalf                                                              
of Representative Herron, sponsor.                                                                                              
DR. LAWSON BRIGHAM, Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy                                                                    
University of Alaska Fairbanks                                                                                                  
Eagle River, Alaska                                                                                                             
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HJR 19.                                                                          
PAUL FUHS, Chairman                                                                                                             
Board of Directors                                                                                                              
Marine Exchange of Alaska                                                                                                       
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided remarks on HJR 19.                                                                              
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director                                                                                            
Alaska Municipal League (AML)                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HJR 19.                                                                          
WYN MENEFEE, Acting Director                                                                                                    
Division of Mining, Land and Water                                                                                              
Department of Natural Resources                                                                                                 
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:   During  the hearing  on  HB 174,  answered                                                             
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General                                                                              
Natural Resources Section                                                                                                       
Civil Division (Fairbanks)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Fairbanks, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION  STATEMENT:     During  hearing  of   HB  174,  answered                                                             
LOUIE FLORA, Staff                                                                                                              
Representative Paul Seaton                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Presented HB  89 on behalf of  the sponsor,                                                             
Representative Seaton.                                                                                                          
ROGER HEALY, P.E., Director/Chief Engineer                                                                                      
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services                                                                             
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided suggestions regarding HB 89.                                                                    
DONALD BULLOCK, Attorney                                                                                                        
Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION  STATEMENT:     During   hearing  of  HB   89,  answered                                                             
PHILLIP E. OATES, City Manager                                                                                                  
City of Seward                                                                                                                  
Seward, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSHB 89, Version B.                                                              
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
1:05:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  PAUL   SEATON  called  the  House   Resources  Standing                                                             
Committee meeting to order at  1:05 p.m.  Representatives Herron,                                                               
Gardner, Kawasaki, Feige, and Seaton  were present at the call to                                                               
order.   Representatives Dick,  Munoz, and  P. Wilson  arrived as                                                               
the meeting was in progress.                                                                                                    
        HJR 19-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY                                                                    
1:06:31 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON  announced that  the first  order of  business is                                                               
HOUSE JOINT  RESOLUTION NO. 19,  Urging the United  States Senate                                                               
to ratify  the United Nations Convention  on the Law of  the Sea.                                                               
[Before the committee was CSHJR 19(EDT).]                                                                                       
1:06:37 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON,  speaking on  behalf of the  House Special                                                               
Committee  on  Economic   Development,  International  Trade  and                                                               
Tourism  that  he chairs  and  who  is  the  sponsor of  HJR  19,                                                               
informed the  committee that the Law  of the Sea treaty  has been                                                               
around for  quite awhile.   However, the  U.S. Senate  has chosen                                                               
not to  debate it or  vote on  it.  Representative  Herron stated                                                               
that  the U.S.  is  an  Arctic nation  because  of Alaska,  which                                                               
results in  broad and fundamental  interest in the  Arctic region                                                               
where  the  U.S.  seeks  to meet  its  national  security  needs,                                                               
protect  the  environment,  responsibly manage  and  develop  the                                                               
nation's  resources,  protect  and  account  for  [the  nation's]                                                               
indigenous   communities,   support  scientific   research,   and                                                               
strengthen international  cooperation on a wide  range of issues.                                                               
The aforementioned is what HJR 19 will accomplish, he opined.                                                                   
1:08:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON clarified  that  before the  committee is  CSHJR                                                               
1:09:11 PM                                                                                                                    
ROB  EARL,   Staff,  Representative  Bob  Herron,   Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, stated:                                                                                                            
     The United  Nations Convention on  the Law of  the Seas                                                                    
     (UNCLOS)  was  entered  into force  in  November  1994.                                                                    
     This convention  establishes a treaty regime  to govern                                                                    
     activities  on, over,  and  under  the world's  oceans.                                                                    
     Mr. Chairman,  it builds  on the four  1958 Law  of the                                                                    
     Sea conventions  and sets forth a  framework for future                                                                    
     activities  in  parts of  the  oceans  that are  beyond                                                                    
     national  jurisdiction.     The  treaty  comprises  320                                                                    
     articles  and 9  annexes ....   The  convention defines                                                                    
     the rights  and responsibilities  of nations  and their                                                                    
     use of  the world's  oceans.  As  Representative Herron                                                                    
     mentioned,  this particular  resolution, HJR  19, urges                                                                    
     U.S.  Senate ratification  of the  treaty.   And [U.S.]                                                                    
     Senator   Lisa  Murkowski,   in  her   speech  to   the                                                                    
     legislature   on  February   24th   requested  such   a                                                                    
     resolution to help  her get a ratification  vote to the                                                                    
     [U.S.] Senate floor.  Under  the treaty, member nations                                                                    
     can claim  an exclusive economic  zone (EEZ) up  to 200                                                                    
     miles  from  their  coast   with  sovereign  rights  to                                                                    
     explore, develop, and manage  the resources within that                                                                    
     zone.  A claim can extend  beyond the 200 mile limit if                                                                    
     a   connection  can   be  proven   that  the   nation's                                                                    
     continental  shelf  extends  beyond 200  miles.    It's                                                                    
     estimated the  area off ...  the north coast  of Alaska                                                                    
     is about the size of California.                                                                                           
1:10:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. EARL  then directed the  committee's attention to  the slides                                                               
entitled  "Chinese Claims,"  which  were provided  by U.S.  Coast                                                               
Guard Admiral Colvin.   On slide 1 he highlighted  the quote from                                                               
the Chinese admiral who said  that since one-fifth of the world's                                                               
population lives in China, China  is entitled to one-fifth of the                                                               
resources  in  the Arctic's  international  waters.   The  second                                                               
slide tracks  the Chinese in  the Arctic  in the summers  of 2009                                                               
and 2010.                                                                                                                       
1:11:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  interjected that  the slides  that provide                                                               
the tracking of the Chinese  vessel were provided in concert with                                                               
the Marine Exchange.                                                                                                            
1:12:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. EARL  then directed attention  to slide 4,  which illustrates                                                               
the  remaining   unclaimed  space  in   the  Arctic.     Slide  5                                                               
illustrates  the portion  of the  unclaimed space  in the  Arctic                                                               
that the U.S.  could claim, which is where the  Chinese have been                                                               
operating.    In response  to  Representative  Gardner, Mr.  Earl                                                               
confirmed that with ratification of  UNCLOS the U.S. could extend                                                               
its claim as illustrated in slide 5.   The UNCLOS has to first be                                                               
ratified before the U.S. can make a claim.                                                                                      
1:12:56 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  pointed out that  under Article 76  of the                                                               
convention a coastal state with  a broad continental margin limit                                                               
may establish  a shelf  limit beyond 200  miles.   Therefore, the                                                               
[claim] could be for 350 miles.   Because of the extension of the                                                               
continental shelf, there  are areas of potential  that are beyond                                                               
imagination.   As  the prior  slides illustrate  the Chinese  are                                                               
exploring from 201-400 miles, and  thus it's in the best interest                                                               
of the nation in terms  of national security to have jurisdiction                                                               
over the extra 150 miles.                                                                                                       
1:14:04 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  FEIGE related  his assumption  that  the Russians  have                                                               
signed onto this treaty.                                                                                                        
MR. EARL  replied yes, adding  that all Arctic nations,  save the                                                               
U.S., have signed on to the treaty.                                                                                             
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to  why the Canadians haven't extended                                                               
their EEZ.                                                                                                                      
MR. EARL answered  that the Canadians have made  their claim with                                                               
the  United Nations,  but  he  didn't believe  that  it has  been                                                               
approved yet.                                                                                                                   
1:14:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON, addressing  Russia's  2001  claim to  the                                                               
international boundary  that extends to the  North Pole, informed                                                               
the committee that all the other  nations don't believe that is a                                                               
legitimate  claim.   He explained  that once  a nation  joins the                                                               
treaty, it has  only 10 years to make extended  claims.  However,                                                               
even  a nation  that's  not  a member  of  the  treaty can  still                                                               
provide comments about the claims.                                                                                              
1:16:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P. WILSON  inquired  as to  the  reason the  U.S.                                                               
hasn't signed on to the treaty.                                                                                                 
MR. EARL  responded that some  people are concerned about  a loss                                                               
of sovereignty,  although the benefits greatly  outweigh anything                                                               
that's given up.   The UNCLOS hasn't been  ratified because there                                                               
are  certain  U.S. Senators  who  oppose  its ratification.    In                                                               
further response  to Representative P. Wilson,  Mr. Earl informed                                                               
the  committee that  161 countries  have signed  the treaty  thus                                                               
1:17:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  noted that  the committee  packet includes                                                               
pro- and  anti-ratification arguments in  the packet.   Since the                                                               
U.S. isn't  a member  of the committee,  it cannot  make extended                                                               
claims and  has little  to say about  the claims  other countries                                                               
make.   Representative  Herron highlighted  that  the U.S.  would                                                               
have the largest EEZ area in the world, if it signed the treaty.                                                                
1:18:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON  moved  to  adopt CSHJR  19,  Version  27-                                                               
LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, as the working document.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion purposes.                                                                        
1:19:13 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  EARL informed  the committee  that the  Legislative Research                                                               
Services  report dated  March 11,  2011, precipitated  Version I.                                                               
The Legislative Research Services was  asked to vet the "WHEREAS"                                                             
clauses and  they found  the need  for a couple  of changes.   On                                                               
page 3,  lines 14-17,  the language  was reworded  in recognition                                                               
that  there wasn't  a hearing  in  1994 but  rather was  pending.                                                               
Also,  Legislative Research  Services  found  that the  "WHEREAS"                                                             
clause on page 3, lines  12-13, had inadvertently been eliminated                                                               
and thus is reinserted in Version I.                                                                                            
1:20:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection.                                                                                   
There  being  no further  objection,  Version  I was  before  the                                                               
1:21:03 PM                                                                                                                    
DR.  LAWSON BRIGHAM,  Professor of  Geography and  Arctic Policy,                                                               
University   of   Alaska   Fairbanks,  provided   the   following                                                               
     My  name is  Lawson Brigham  and I  am a  Distinguished                                                                    
     Professor  of  Geography  and   Arctic  Policy  at  the                                                                    
     University of  Alaska Fairbanks.   I was a  Coast Guard                                                                    
     officer for 25  years, icebreakers at both  ends of the                                                                    
     world.    I  have  also served  as  the  Alaska  Office                                                                    
     Director  of the  U.S.  Arctic  Research Commission  in                                                                    
     Anchorage.  Of relevance  to this topic, during 2005-09                                                                    
     I  was Chair  and U.S.  Lead for  the Arctic  Council's                                                                    
     Arctic  Marine  Shipping  Assessment  (AMSA),  a  large                                                                    
     assessment that  deals with enhanced marine  safety and                                                                    
     environmental   protection   for  the   Arctic   Ocean,                                                                    
     including the  coastal waters  of the  U.S. Arctic.   A                                                                    
     central  finding of  AMSA was  that the  United Nations                                                                    
     Convention on the  Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)  was the key                                                                    
     legal framework  from which we  viewed all else  in our                                                                    
     work; governing  Arctic shipping  and all  other marine                                                                    
     uses.   In our review  in AMSA, we restated  that since                                                                    
     the  Arctic  Ocean is  one  of  earth's oceans,  UNCLOS                                                                    
     provides the legal basis for  managing the new maritime                                                                    
     Arctic.    No  new  treaty  or  any  comprehensive  new                                                                    
     agreement  by  the Arctic  States  or  other states  is                                                                    
     necessary.  Importantly,  UNCLOS preserves and codifies                                                                    
     the principal  of freedom of navigation  for the Arctic                                                                    
     Ocean  and the  global oceans;  a key  tenant for  U.S.                                                                    
     security and economic well-being.   UNCLOS provides two                                                                    
     important  articles one  of which  you've heard  today.                                                                    
     Article  76 allows  the coastal  states  in an  orderly                                                                    
     process   to  assert   sovereignty   on  the   extended                                                                    
     continental   shelf  beyond   the  200-mile   Exclusive                                                                    
     Economic Zone  (EEZ), out  to 350  miles.   Article 234                                                                    
     allows  the  coastal  states the  right  to  adopt  and                                                                    
     enforce  non-discriminatory  laws and  regulations  for                                                                    
     the  prevention,   reduction  and  control   of  marine                                                                    
     pollution  from vessels  in  ice-covered waters  within                                                                    
     the  EEZ.   Both  of  these  [articles] have  important                                                                    
     implications for Alaska and  the United States maritime                                                                    
     Arctic.   [In  December I  had an  opportunity to  join                                                                    
     some 200 experts  at the U.S. Naval War]  College for a                                                                    
     Global  Shipping Game  that dealt  with the  Arctic and                                                                    
     future  Panama Canal.    One  overwhelming outcome  was                                                                    
     that the U.S. continued  failure to ratify UNCLOS would                                                                    
     create substantial risk for the  United States in terms                                                                    
     of  economic  development  in   the  Arctic,  and  will                                                                    
     threaten  the  U.S.  position as  a  global  leader  in                                                                    
     maritime  issues.   In  summary,  U.S. ratification  of                                                                    
     UNCLOS  is  essential  for all  future  challenges  and                                                                    
     opportunities in the  Arctic Ocean.  In my  mind, it is                                                                    
     at  the heart  of much  of what  we in  Alaska and  the                                                                    
     United States  will do to protect,  develop, manage and                                                                    
     lead in the future maritime Arctic.                                                                                        
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to                                                                        
1:24:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ  inquired as to  the effect an  extension of                                                               
the U.S.  economic zone  would have  on the  educational missions                                                               
the Chinese are performing in the Arctic.                                                                                       
1:24:43 PM                                                                                                                    
DR. BRIGHAM pointed out that  the nation's sovereignty extends to                                                               
the  fisheries and  seabed resources,  but  doesn't restrict  the                                                               
freedom of navigation and transit  of those [Russia] ships.  With                                                               
regard  to education  opportunities,  Dr.  Brigham surmised  that                                                               
would refer to  tourism.  He said that all  of the aforementioned                                                               
is allowable under UNCLOS.                                                                                                      
1:25:25 PM                                                                                                                    
PAUL  FUHS,  Chairman, Board  of  Directors,  Marine Exchange  of                                                               
Alaska,  began  by  informing  the   committee  that  the  Marine                                                               
Exchange  of Alaska  was started  by  all the  major elements  of                                                               
shipping  within   Alaska  and   has  provided   vessel  tracking                                                               
services.   He then  thanked Representative  Herron for  taking a                                                               
leadership position on this matter.   Through the vessel tracking                                                               
it has  become clear that there  is much activity in  the Arctic.                                                               
Mr.  Fuhs opined  that if  the U.S.  doesn't ratify  UNCLOS, it's                                                               
surrendering its  sovereignty.  He  identified one of  the issues                                                               
as  regulatory oversight  in  that there  would  be concern  with                                                               
regard to [nations] not following  the same rules that the [U.S.]                                                               
must.   There has also been  much concern with regard  to oil and                                                               
gas  development  in  the  Arctic  and  discussing  how  best  to                                                               
regulate that.   He then  presented a slide that  illustrated the                                                               
receiving stations  within Alaska, of  which there are  about 80.                                                               
Due to  international maritime organization  law, vessels  over a                                                               
certain size are required to  have a transponder [on the vessel].                                                               
With  the increased  concern regarding  activity  in the  Arctic,                                                               
more  receiving   stations  have  been  constructed.     He  also                                                               
presented  a slide  that  relates the  various  types of  vessels                                                               
operating in the Arctic.                                                                                                        
1:28:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the range on the transponders.                                                                    
MR.  FUHS answered  that it  depends  upon the  location and  the                                                               
amount of  radio activity in  the area.   For a "clean"  site the                                                               
range  is beyond  200 miles,  with  the longest  range being  350                                                               
miles.   The lowest range  is 20 miles.   He noted that  they can                                                               
track vessels all the way over to the Russia coast line.                                                                        
1:29:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  FUHS provided  a picture  of  the Chinese  ice breaker  "Xue                                                               
Long."  Although  Xue Long is very large vessel,  the Chinese are                                                               
building one that's even larger,  and will perhaps be the largest                                                               
in the  world, and  intends to  operate in the  Arctic.   He then                                                               
presented a  picture of a  bulk vessel that's delivering  fuel to                                                               
the  coast  of Russia,  which  is  always  a  concern.   He  also                                                               
presented a  slide of  the Gamble site,  where there  are Russian                                                               
vessels  operating.    The  tanker  in the  slide  is  bound  for                                                               
Canadian oil field development.  He  then provided a slide of the                                                               
offshore area  of the Outer  Continental Shelf (OCS)  that's open                                                               
to other  nations.  When  one moves past  the OCS, it  becomes so                                                               
deep that  it's not  rational for anyone  to mine  unless they're                                                               
going  to mine  deep  sea nodules.    Under the  Law  of the  Sea                                                               
Treaty, deep sea  mining of nodules is  completely regulated, but                                                               
"for the  rest, it  would establish  rights for  us as  a coastal                                                               
1:30:41 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. FUHS,  in response to Representative  Gardner, clarified that                                                               
the slide with the tanker is  not a Russian tanker, but rather is                                                               
bound for  a Canadian oil field.   He noted that  the tracking of                                                               
the vessels provides the following  information:  type of vessel,                                                               
country  of   origin,  cargo  type,  depth   of  vessel,  various                                                               
operational  aspects,  and  for  some the  rudder  angle  of  the                                                               
1:31:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. FUHS highlighted  that the Marine Exchange of  Alaska has the                                                               
technical ability  to know what's  going on  in the Arctic  and a                                                               
lot of  activity is occurring in  the Arctic.  As  policy makers,                                                               
he surmised that they would have  to weigh the costs and benefits                                                               
[of the treaty].   However, he opined that failing  to ratify the                                                               
Law  of  the   Sea  Treaty  would  result   in  surrendering  the                                                               
sovereignty of the U.S.                                                                                                         
1:32:08 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON  asked if there is any  way Alaska could                                                               
make a commitment [to the treaty], but not the entire U.S.                                                                      
MR.  FUHS  replied no,  adding  that  treaties  of the  U.S.  are                                                               
controlled exclusively by the U.S. Senate.                                                                                      
1:32:57 PM                                                                                                                    
KATHIE  WASSERMAN, Executive  Director,  Alaska Municipal  League                                                               
(AML),  informed the  committee  that in  November  AML passed  a                                                               
resolution in support  of ratifying UNCLOS.   Upon doing research                                                               
of the  treaty, Ms. Wasserman  discovered that the last  seven or                                                               
eight  presidents  have been  in  favor  of ratification  of  the                                                               
treaty as have most of  the state department employees.  However,                                                               
there is  a holdout by  a few members  of the Senate  who believe                                                               
they  would be  giving up  economic sovereignty.   Research  also                                                               
resulted in AML  believing that the most important  aspect of the                                                               
Law of  the Sea Treaty is  to claim the seabed  mineral resources                                                               
in the  continental shelf,  even beyond  the 200  mile EEZ.   The                                                               
limit  of  Alaska's  area  in   Alaska's  Arctic  is  unknown  as                                                               
hydrographic surveys  haven't determined  the full extent  of the                                                               
potential area  along the Chukchi cap.   The area is  believed to                                                               
be very extensive and thought to  even reach the North Pole.  She                                                               
then recalled attending  a meeting at which it  was revealed that                                                               
seven  or  eight countries  that  don't  border the  Arctic  were                                                               
making claims on Arctic mineral  resources all the while the U.S.                                                               
twiddles   its   thumbs,   which  she   characterized   as   very                                                               
irresponsible.   She informed the  committee that just  last week                                                               
she was  in Washington, D.C.,  where she and other  western state                                                               
representatives  had a  meeting  with the  undersecretary of  the                                                               
Department of  Natural Resources.   The big issue was  the black-                                                               
footed ferret.   Upon asking  the undersecretary if he  was aware                                                               
of all  the mineral resources  in the Arctic,  the undersecretary                                                               
blankly stared  at her and said  he didn't believe that's  in his                                                               
department.  However, Ms. Wasserman  said she believes otherwise.                                                               
She emphasized  that it doesn't seem  that the U.S. is  tied into                                                               
this issue  as well  as it  should be,  although she  related her                                                               
understanding  that Alaska's  Congressional  delegation has  done                                                               
quite a bit  of research on the issue.   The lack of ratification                                                               
of the Law of the Sea  Treaty would simply retain the status quo.                                                               
Although the U.S.  already abides by many of the  laws of UNCLOS,                                                               
it doesn't have a voice.   Therefore, she expressed hope that the                                                               
committee would support HJR 19.                                                                                                 
1:36:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon  determining no one else  wised to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
1:37:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to  who the U.S. Senators are who                                                               
oppose [ratification  of the treaty] and  their arguments against                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON identified  U.S. Senator  Imhof as  one of                                                               
the  handful  of  U.S.  Senators  opposing  ratification  of  the                                                               
treaty.     The  opposition  is   based  on  their   belief  that                                                               
[ratification  of   the  treaty]  would  negatively   impact  the                                                               
sovereignty of the  U.S. such that the U.S.  sovereignty would be                                                               
giving up  sovereignty to  a tribunal.   However, that's  not the                                                               
view of  the majority of  folks who believe [ratification  of the                                                               
treaty] would merely be surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S.                                                                
1:38:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON, recalling a presentation  by U.S. Senator Wicker                                                               
during the  Energy Conference, related  that U.S.  Senator Wicker                                                               
expressed  the need  for the  Secretary of  State to  utilize due                                                               
diligence  to  gain control  of  the  minerals  and oil  and  gas                                                               
resources [in  the Arctic].   However,  upon follow  up regarding                                                               
the Law of the Sea Treaty,  U.S. Senator Wicker was more reticent                                                               
because some  interest groups  feel there  is some  conflict with                                                               
sovereignty.   He highlighted  that every time  the U.S.  signs a                                                               
treaty,  it's an  international  protocol  to perform  something.                                                               
Therefore,   some  feel   that  the   U.S.  shouldn't   sign  any                                                               
international protocol  or treaty.   Co-Chair  Seaton highlighted                                                               
that  initially   there  were  four  reasons   why  the  Heritage                                                               
Foundation opposed  UNCLOS.  Upon  corrections and  changes, only                                                               
one  of those  reasons remain,  which  is that  signing a  treaty                                                               
gives up some  sovereignty because of agreeing to  a process that                                                               
includes more people  than [only the U.S.]   Co-Chair Seaton said                                                               
that's the only issue of which he is aware.                                                                                     
1:40:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE DICK  noted that he,  too, is concerned  about the                                                               
nation's sovereignty,  which he believes has  been compromised in                                                               
the past.   Referring to the language on page  2, lines 5-8, that                                                               
relates the  estimate "that the Arctic  contains conventional oil                                                               
and gas  resources totaling approximately  90,000,000,000 barrels                                                               
of oil", Representative  Dick pointed out that  Alaska can't even                                                               
access the oil  on its own land.  Therefore,  accessing other oil                                                               
doesn't seem  meaningful to him.   Representative Dick  said that                                                               
until he  has more details  regarding what  would be given  up in                                                               
terms of sovereignty, he couldn't support HJR 19.                                                                               
1:41:42 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON related  his understanding  that the  U.S. Coast                                                               
Guard,  Navy, and  other military  [branches] have  all supported                                                               
this.  In fact, [Rear  Admiral Christopher C. Colvin], Commander,                                                               
Seventeenth Coast  Guard District,  U.S. Coast  Guard, Department                                                               
of Homeland  Security, obtained special permission  to testify at                                                               
a  previous hearing.   He  mentioned that  Rear Admiral  Colvin's                                                               
written testimony is included in the committee packet.                                                                          
1:42:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON  clarified  that  the  language  to  which                                                               
Representative Dick  referred merely  specifies that if  the U.S.                                                               
does  not   sign  the  treaty,  then   it's  surrendering  [those                                                               
resources] to  other nations.   These are resources to  which the                                                               
U.S. has legitimate  claim.  Once the treaty is  signed, the U.S.                                                               
could extend  150 miles [beyond  the existing zone] and  the U.S.                                                               
would be in first position.   However, if the U.S. chooses not to                                                               
ratify  the  treaty  and  another country  lays  claim  to  those                                                               
resources, then the U.S. is in second position.                                                                                 
1:43:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER moved  to  report CSHJR  19, Version  27-                                                               
LS0608\I,  Kane,   3/9/11,  out  of  committee   with  individual                                                               
recommendations  and the  accompanying zero  fiscal note.   There                                                               
being no  objection, CSHJR  19(RES) was  reported from  the House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee.                                                                                                   
1:44:06 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.                                                                       
                HB 174-EXTENDING STAYED PERMITS                                                                             
1:46:25 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON announced  that the  next order  of business  is                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 174, "An  Act relating to  the period in  which a                                                               
permit  authorizing activities  in the  state related  to mineral                                                               
resources, oil or  gas, or transportation projects  is valid when                                                               
activities authorized by  the permit have been stayed  by a court                                                               
or administrative order."                                                                                                       
1:46:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE,  speaking as the  sponsor HB 174,  explained that                                                               
HB 174  seeks to limit  the tactic that has  been used to  try to                                                               
discourage development in the state.   Alaska's permitting system                                                               
is used by  various departments and resource  managers to oversee                                                               
the myriad  of projects throughout  the state.   He characterized                                                               
Alaska's permitting  system as one  of the most  comprehensive in                                                               
the world  that is  used as  a checklist to  ensure that  all the                                                               
municipal, state, and  federal laws are followed.   However, over                                                               
the years there have been many  cases in which the development of                                                               
a  project has  resulted  in a  lawsuit in  which  the judge  has                                                               
issued  a stay.   Therefore,  the project  is essentially  put on                                                               
1:48:13 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained  that HB 174 allows  any permits already                                                               
issued  for the  activity, prior  to the  stay, to  be placed  on                                                               
hold.  Most  permits have a time period associated  with them and                                                               
one tactic has been to obtain a  stay on the permit and force the                                                               
company  to continue  to update  the permit  even while  it can't                                                               
engage in  the activity.  He  informed the committee that  in the                                                               
process of review  of HB 174 by applicable  departments, a number                                                               
of  issues/comments  were raised  and  may  require some  tweaks.                                                               
However,  all [the  applicable]  departments  have indicated  the                                                               
legislation is something  they would like.   Therefore, he hasn't                                                               
requested public testimony from  the departments.  Co-Chair Feige                                                               
announced  that it  will take  a while  for HB  174 to  reach its                                                               
final form.                                                                                                                     
1:49:54 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER  inquired as to  how much of a  problem is                                                               
permitting at the  state level as compared to  the federal level,                                                               
for which  there have  been many  delays.   She then  related her                                                               
understanding that  if there is  a lawsuit  and a court  issues a                                                               
stay, under HB  174 the time line remains valid.   However, there                                                               
could still be revocations if the lawsuit is successful.                                                                        
CO-CHAIR  FEIGE  replied that  would  be  correct.   For  further                                                               
clarity, he pointed  out that the permit is up  to the permitting                                                               
agency to grant or not.   If a state-issued permit is granted for                                                               
four years and only one year  has passed when the stay is issued,                                                               
then three years would remain whenever the stay is lifted.                                                                      
1:51:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  inquired  as   to  how  problematic  are                                                               
lawsuits  and  appeals  at  the   state  level.    In  discussing                                                               
challenges with permits and time  delays with permits, she opined                                                               
that  everyone  is likely  familiar  with  cases that  deal  with                                                               
federal  permits.   However, she  inquired as  to how  much of  a                                                               
problem it is at the state level.                                                                                               
1:52:18 PM                                                                                                                    
WYN  MENEFEE,  Acting  Director,  Division of  Mining,  Land  and                                                               
Water, Department  of Natural Resources, answered  that there are                                                               
occasionally situations in  which people are sued  and it creates                                                               
delays.   Depending  upon the  type of  authorization given,  the                                                               
permit or authorization may or may  not be issued at the point of                                                               
the stay  being issued.   Typically,  as the end  of the  stay is                                                               
reached,  the   department  will   extend  the  permits   as  the                                                               
department  has the  authority to  do so.   Under  a disposal  of                                                               
interest  decision,  the  department  wouldn't  have  issued  the                                                               
authorization at the point of appeal,  but by the time it reached                                                               
the conclusion  court hearings, the department  would [likely] be                                                               
at the  point at which  it could issue  25 years from  that point                                                               
forward.   With  regard  to delays,  Mr.  Menefee confirmed  that                                                               
there are  delays and  there are delays  because of  lawsuits and                                                               
1:53:51 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER inquired  as  to the  reasoning behind  a                                                               
time limit on the permit.                                                                                                       
1:54:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MENEFEE  said that there  are limits on all  the department's                                                               
authorizations.  For instance, permits  issued under AS 38.05.850                                                               
have  a  maximum  limit  of  five years  since  the  permits  are                                                               
supposed  to  be  short-term  in   nature.    However,  long-term                                                               
disposal of interest,  such as material sales and  leases, can be                                                               
issued for  longer periods of  time.  He attributed  those longer                                                               
periods  of time  to the  need for  individuals seeking  loans or                                                               
investments to  make the  project viable to  have control  of the                                                               
state land or  the right of interest in order  to ensure that any                                                               
investment can be amortized out.                                                                                                
1:55:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI acknowledged  that the department already                                                               
does this administratively, and  then questioned whether it needs                                                               
to  be written  in  statute.   Therefore,  he questioned  whether                                                               
there has ever been a time when  HB 174 would've been of value to                                                               
the department as a permitting agency.                                                                                          
MR. MENEFEE clarified that he isn't  going to say it doesn't need                                                               
to be done.   However, he did point out  that the department does                                                               
have  situations in  which the  department has  the authority  to                                                               
adjust.  There  are cases, such as the Kensington  Mine, in which                                                               
there is an existing authorization,  the court implements a stay,                                                               
and a deadline is reached.   He related a recent situation in the                                                               
North Slope  in which the  department extended  the authorization                                                               
to deal  with a  deadline that  arose.   Mr. Menefee  related his                                                               
understanding that  HB 174, placing in  statute [the department's                                                               
ability  to deem  valid activities  authorized by  a permit  that                                                               
have been  stayed by  a court  or administrative  order], provide                                                               
surety   that  the   extension  would   be  granted   versus  the                                                               
possibility that  the department  would extend it.   Furthermore,                                                               
placing this  in statute sends those  who might be suing  for the                                                               
purposes of delay that there will be an extension granted.                                                                      
1:56:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI   surmised  then  that   the  department                                                               
extended   the  North   Slope  permit   administratively  through                                                               
MR.  MENEFEE   responded  yes,  according  to   the  department's                                                               
authority  under AS  38.05.850.   That North  Slope permit  was a                                                               
temporary  authorization that  went year  to year.   While  under                                                               
delay,  the department  has  the right  to redo  the  terms.   He                                                               
explained  that  the  idea  was  trying  to  lease  the  parcels,                                                               
therefore the  stay came due to  the lease.  However,  the permit                                                               
was  still valid  and the  department  extended it  to keep  them                                                               
operating until a decision was made regarding the leases.                                                                       
1:57:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI  surmised that  for large  projects there                                                               
would be multiple  permits from multiple agencies.   How does the                                                               
division  currently track  all of  these permits,  he asked.   He                                                               
further asked  how the division  would track each of  the permits                                                               
it extends when there is a stay.                                                                                                
MR. MENEFEE answered  that under a stay, the  extensions would be                                                               
handled by  each authorizing agency responsible  for a particular                                                               
permit, which he  understood the legislation to do as  well.  For                                                               
a large  project that used  the state's large project  team under                                                               
the  Office  of Project  Management  and  Permitting, then  there                                                               
would be  a project  manager who would  review it  and coordinate                                                               
it.     For  those  projects   that  don't  use   the  division's                                                               
coordinating  services,  each  individual  entity  it  authorizes                                                               
would be responsible.                                                                                                           
1:59:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON asked whether  there is anyone  else in                                                               
the state,  other than those  listed in HB 174,  which authorizes                                                               
permits that should be added.                                                                                                   
MR.  MENEFEE  pointed  out  that  the  location  of  the  various                                                               
citations in HB  174 fall under different statutes  that are used                                                               
by  specific agencies.   For  instance, an  oil and  gas [permit]                                                               
falls  under the  jurisdiction of  the Oil  and Gas  Conservation                                                               
Commission for  an authorization  for drilling.   However, theirs                                                               
may  not  be  the  only  authorization.    There  could  be  many                                                               
different authorizations  required from different agencies.   Mr.                                                               
Menefee clarified that  it takes into account  more agencies than                                                               
are listed  in the  proposed HB  174.  Due  to the  definition of                                                               
"permit" outlined in  the proposed statute, it does  cast a broad                                                               
net that would apply to any  entity that authorizes or provides a                                                               
certificate for those operations.                                                                                               
2:02:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P. WILSON  asked  then  if the  use  of the  term                                                               
"permit"  allows other  agencies to  take responsibility.   Since                                                               
each  section of  the legislation  addresses a  different agency,                                                               
she  questioned whether  additional language  is necessary.   She                                                               
said  she  really  likes  HB  174, but  asked  if  it  should  be                                                               
broadened to cover other areas.                                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee  that the sponsor has said                                                               
he will work on this legislation for some time.                                                                                 
2:03:08 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON  then questioned  whether this  legislation would                                                               
also apply to municipalities that have [authorized] a permit.                                                                   
MR.   MENEFEE  read   the  bill   such  that   it  would   affect                                                               
municipalities  and  would  have   to  adhere  to  the  automatic                                                               
extensions as well.                                                                                                             
2:04:27 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON  asked whether  HB 174  includes leases,  such as                                                               
oil leases.  He further  asked if this legislation would lengthen                                                               
the term  of an  oil lease  also or  is the  legislation speaking                                                               
strictly to an authorizing permit.                                                                                              
MR. MENEFEE,  directing attention  to the definition  of "permit"                                                               
in Section 3,  opined that it sets a very  broad net.  Therefore,                                                               
the legislation requires anything that  needs to be obtained from                                                               
any state agency or municipality.   The aforementioned means that                                                               
[this   legislation  would   apply  to]   any  authorization   or                                                               
certificate  that's  required,  and thus  would  include  leases,                                                               
rights-of-way, material sales, and permits.                                                                                     
2:05:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON  posed  a  scenario  in  which  someone  has  an                                                               
expiring oil and  gas lease, and asked if one  of the partners of                                                               
the lease  could file  a suit and  thus automatically  extend the                                                               
lease  if a  stay  was  issued.   Therefore,  the lease  wouldn't                                                               
return to the state, he surmised.                                                                                               
2:06:44 PM                                                                                                                    
CAMERON  LEONARD,  Senior  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Natural                                                               
Resources  Section,  Civil  Division (Fairbanks),  Department  of                                                               
Law, confirmed  that could  be a  possible interpretation  of the                                                               
legislation since the term "authorization" is very broad.                                                                       
2:07:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that there  would still have be a stay                                                               
from the court or an administrative  order in order to cease work                                                               
on the  project.  He  asked if  Co-Chair Seaton is  talking about                                                               
the possibility of artificially extending a lease.                                                                              
CO-CHAIR  SEATON  clarified that  he  is  just considering  other                                                               
implications in terms of oil and  gas leases that are issued over                                                               
a specified term under a  specified plan and term of development.                                                               
He said  that he's  in favor  of the  concept of  HB 174,  but he                                                               
wanted to be sure there aren't unintended consequences.                                                                         
2:08:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ  asked whether  HB 174  could also  apply to                                                               
federal projects within the state.                                                                                              
MR.  LEONARD  answered that  he  didn't  believe so  because  the                                                               
definition of "permit" doesn't reach  that broadly.  Furthermore,                                                               
the state doesn't  have jurisdiction to effect the  duration of a                                                               
federal permit.                                                                                                                 
2:09:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER requested  examples of  when the  lack of                                                               
the  provision  proposed  in  HB 174  has  adversely  impacted  a                                                               
leaseholder or permittee.                                                                                                       
2:09:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 174 would be held over.                                                                       
2:10:23 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:10 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.                                                                       
             HB  89-EXTRACTION OF BEDLOAD MATERIAL                                                                          
2:12:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON announced  that the  next order  of business  is                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO. 89,  "An  Act  authorizing the  commissioner  of                                                               
natural  resources to  offer bedload  material  for disposal  for                                                               
flood  control  purposes in  exchange  for  a percentage  of  the                                                               
profit from the sale of that material."                                                                                         
CO-CHAIR  SEATON moved  to adopt  CSHB  89, Version  27-LS0334\B,                                                               
Bullock, 3/11/11, as the working document.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.                                                                               
2:13:01 PM                                                                                                                    
LOUIE  FLORA, Staff,  Representative  Paul  Seaton, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, informed the committee  that the differences between                                                               
Version B  and HB 89 can  be found on  page 1, line 6,  where the                                                               
language "approved  flood control project" was  changed to "site-                                                               
specific flood mitigation  plan".  The change was  in response to                                                               
conversations  with the  Department  of  Natural Resources  (DNR)                                                               
regarding  the "flood  mitigation  project", which  is usually  a                                                               
federal term  implicating the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers  in a                                                               
broader  project.   There are  statutes under  existing AS  38.05                                                               
that  address federal  flood  mitigation  projects, whereas  this                                                               
legislation  [aims   to  address]  smaller   scale  site-specific                                                               
projects  that would  be  approved by  the  commissioner of  DNR.                                                               
Conversations  with the  Department  of  Transportation &  Public                                                               
Facilities  (DOT&PF)  revealed  their  concern  that  the  entire                                                               
statute could apply to their  operations when they perform gravel                                                               
removal to protect their infrastructure.   The DOT&PF didn't want                                                               
to bureaucratize their  process.   Therefore, on page  1, line 14                                                               
through page  2, line 1,  the language  "other than the  state or                                                               
federal government or  a political subdivision of  the state" was                                                               
inserted  in  order to  exempt  DOT&PF  from  this statute.    He                                                               
clarified  that   this  statute  applies  to   a  private  entity                                                               
performing  the  removal.    Mr.   Flora  then  pointed  out  the                                                               
conceptual amendment that makes changes  to ensure that the state                                                               
infrastructure  isn't impacted  by the  extraction, which  can be                                                               
found in the committee packet.                                                                                                  
2:17:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.                                                                                 
There  being  no further  objection,  Version  B was  before  the                                                               
2:17:38 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. FLORA explained  that Version B would  allow the commissioner                                                               
of DNR to make a finding based  on the findings listed on page 1,                                                               
lines 8-13.   Once those findings are  complete, the commissioner                                                               
under  a  site-specific plan,  would  be  able to  offer  bedload                                                               
material  under navigable  waters to  be extracted  by a  private                                                               
contractor  for approved  flood  mitigation projects.   The  main                                                               
problem with any  extraction issue is that the state  is bound by                                                               
statute  to  receive  the  fair  market  value  for  its  bedload                                                               
material sales.  He told  the committee that the committee packet                                                               
includes a  price listing  of the fair  market value  [of bedload                                                               
material] statewide.   The  upfront fees  that an  extractor must                                                               
pay are quite high and inhibit  the ability to extract the gravel                                                               
and  resell it.    Therefore, this  legislation  would allow  the                                                               
extractor,  under a  site-specific plan,  to extract  the gravel,                                                               
net out  the transportation extraction  costs, and pay  the state                                                               
no less that  12.5 percent of the profit.   The general intent of                                                               
HB  89 is  to alleviate  flooding  problems, providing  financial                                                               
incentive for  extractors to  extract and sell  the gravel.   Mr.                                                               
Flora then  directed the committee's  attention to  aerial slides                                                               
of bedload flooding.  Generally,  bedload flooding is when gravel                                                               
comes down  during a  sustained rain event  and fills  the stream                                                               
over time, which results in flooding.                                                                                           
2:20:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON,  referring to a photograph  of Seward, explained                                                               
that so  much gravel comes  down the Resurrection River  with its                                                               
low  flow that  it deposits  and  builds up  such that  sometimes                                                               
there  are  portions  of  the  river that  are  higher  than  the                                                               
airport.  Paying $3.25 per yard  to take out the gravel, which is                                                               
paid  upfront and  can't be  done  as commercial  use, creates  a                                                               
problem.   There is  a similar problem  in Valdez,  he mentioned.                                                               
The purpose of  HB 89 is to let the  commissioner, in those cases                                                               
where  there is  bedload  buildup, determine  that  the state  is                                                               
receiving  extra value  by mitigating  floods for  which it  will                                                               
have  to  pay in  terms  of  emergency  services and  damages  to                                                               
airports and roads.   The legislation would  allow the department                                                               
to hold  an alternative sale  of which  the state will  receive a                                                               
minimum  of 12.5  percent of  the net  profit of  the sale.   The                                                               
aforementioned would  allow businesses  to remove  this material,                                                               
which would  save the  state money  in the  long term.   Co-Chair                                                               
Seaton  then   displayed  various  slides  that   illustrate  the                                                               
situation in Seward.                                                                                                            
2:23:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked  if the commissioner gets to  pick the site;                                                               
that is the sale is preemptive in nature.                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR SEATON  responded that  is correct.   He  explained that                                                               
under HB  89 a contractor  or someone with  a project that  has a                                                               
bedload would apply to the  commissioner.  The commissioner would                                                               
then have to make the  findings [outlined in the legislation] and                                                               
determine  whether  it would  be  beneficial  and provide  enough                                                               
added value  to the state  in flood  mitigation.  Nothing  in the                                                               
legislation restricts or expands  the department's ability to let                                                               
gravel extraction now.   Currently, people can apply  to DNR, but                                                               
they have  to pay  $3.50 per  cubic yard.   That $3.50  per cubic                                                               
yard is high enough that  commercial entities aren't applying for                                                               
it  because it  doesn't make  financial sense.   The  legislation                                                               
aims to  avoid the state having  to use state equipment  during a                                                               
flood to  maintain a channel,  rather it would be  performed over                                                               
time with  the state as  a partner that  takes a minimum  of 12.5                                                               
percent of the profit.                                                                                                          
2:25:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the all  findings listed on page 1, lines                                                               
8-13, will apply or will one finding apply.                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  SEATON pointed  out the  use of  the term  "and", which                                                               
means that all the findings must apply.                                                                                         
2:26:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI  expressed the desire to  obtain the best                                                               
value  for the  state's  resources, including  gravel.   He  then                                                               
inquired  as  how  the legislation  addresses  the  Compton  case                                                             
regarding selling something for less than its value.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR SEATON  reiterated that  the legislation allows  part of                                                               
the value  to the  state, as determined  by the  commissioner, to                                                               
include the  savings to  the state in  terms of  flood mitigation                                                               
and offsetting  costs the state will  incur due to floods  if the                                                               
gravel isn't  removed.  In  response to  Representative Kawasaki,                                                               
Co-Chair  Seaton offered  to contact  Legislative Legal  Services                                                               
for comment on Representative Kawasaki's concern.                                                                               
MR. FLORA  mentioned there is  existing statute in AS  38.05 that                                                               
allows  the  department for  flood  control  projects to  provide                                                               
5,000 cubic yards  free of charge and additional  yardage at $.50                                                               
per cubic yard  for political subdivisions.   Therefore, there is                                                               
existing precedence in statute.                                                                                                 
2:28:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  DICK asked  if there  is  anyone locally  selling                                                               
gravel that would be adversely  affected by selling it below fair                                                               
market value.                                                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR SEATON  said that he  couldn't answer that  because this                                                               
situation  could  occur  at  several   spots  across  the  state.                                                               
However, he suggested  that it's likely that  those who currently                                                               
sell gravel would apply for this usage.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  GARDNER  interjected  that  for  those  who  sell                                                               
gravel, the  ability to purchase  it at below market  value would                                                               
be advantageous to them.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON  related  his  understanding  that  HB  89                                                               
offers  a narrow  application to  mitigate disasters  and doesn't                                                               
attempt to compete.                                                                                                             
CO-CHAIR SEATON concurred.                                                                                                      
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out that to  sell gravel it must be sized,                                                               
which  requires  various  crushing   and  sorting  equipment  and                                                               
trucks.   Therefore, Co-Chair Feige  didn't view  the legislation                                                               
as resulting in unfair competition.   He characterized HB 89 as a                                                               
short-term  source of  inexpensive raw  materials for  [existing]                                                               
2:33:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON  moved  to  adopt  Conceptual  Amendment  1,  as                                                               
     Page 2, line 8, following "state.";                                                                                        
         Insert "The commissioner may request the plans                                                                         
      for bed load material extraction to be reviewed by a                                                                      
     professional engineer with relevant experience."                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion.                                                                               
2:34:20 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   P.  WILSON   related   her  understanding   that                                                               
departmental  staff  would've  already  examined  the  area,  and                                                               
therefore  she surmised  that  this  individual would've  already                                                               
done  something like  this.   Therefore,  she questioned  whether                                                               
department  staff could  perform  this  work at  no  cost to  the                                                               
municipality [or the project].                                                                                                  
CO-CHAIR SEATON said  that the language on page  1, including the                                                               
findings, is general.   A person applying to take  and dispose of                                                               
bedload material will  have a plan of  development and extraction                                                               
and DOT&PF would  like to ensure that it has  been reviewed by an                                                               
engineer with relevant experience.   Such oversight is desired to                                                               
ensure the state's  structures aren't damaged as a  result of the                                                               
removal  of the  bedload material.   He  did note,  however, that                                                               
there  could  be  situations  in  which  the  commissioner  would                                                               
determine  that  review by  an  engineer  isn't necessary.    The                                                               
aforementioned  could be  the case  when, for  example, the  area                                                               
[where the bedload material is  being deposited] is in the middle                                                               
of  a   flood  plain  where   there  are  no  bridges   or  state                                                               
infrastructure and the desire is to merely have a channel.                                                                      
2:37:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P.  WILSON  inquired  as  to  who  pays  for  the                                                               
aforementioned review by an engineer.                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that it would  be paid for by the person                                                               
wishing to  extract the  gravel.  He  clarified that  he wouldn't                                                               
want  to  say  that  the departments  have  free  engineers  with                                                               
expertise in relevant areas.                                                                                                    
2:38:30 PM                                                                                                                    
ROGER   HEALY,  P.E.,   Director/Chief   Engineer,  Division   of                                                               
Statewide   Design   &   Engineering  Services,   Department   of                                                               
Transportation   &  Public   Facilities,  paraphrased   from  the                                                               
following written remarks [original punctuation provided]:                                                                      
     The  Department of  Transportation &  Public Facilities                                                                    
     is  familiar  with  the challenges  of  containing  the                                                                    
     waters  and sediments  of our  rivers  adjacent to  our                                                                    
     transportation infrastructure.   Whether it is flooding                                                                    
     of  the  Seward  Airport   or  undermining  of  highway                                                                    
     embankments  along the  Haines  or  Glenn Highway,  our                                                                    
     large braided  glacial rivers have  a high bed  load of                                                                    
     sediment  making  the   river  hydrology  unstable  and                                                                    
     difficult to  easily predict  deposition areas  and new                                                                    
     flow channels.                                                                                                             
     Our  Department does  not typically  undertake upstream                                                                    
     or  in-stream  excavations  adjacent  to  our  bridges,                                                                    
     highways, or airports,  but when we do so as  a part of                                                                    
     our  capital  projects  to   protect  new  or  expanded                                                                    
     infrastructure,  the  in-stream  work  is  designed  by                                                                    
     registered   professional  engineers   specializing  in                                                                    
     river hydrology.                                                                                                           
     Because our transportation  infrastructure of highways,                                                                    
     airports,  and  bridges   represent  significant  state                                                                    
     owned   assets,  the   Department  recommends   to  the                                                                    
     Committee  that  any  in-stream  work  adjacent  to  or                                                                    
     upstream  from the  State's transportation  or facility                                                                    
     infrastructure  authorized through  this proposed  bill                                                                    
     be  designed by  professional  engineers with  relevant                                                                    
     experience.     Our  Department  would   encourage  and                                                                    
     support coordination between  the Department of Natural                                                                    
     Resources and  our Department  when removal  of bedload                                                                    
     material   is   proposed    near   our   transportation                                                                    
      Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and if you                                                                      
     have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.                                                                        
2:40:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HEALY, in  response to  Representative P.  Wilson, responded                                                               
that for work  that is adjacent to highways  and airports, DOT&PF                                                               
engineers  will undoubtedly  be  involved in  the  review of  the                                                               
plan.    However,  he  pointed  out that  there  is  a  liability                                                               
associated with the excavation.   If there are associated impacts                                                               
to the excavation,  then the operator should  follow the guidance                                                               
of a professional engineer.   Still, the department would have to                                                               
assess the  impact of  these projects  because the  engineers are                                                               
currently  working on  active projects.     He  pointed out  that                                                               
doing  the  detailed  discussion   and  analysis  from  a  design                                                               
standpoint versus  a review standpoint  creates a  different cost                                                               
impact to the department.                                                                                                       
2:42:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P. WILSON  noted  that the  state budget  already                                                               
includes  these  [engineering]  positions, and  she  opined  that                                                               
DOT&PF shouldn't charge for this work.                                                                                          
2:43:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised that if  these engineers will have to be                                                               
available throughout  the state, then  there will likely  need to                                                               
be another position to implement  this.  Due to the legislature's                                                               
work  in  constraining  the  number of  personnel  in  the  state                                                               
departments,   involving  department   staff   could  result   in                                                               
significant  delays  of  projects.   He  noted  that  the  gravel                                                               
operators thought the  12.5 percent of profit  was reasonable and                                                               
acceptable.   In  further response  to Representative  P. Wilson,                                                               
Co-Chair Seaton  clarified that the aforementioned  is covered in                                                               
the  [gravel operators']  plan of  development.   Co-Chair Seaton                                                               
further clarified  that the person  performing the  project would                                                               
have to  pay for  the design  of the  project and  the engineer's                                                               
review of the project.                                                                                                          
2:45:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that  someone from the state must                                                               
oversee this  anyway and  review the  project, and  therefore she                                                               
questioned  why the  state's engineers  wouldn't be  the ones  to                                                               
review the plan.                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  SEATON   echoed  Mr.  Healy's  comment   that  from  an                                                               
engineering standpoint there is  a difference between designing a                                                               
project and reviewing another engineer's design.                                                                                
2:46:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER  said that although these  situations seem                                                               
to happen  on an emergency  basis, it  would seem that  one could                                                               
see the  gravel building  up.  Therefore,  removal of  the gravel                                                               
could be arranged and sold prior  to an emergency situation.  She                                                               
opined that the  language on page 1 of Version  B would allow the                                                               
aforementioned.  If  that's the case, she inquired as  to how the                                                               
cost  would  compare  when  it's   not  an  emergency  situation,                                                               
particularly   in  terms   of  the   payment   proposal  in   the                                                               
CO-CHAIR  SEATON  clarified that  this  isn't  thought of  as  an                                                               
emergency  situation,  rather  it's  a situation  in  which  when                                                               
bedloading  is  known  to  occur  flooding  is  known  to  occur.                                                               
Furthermore, at  $3.50-$5.00 per cubic  yard no one will  come in                                                               
to  remove the  gravel and  maintain the  stream bed.   Moreover,                                                               
river  bed gravel  is suboptimal.   The  purpose of  HB 89  is to                                                               
create a situation in which a commercial operation can exist.                                                                   
2:48:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether  DOT&PF would compete for this                                                               
gravel for its projects.                                                                                                        
MR. HEALY  explained that DOT&PF's  gravel needs depend  upon the                                                               
specific  requirements   of  the  project,  and   therefore  some                                                               
projects would not be able to  use river bed gravel.  In general,                                                               
Mr.  Healy  said that  DOT&PF  probably  wouldn't use  river  bed                                                               
2:50:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P. WILSON  removed  her  objection to  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
There  being no  further  objection, Conceptual  Amendment 1  was                                                               
2:50:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI  noted  that  he  has  been  working  on                                                               
similar legislation in which royalty  oil could be sold below the                                                               
fair market  value.  However,  the legislation ran  into problems                                                               
regarding selling an item below the  fair market value due to the                                                               
Compton  case.   He inquired  as to  how the  Compton case  would                                                           
impact HB 89.                                                                                                                   
2:51:32 PM                                                                                                                    
DONALD BULLOCK, Attorney,  Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative                                                               
Legal   and  Research   Services,  Legislative   Affairs  Agency,                                                               
directed attention  to Article 8,  Section 1 of the  Alaska State                                                               
Constitution, which read:                                                                                                       
     Statement of Policy.                                                                                                       
     It  is  the  policy  of  the  State  to  encourage  the                                                                    
     settlement  of  its land  and  the  development of  its                                                                    
     resources  by making  them  available  for maximum  use                                                                    
     consistent with the public interest.                                                                                       
MR. BULLOCK  explained that  HB 89  addresses a  unique situation                                                               
with regard  to a flood  mitigation plan.   Under the  plan, it's                                                               
sometimes the case  that gravel needs to be removed.   There is a                                                               
benefit  to the  state  for offering  the gravel  for  sale at  a                                                               
reduced  price  in  order  to encourage  someone  to  remove  the                                                               
gravel.  The  aforementioned would avoid the state  having to pay                                                               
someone to  remove the  gravel in order  to prevent  flooding and                                                               
improve the area.  Therefore, both sides would benefit.                                                                         
2:52:50 PM                                                                                                                    
PHILLIP E.  OATES, City  Manager, began  by relating  his support                                                               
for  CSHB 89,  Version  B.   To illustrate  support  the City  of                                                               
Seward has enacted a similar  resolution for gravel that is owned                                                               
by the city.  He thanked  Co-Chair Seaton for coming to Seward to                                                               
examine the  problem and develop a  solution.  He noted  that the                                                               
city has  had at  the borough  level comprehensive  meetings with                                                               
DNR  to address  this issue.    This issue  is important  because                                                               
gravel is uneconomic unless produced  in large quantities and the                                                               
cost  of  transport  often makes  it  uneconomic  for  commercial                                                               
purposes.  Furthermore, the additional  state charge for removing                                                               
gravel  from streams  makes it  uneconomic.   He opined  that the                                                               
issue  revolves   around  the  state  receiving   value  for  its                                                               
resources.   However,  HB  89, he  opined,  adequately and  fully                                                               
compensates the state in two  ways.  The legislation provides the                                                               
state a  profit akin to  what it  receives for selling  its other                                                               
resources and provides protection  from flooding.  Therefore, the                                                               
legislation  prevents the  state from  having to  assist after  a                                                               
[flood] disaster happens.  He  opined that the legislation allows                                                               
communities/boroughs  to remove  the  gravel at  no  cost to  it,                                                               
allows  the  contractor to  make  a  small profit,  and  provides                                                               
benefits to  the state in  terms of profit and  flood prevention.                                                               
Mr. Oates then expressed the  importance of validating [the plan]                                                               
through  appropriate engineering  as well  as  for it  to be  for                                                               
flood   mitigation   purposes.     He   opined   that  when   the                                                               
aforementioned  requirements  are  met  it  would  be  a  win-win                                                               
2:56:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P.   WILSON,  referring  to  the   definition  of                                                               
"bedload material" on  page 2, line 12 of  the legislation, asked                                                               
if  the  definition  of  "bedload   material"  includes  sand  or                                                               
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered yes.                                                                                                   
2:56:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI  related that he thought  the legislation                                                               
dealt with displaced gravel after a  flood.  Is that the case, he                                                               
CO-CHAIR  SEATON   clarified  that  the  legislation   refers  to                                                               
material that deposits over time when  there isn't a flood.  This                                                               
material  builds up  over time  such that  when there  is a  high                                                               
water event there  is no streambed left and  the bedload material                                                               
causes a flood.                                                                                                                 
2:57:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON recalled the river  braiding that looks                                                               
mostly  to be  sand, which  occurs in  the Tok  area.   She asked                                                               
whether the proposal in HB 89 would work in that situation.                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  SEATON reminded  the  committee  that this  legislation                                                               
would address areas where the  commissioner has made the findings                                                               
that there is a flood mitigation plan.                                                                                          
2:58:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 89 would be held over.                                                                        
          HJR  8-OPPOSE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON                                                                       
2:58:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON announced  that the  next order  of business  is                                                               
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION  NO. 8, Urging the United  States Food and                                                               
Drug Administration  to deny an  application to  sell genetically                                                               
engineered salmon  in the United  States; urging  compliance with                                                               
the  provision  of  P.L. 110-85  (Food  and  Drug  Administration                                                               
Amendments Act  of 2007) that  requires the Commissioner  of Food                                                               
and Drugs to  consult with the National  Marine Fisheries Service                                                               
of the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration regarding                                                               
a  report  on  environmental risks  associated  with  genetically                                                               
engineered  seafood products;  and urging  that product  labeling                                                               
requirements   include    the   words    "Genetically   Modified"                                                               
prominently  displayed  on  the  front  of  the  package  if  the                                                               
application  is  approved by  the  United  States Food  and  Drug                                                               
Administration.  [Before the committee was CSHJR 8(FSH).]                                                                       
3:00:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KAWASAKI,   speaking  as   the  sponsor   HJR  8,                                                               
explained that  the resolution  is a statement  to the  U.S. Food                                                               
and Drug Administration (FDA) and  Congress that urges the FDA to                                                               
deny  the application  before it  to sell  genetically engineered                                                               
salmon.    There is  a  proposal  from  a  company for  a  hybrid                                                               
Atlantic salmon, which could be  the first genetically engineered                                                               
animal for  human consumption in the  U.S.  He opined  that there                                                               
hasn't  been  enough  due  diligence  at the  FDA  and  it  would                                                               
establish  a  risky  precedence  to   allow  the  sale  of  these                                                               
genetically modified  salmon.  He  reminded the committee  of the                                                               
farmed  fin  fish  from  British   Columbia,  Canada,  that  have                                                               
traveled into  Alaskan waters.   There is no  knowledge regarding                                                               
what will happen with this  genetically modified salmon, which is                                                               
an Atlantic salmon with the growth  genes of a king salmon and an                                                               
anti-freeze  gene of  an eel.   He  characterized this  salmon as                                                               
"frankenfish" and stressed  that science needs to  be done before                                                               
approving  it as  food  for  human consumption.    He noted  that                                                               
Representative Herron  offered an amendment in  the House Special                                                               
Committee on Fisheries that the  committee was unable to address,                                                               
but which could be considered in this committee.                                                                                
3:00:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that HJR 8 would be held over.                                                                        
3:01:11 PM                                                                                                                    
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB0089A.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174 Resources Hearing Request.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB0174A.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174 Sectional Analysis - Leg. Legal.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Resources Hearing Request (3.8.11).pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - 06_08_08_arcticboundaries.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Admiral Colvin Testimony.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - EDT CS version (B)ravo.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Empire Story on Coast Guard UNCLOS Support.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Projected U.S.continental shelf.doc HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - UNCLOS-Eight Nat'l Security Myths.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR19 - Zero Fiscal Note.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Polar Law Textbook (Law of the Sea Chapter).pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174 Sponsor Statement.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174
Letter_Mayor_HB89.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
KPB Resolution 2011 - 010.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Weather-related Disasters 1978 - 2008.doc HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 89 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 CS Version (I)ndigo.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 Sponsor Statement (revised).pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Pros and Cons of Ratification (revised).pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Legislative Research Report (revised 3.11.11).pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 19 - Admiral Colvin Slides.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-TroutUnltd.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-ConstituantLtrs.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-Bill.Larry.GMO.LTR.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-Interior.Del.Ltr.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-FDA.Health&HumanSvc.response.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-NOAA opinion.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Washington Post Article.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Bloomberg Article.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-Frankenfish.top50.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Begich-Time Response.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8 Resources Request.doc HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Sponsor Statement HJR8.doc HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 8 - Fiscal Note.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR 8 - Congressional Delegation Letter of Support - All Members.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-UFA Support.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-ATA.Ltr.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-SAFA.Ltr.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HJR8-CenterFoodSafety.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Resolution 2010-10-08 Genetically Engineered Salmon.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
Scan001.PDF HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
UNCLOS Hearing.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB174-DEC-CO-03-10-11.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174
HB174-DNR-MLD-03-14-11.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174
HB174-DOT-SWDES-3-11-11.pdf HRES 3/14/2011 1:00:00 PM
HB 174