02/12/2001 01:30 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2001
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish and game to award
grants for habitat restoration or enhancement projects; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 61 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act regarding oil discharge prevention and cleanup involving
self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400 gross registered
tonnage and railroad tank cars and related facilities and
operations and requiring preparation and implementation of oil
discharge contingency plans for those nontank vessels and
railroad tank cars; amending the definition of 'response action'
that relates to releases or threatened releases of oil and
thereby amending the duties and liabilities of response action
contractors; authorizing compliance verification for nontank
vessels and for trains and related facilities and operations;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 55(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 61
SHORT TITLE:HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0093 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0093 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
01/16/01 0093 (H) FN 1: ZERO(DFG)
01/16/01 0093 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/05/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/05/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/05/01 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/01 0261 (H) FSH RPT 6DP 1NR
02/07/01 0261 (H) DP: KAPSNER, KERTTULA,
STEVENS, WILSON,
02/07/01 0261 (H) SCALZI, DYSON; NR: COGHILL
02/07/01 0261 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
02/12/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 55
SHORT TITLE:OIL DISCH PREVENTION: NONTANK VESSELS/RR
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/01 0070 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/12/01 0071 (H) TRA, RES, FIN
01/23/01 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
01/23/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
01/25/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/25/01 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/01/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/01/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/06/01 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/06/01 (H) Moved CSHB 55(TRA) Out of
Committee
02/06/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/07/01 0257 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 4DP 1AM
02/07/01 0258 (H) DP: KAPSNER, KOOKESH, SCALZI,
WILSON;
02/07/01 0258 (H) AM: KOHRING
02/07/01 0258 (H) FN1: (DOT)
02/07/01 0258 (H) FN2: (DEC)
02/12/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEN TAYLOR, Director
Habitat and Restoration Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 61.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 55.
BRIAN ROGERS
Information Insights, Inc.
751 Old Richardson Highway, Suite 235
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 55.
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Alaska Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 55.
PAUL FUHS, Task Force Member
1635 Sitka #301
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 55.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 pm. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Masek, Scalzi, Fate, Green,
Chenault, Stevens, and Kerttula.
HB 61 - HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT GRANTS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 61, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of fish
and game to award grants for habitat restoration or enhancement
projects; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0134
KEN TAYLOR, Director, Habitat and Restoration Division, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), explained that the purpose
of HB 61 is to provide the commissioner of ADF&G granting
authority for federal receipts for habitat and restoration
projects only. He emphasized that the bill restricts the
commissioner from using any funds from federal aid, Dingle-
Johnson/Wallop-Breaux or Pitman Robertson funds. He said that
most of the funds would come from the excise taxes that
sportsmen pay for hunting and fishing sports equipment. He
explained that ADF&G is asking for this "limited" authority
because they have experienced difficulty in making grants to
private landowners, "particularly on the Kenai," for restoration
projects. He told the House Resources Standing Committee:
Since 1995, we've had a 50/50 cost-share restoration
program with landowners along the Kenai River, to
restore and stabilize stream banks that have been
trampled by a lot of fishing use. In order to conduct
this program, we've had to take the funding that was
appropriated by the legislature through [SB 183],
which were EVOS [Exxon Valdez Oil Spill] criminal
settlement funds, and funnel it through a federal
agency so that they could actually do the granting
necessary to the private individuals that own the
land. In doing so, the federal agencies take 11
percent of the funding right off the top. This is an
administratively cumbersome process and we feel the
public would be best served if we could make these
grants directly to those individuals.
MR. TAYLOR pointed out that HB 61 is identical to the bill
passed by the House last year, which went to the Senate at the
end of session, but "ran out of time before it passed." He
encouraged the House Resources Standing Committee to support HB
61. He addressed a concern expressed during the House Fisheries
Committee meetings regarding that the grants might be used for
other purposes or be granted to "some nonprofit whose motives
weren't necessarily pure." Mr. Taylor's response to that was:
Since 1995, we've had 186 grants applied for, 180
projects that were approved - and we've completed 170
of them - and if anyone on [the House Resources
Standing Committee] is interested, I did hastily put
together a list of all those projects - who those
grants went to over the last six years. And I think
you'll see that this program has been highly
legitimate, it goes to landowners that have habitat
that needs repair. The landowner pays 50 percent.
[ADF&G] has been covering 50 percent through this
cost-share program, and occasionally if we find
outside money from some other federal agency that we
can put in there as well.
Number 0599
MR. TAYLOR, in response to a question by Co-Chair Masek, said
that he didn't think it would ever be the case that there would
be grants awarded in habitat and restoration in order to stop a
development project, such as a lodge. He said such activities
are almost always done on private land and the habitat and
restoration grants given out in the past have been to aid
development on a particular piece of private land, not to stop
development on someone else's land.
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if ADF&G worked in conjunction with
the Kenai River Sport[fishing] Association (KRSA).
MR. TAYLOR said yes. He listed several groups that ADF&G
"coordinates" and "cooperates" with, including KRSA, Kenai Youth
Conservation Corp, and the Alaska Fly Fisherman's Association.
Number 0708
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if [those agencies listed above] do
[habitat restoration] on public land versus ADF&G [restoring]
private land.
MR. TAYLOR replied that ADF&G has been involved in many projects
along the Kenai River, public as well as private projects. He
cited the EVOS small-parcel purchases along the Kenai and the
Kenai Borough properties as two examples of ADF&G's public land
restoration involvement.
Number 0776
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to whether the landowners come
to [ADF&G] for assistance, or does [ADF&G] come to them.
MR. TAYLOR answered that when the landowners found out that
funding was available, they approached ADF&G. He referred to
page 2 of the handout in the bill packet, stating that it should
actually follow the last page, which is titled, "Decision
Matrix." He discussed the categories listed on the "Decision
Matrix" that are used to rate an applicant and prioritize the
projects.
Number 0873
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the Decision Matrix had anything
to do with the amount of money that was awarded.
MR. TAYLOR replied yes. He approximated that ADF&G was given
about $1.5 million - appropriated by the legislature six years
ago through SB 183 - that they have been awarding each year to
applicants.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the Decision Matrix and asked
Mr. Taylor if the varying amounts awarded were determined by
[ADF&G], by the application, or through an evaluation.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the amount awarded is "determined by an
evaluation of the project: The cost benefits of what the
applicant has proposed versus what we think would be the return.
And you'll find one of the factors that we used for ranking is
reasonable project cost."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified his question as follows:
If I were a landowner down there, and I came in with
(indisc.)... $12,000, or heavens, $19,000, would your
group say, "Well Green, you wanting $19,000 to do what
you said, we've gone through this matrix, and yeah,
you qualify, but it's not $19,000, it's only $8,500.
And so we'll match you on $8,500, we're not going to
match you on $19,000." And so you get your $9,500,
and that just about does it, and I don't have to come
up with anything.
MR. TAYLOR replied as follows:
I have not been through this particular process with
our staff on the Kenai, and I can't answer your
question. But I suspect that the way things work is
that they have a pretty good idea, depending on how
many feet of river frontage you're going to be
restoring, what techniques you're going to use. I
know that our staff has a very good estimate of what
it's going to cost per (indisc.) ... per 10 feet of
riverbank restoration, depending on the technique.
So, while an applicant may come in asking for more
than what it might cost, they're not likely to get all
of it paid for through this. I think ... we match
dollar for dollar, and if we have a project that's
$20,000, and it only costs $15,000, the applicant will
pay $7,500, and the state will pay $7,500.
Number 1065
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this [habitat restoration] has
been done on other "sports rivers."
MR. TAYLOR said that so far the efforts of the program have
primarily focused on the Kenai River, but there have been some
smaller federal grants used to try to "expand this effort to
some of the streams in the Matanuska Valley." He remarked, "It
isn't anything that's not a 50/50 cost-share program set up like
this." Mr. Taylor added that it is the hope of ADF&G to expand
the program to benefit other parts of the state.
Number 1150
MR. TAYLOR, answering a question by Representative Scalzi,
stated the following:
Last year the bill allowed for the municipalities to
have a tax break for restoration, it gave the private
landowners a potential tax break. The original law
was specific to the Kenai [River], and now that's been
expanded statewide. So other municipalities, if they
choose to, can provide for a tax break for restoration
purposes.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if the 50/50 match was part of the
original legislation.
MR. TAYLOR answered that it wasn't part of that legislation, but
was a "companion piece." He said that more private landowners
get involved in restoration if a tax break is made available to
them, and the current state statutes are such that only Kenai
residents can get a tax break.
Number 1230
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated for the record that Representative
Kerttula was present. She referred to an earlier statement made
by Mr. Taylor regarding a legislator who had expressed concerns
over delegated funds being spent for ill purposes, and asked him
to expound on that remark.
MR. TAYLOR explained that the original bill gave the
commissioner [of ADF&G] "broad granting authority" of federal
and state funds, with no specified purpose. Therefore, many
legislators were concerned about letting the state grant money
that was not earmarked for a certain purpose. Subsequently,
ADF&G "narrowed the scope" on federal and state funds spending
in habitat restoration. Although there was concern that this
type of program could be misused in the future, the language of
the bill was structured to prevent its misuse. He offered to
work on the language with any legislator still concerned with
it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to page 1, lines 5-6, regarding grant
authority, and stated that the wording needed "fine tuning."
MR. TAYLOR directed Co-Chair Masek's attention to the remainder
of the language in Section 1 of the bill. He read:
[The commissioner] may award grants from federal
funds, other than funds received under the federal
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux
programs
He stated, "In other words, federal funds that are not a part of
our continuing appropriation from Congress, that are the excise
taxes on sporting goods."
MR. TAYLOR explained that those funds could only be used for
habitat restoration or enhancement projects. He mentioned that
there is big movement in the Western United States right now for
Congress to provide more funding for salmon habitat restoration,
because of the endangered species issue in the Pacific
Northwest. Mr. Taylor said that, theoretically, if Congress
provides those funds, ADF&G would come to the legislature and
request a capital project. The money appropriated would not be
part of ADF&G's regular operating budget. The legislature would
examine ADF&G's outline, determine whether or not to provide
those funds, specify the use of the funds, and ensure that the
funds were used appropriately.
Number 1595
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there were any further questions. She
closed public testimony, and opened up committee discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE made a motion to move HB 61 out of
committee. There being no objection, HB 61 was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 1:52 p.m. in order for the
sound equipment to be checked. The committee came back to order
at 1:57 p.m.
HB 55 - OIL DISCH PREVENTION: NONTANK VESSELS/RR
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 55, "An Act regarding oil discharge prevention
and cleanup involving self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding
400 gross registered tonnage and railroad tank cars and related
facilities and operations and requiring preparation and
implementation of oil discharge contingency plans for those
nontank vessels and railroad tank cars; amending the definition
of 'response action' that relates to releases or threatened
releases of oil and thereby amending the duties and liabilities
of response action contractors; authorizing compliance
verification for nontank vessels and for trains and related
facilities and operations; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 55(TRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS made a motion to adopt CSHB 55(TRA)
[although that was already before the committee].
Number 1844
CO-CHAIR MASEK pointed out that a new fiscal note submitted by
Mary Siroky clarifies that the funds will come from "470 monies"
and have no impact on the budget. She also made note of a
letter from The Boat Company of Washington, D.C., which is in
the bill packet. She introduced Paul Fuhs and Larry Dietrick,
together at the witness table.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified on
behalf of Commissioner Brown, who was the chair of the task
force on Motorized Oil Transport. He said Commissioner Brown
served on the Steering Committee of the task force, along with
Representative Kott and Senator Pearce. "The task force
included a 23 member cross-section of the maritime industry, the
Alaska Railroad, and other interested parties. He mentioned
that Brian Rogers (facilitator of the task force) was standing
by on teleconference to answer questions. Mr. Dietrick
paraphrased his written testimony. He stated:
The goal of this legislation is simple. It's designed
to protect Alaska's renewable resources and keep
Alaska's waters the cleanest and most pristine in the
world by including large sea-going marine nontank
vessels and the Alaska Railroad in Alaska's safety net
for oil spill prevention and response. In May of last
year the Twenty First Legislature debated and passed
Senate Bill 273 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 1,
which commissioned the task force on Motorized Oil
Transport to work out the details of how to implement
oil spill contingency plans and achieve the response
planning standard in a way that was acceptable to
those who would be affected. The task force has
completed the work directed by the legislature and
achieved unanimous consensus on legislation to
accomplish that. The consensus legislation, as [the
House Resources Standing Committee has] just adopted
is CSHB 55[(TRA)], which was developed by the task
force and is predicated on no further amendments by
its members.
To be more detailed, although the requirement for
financial responsibility was made effective last year
in SB 273, the requirement to have oil spill
contingency plans and meet the response planning
standard was not. Instead the legislature, through SB
273 and SCR 1, commissioned the task force to
determine how to implement the response planning
standards and provide opportunities for streamlined
oil spill contingency plans. Those standards were set
by the legislature in SB 273 as the containment and
control of 15 percent of the maximum oil capacity of a
nontank vessel or train, within 48 hours and cleanup
of the discharge within the shortest possible time,
consistent with minimizing damage to the environment.
Nontank vessels were also defined in SB 273 as self-
propelled vessels over 400 gross tons, not including
tank vessels, oil barges, or public vessels.
SCR [1] specified 23 members of the task force on
Motorized Oil Transport. This served to insure
diversity of viewpoints and adequate representation of
all groups to be regulated. The members included
representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Department [of Environmental Conservation], the
[Alaska] Railroad, spill response cooperatives, the
shipping industry, spot charter groups, the fishing
industry, the Regional Citizens' Advisory Councils,
and representatives from [the] crude oil industry and
the refined oil distributors and transporters. Many
more persons who were not appointed representatives
attended the work group sessions and formal task force
meetings.
The task force held eleven formal meetings over a
five-month period in which the members worked through
legal and technical issues on prevention, contingency
plans, and response planning standards. Three
workgroups were created to address specific areas of
concern.
The recommendations of the task force are practical.
They meet the requirements the legislature established
in last year's bill and include implementation
measures that use a market-based economy approach to
keep costs down. The recommendations are based on
Alaska's existing oil spill response infrastructure
and provide maximum flexibility for meeting the
requirements. The work of the task force has already
fostered private sector initiatives that significantly
increase the resources that will be brought to bear on
a spill. Alliances between ship agents, stevedoring
companies and spill response cooperatives are now
being explored to meet response needs and a new Marine
Exchange that covers all of Alaska is being created.
The members of the task force were extremely attentive
to the proceedings and assimilated a tremendous amount
of information during their tenure. All meetings were
very well attended and the level of dialogue was
frank, constructive, and productive. After careful
and thorough consideration of all ideas and requests
brought before them, they achieved unanimous consensus
to support 31 recommendations that are included in
your report in your packet.
The task force also exhaustively reviewed the legal
issues and meticulously identified what elements
should be contained in regulation and what should be
contained in statute. There's a table that outlines
this in the report. The bill you have before you is
the end result of this detailed process and it is the
task force's recommendation that it be adopted without
amendment, recognizing that the legal nuances and
details have all been agreed to and an enormous amount
of effort has gone into its formation.
Overall, the bill is simple and straightforward in its
approach. It fundamentally makes SB 273, passed by
the legislature last year, effective while including
enabling language to support regulations detailing how
it will be implemented. These regulations have
effectively been negotiated through the task force
proceedings, and will be drafted consistent with the
recommendations contained in the report.
The cooperation between industry, state
representatives, and lawmakers to develop
recommendations that are practical, reasonable and
economic is a tribute ... to the task force members.
The work provides a foundation for enhanced spill
prevention and response preparedness thereby ensuring
that our state resources and economy are adequately
protected for future generations. In the end the task
force has successfully completed the work requested by
the legislature and has produced, through consensus, a
report, CSHB 55 and recommendations for rulemaking
that outline an acceptable means by which they will
participate in the state's oil spill safety net. I
was very pleased to have been a part of this process.
And speaking on behalf of the Department [of
Environmental Conservation], we support the passage of
[HB 55] and offer our assistance as your deliberations
move forward.
I would also like to acknowledge the significant time
and costs invested by the individual task force
members to participate in the process. The task force
recommendations are in the interest of all Alaskans
and will help protect Alaska's natural resources and
make our spill response programs perhaps some of the
best in the world.
Number 2264
MR. DIETRICK introduced the following three people: Brian
Rogers, the task force facilitator; Paul Fuhs, the task force
Marine Technical Support Contractor; and Mr. Breck Tostevin, the
Assistant Attorney General assigned to this legislation.
BRIAN ROGERS, Information Insights, and Facilitator for the task
force, testified via teleconference. He explained that the
purpose of the task force was to discover a means to use the
pre-existing legislation. The 23 members reached consensus and
unanimous decision on 31 recommendations, most of which do not
require statutory change, but act as guidance to the legislative
process. He continued:
[HB] 55, as before you, contains the minimum changes
necessary to activate the contingency planning
process, to limit liability for certain participants
in the process, and to enable adoption of regulations.
The recommendations of the task force were to follow a
market-based approach, allowing several means for
alternative compliance, and to allow the regulated
industry to phase in implementation in order to spread
out the cost. The legislation before you, I believe,
shows that negotiated rule-making between the
regulators and the regulated community can work when
you have the involvement of industry in determining
the rules. Most of the provisions of this legislation
and of the recommendations of the task force are
already required in all of the other west coast
states. The goals of the task force were to develop a
scheme for implementing SB 273 that was realistic,
effective, economically feasible, and flexible. I
believe the recommendations that the group developed,
in fact, do that.
MR. ROGERS outlined the recommendations of the task force. He
said it recommended that a vessel demonstrate its ability to
control a spill by being equipped with sufficient booms to reach
three times the length of the vessel. The vessel must also have
a means of deploying those booms. Furthermore, in order to
demonstrate its ability to clean up, the task force recommended
that the vessel either have a skimmer in the area of its
operations, or the ability to get one to the spill area within
24 hours of a spill. The task force also recommended allowing
alternative methods of calculating fuel volume that would be
subject to the response-planning standard. Mr. Rogers specified
the c-plans required of this industry as the following: a
statement of financial responsibility; the designation of a
qualified individual who can make decisions on behalf of the
vessel owner; a response action plan for the vessel, consisting
of initial notification procedures; a contract with a PRAC who
could respond to a spill; a contract with an infinite management
team contractor who could manage the incident; and a requirement
that the vessel meet international maritime standards set by
treaty and federal law.
MR. ROGERS described alternative methods of compliance, stating
that the vessel owner can have some combination of contract and
equivalent resources, and choose to demonstrate to the
department that they have those equivalent resources and the
ability to respond to a spill. Mr. Rogers continued:
The recommendations allow use of fleet plans covering
multiple vessel[s] and of a generic plan developed by
a response plan facilitator [RPF] that could be
activated, for example, when a spot-charter vessel
comes into Alaska waters on short notice. That would
allow that plan to be adopted rapidly and not impede
the work of the vessel. The recommendations include
tight timeframes for review by DEC and provisions for
drills and verification by DEC. The prevention
recommendations are all voluntary, but do provide some
recognition for those vessels that go above and beyond
the basic compliance requirement.
Finally, in the area of the Alaska Railroad, the task
force endorses the Alaska Railroad's risk analysis
process, and recommended that the railroad go through
the standard [contingency plan] process required of
other regulated industry.
MR. ROGERS detailed the section by section analysis of CSHB
55(TRA) as follows:
Section 1, beginning on page 1, line 10, ... was
originally a letter of intent, recommended by the task
force. The Transportation Committee adopted it into
the legislation, basically to set some parameters for
the adoption by DEC of regulations that they would be
in line with the recommendations of the task force.
Sections 2 through 4 ... limit the civil liability of
oil spill response action contractors, covering the
new oil discharge prevention and contingency plan for
nontank vessels and railroad cars.
Section 5 expands the definition of response action to
contractors doing infinite management team services
and [RPF] services. This [is] a fairly important
section in order that the regulated industry will be
able to contract with individuals to provide these
services.
Section 6 amends last year's legislation to make it
identical to the tank vessel legislation adopted some
years ago, so that we don't have slightly different
definitions between the two.
Section 7 extends the existing innocent passage
exemptions [in AS 46.04.055(c)] to nontank vessels.
Section 8 is the primary section of the bill on the
contingency planning and sets forth the contingency
planning process for nontank vessels. The sectional
analysis ... goes through those details. I can do
that if there are questions.
Finally, Section 9 authorizes DEC to do its
verification process.
Section 10 requires [that the] lieutenant governor
certify to the Revisor [of Statutes] the effective
date of the regulation.
Section 11 is the effective date clause.
MR. ROGERS stated that the task force recommends that the House
Resources Standing Committee adopt this legislation "as it now
stands."
Number 2659
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked how [vessel] owners prove to DEC
that they are adequately covered by insurance or have the
financial means to cover the cost of an oil spill.
MR. ROGERS replied:
The financial responsibility section of last year's
bill actually went into effect last September 1
[2000]. It requires a filing with DEC that vessels
began making late in August of last year that shows
that they have the financial wherewithal to clean up a
spill. And I think Larry Dietrick can detail exactly
what those requirements are, in terms of the
documentation. In terms of needing this year's
legislation, ... a contract in force is what's
required and that, tied with last year's legislation
and the financial responsibility, I think, gives the
state sufficient documentation that, in fact, the
financial wherewithal is there.
Number 2730
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why the task force came up with
recommendation number 31 [on page 29 of the task force report],
which indicates that the "471" fund should be used to cover
costs rather than charging the applicant.
MR. ROGERS replied that the task force recognizes that
implementing this legislation will impose costs on the regulated
industry, through the requirement of the following: the boom
that would be required within 180 days after the regulations are
adopted; the skimmer that will be needed to deal with persistent
oil spills, which probably "can be transported by air;" and the
contract with the oil spill co-op, or equivalent resources.
MR. ROGERS recognized that the prevention aspect of the "470"
fund was designed specifically for prevention of oil spills. He
said that the task force members - which included, in addition
to members of the regulated industry, folks from the petroleum
distributors, transporters, and two oil producers - felt that
using funding from the "470" fund for oil spill prevention would
be appropriate, since that fund was originally laid out for that
purpose. He added that using "470" monies helps spread out
total costs, stating that attempting to pass this legislation
through [ADF&G's] general fund would prove more problematic.
Number 2850
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made brief mention of the "bloodletting"
which resulted in "the two- and three-cent split" during the
creation of the "470" fund. He asked if the "470" fund was
created primarily for the oil industry.
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
testifying via teleconference answered Representative Green's
question with the following statement:
In 1994, as you know, the fund was divided into two
accounts: a response account and a prevention
account. And one of the uses of the prevention
account was to fund DEC's review of contingency plans.
MR. TOSTEVIN, in further response to Representative Green,
clarified that the contingency plans were regarding the oil
industry.
Number 2918
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN returned to the subject of the two and
three-cent split in order to demonstrate that there may be costs
unrelated to the industry that pays. He pointed out that a
significant amount of the "470" fund was appropriated to pay for
the Kennicott ferry, which was intended to be used as a
communications center and spill equipment carrier during an oil
spill; however, the Kennicott has not been used as such.
TAPE 01-10, SIDE B
Number 2961
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about the fairness of
allowing the railroad and as many as 900 vessels to be exempt
from paying a portion of the c-plan review. Although the major
oil companies have agreed to pay that cost, he questioned the
fairness of that plan, and compared it to charging one person
for another person's use of a park. He asked if there was a
significant number of "oil people" involved in the task force.
PAUL FUHS, Task Force Member, testified in support of CSHB
55(TRA). He said he has served as a Marine Technical Advisor
and a liaison to the [oil] industry for the task force. He
replied to Representative Green's question with the following
statement:
The industry didn't ask for this regulation, but yet
was willing to go along with it last year and say, "OK
we'll accept that we know other states are doing it,
and it's a responsible thing to do." Some of the
larger vessels are carrying quite a bit of oil, some
of it persistent oil; it can really cause a lot of
environmental damage. So ... they said, "Let us have
this task force and work through it, so that we can
try to find efficiencies."
Well, DEC's first fiscal note was $585,000 on this.
And through the efficiencies we found through the task
force and through private sector solutions to try to
pick up almost all of this through creation of a new
marine exchange [and] use of vessel agent, DEC's long-
term fiscal note is down to $141,000 on this. There's
a couple years where there's a surge of all these
plans coming in, where they're going to need a couple
of temporary employees, so the industry will bear the
brunt of the cost of this. And when we looked at it -
the problems with the general fund and attempts to
reduce there, issues there - what we looked at was
what was a possible funding source where the
government could partner with industry on this. So
the "470" fund was established to look at marine
pollution issues.
Now, [the "470" fund has] been used for a lot of other
things. And, Representative Green, I was around when
we went through this battle, and [I] remember a lot of
this, and there were attempts to use the fund for
other than prevention and response. When we talked to
the oil industry people about this, their view of it
was, "Well, when we split the two cents off, and at
least we've capped that, it's at 50 million and that
tax will stop." They figure they're going to pay that
three cents forever. What really drives them wild is
when you go and try to use it for something that's not
really pollution prevention and response. [CSHB
55(TRA)] ... meets that requirement. And so that's
why ... if we didn't spend this money, it's not like
it's going to save them (indisc..) three cents or
they're going to get it back, or something like that.
At least this is within prevention and response, which
the fund is meant for.
So, I think that was the overall logic of it, kind of
a cost-sharing and partnership with industry on this.
They're going to by far bear the brunt of the cost of
it. And we tried to hold the cost down as much as
possible, knowing that ... issues of even adding
additional employees, even if they're paid for by the
"470" fund or user fees, was going to be an issue with
some people in the legislature. So, the task force
did its very best to hold those costs down and come up
with some kind of a partnership that could work. And
believe me, this will improve the safety net. The
fact that if you have an incident, you don't have to
wait for your insurance company, or them to call their
lawyers or negotiate with somebody, as soon as
something happens somebody immediately goes out the
door to respond to it. This is a significant
improvement in what we have now for some of these
large vessels. So, that was kind of the overall logic
of it, when the task force came to it; there was quite
a bit of discussion about this.
Number 2759
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he agreed with the concept, but
did not agree with the oil companies paying the brunt of the
costs. He said that the number of ships after the initial surge
would be 169, with a cost of $141,000 a year. That's an average
cost of $1,000 per ship a year. Representative Green said that
he found it "preposterous" that profit-making vessels couldn't
pay that amount of money to review a c-plan. He specified that
it was not that the oil companies are not able to pay; it was an
issue of fairness to all involved. He said, "Those people who
are subject to spill should be paying equally."
MR. DIETRICK replied that BP and Tesoro representatives were
among those on the task force, and that their attendance
was excellent. He said that they were part of the decision-
making process and "agreed with the approach, knowing full well
that they're the three-cent contributor to all of this." In
regard to the fairness issue, Mr. Dietrick admitted, "a very
large percentage of the contingency plans that come in to the
department right now are already from people who are not
contributing to that three-cent surcharge, they're piggy-backing
on the crude oil surcharge."
MR. DIETRICK referred to a previous comment by Representative
Green concerning the Kennicott ferry, with the following
statement:
... the Kennicott is a very unique vessel now, and it
is on call, as is all of our other ferries now
[through an] agreement ... with DEC and [the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities].
We can, literally, through our state on-scene
coordinator, pull any of the ferries off-line on a
phone-call basis, to employ it in any kind of a large
response. It will take a large [spill] to activate
these vessels, but even the Kennicott has been
designed with unique features that would allow it to
be a commanding control platform in remote area[s] of
the state. It's the only ocean-class vessel. ... One
of the most limiting things in keeping [a vessel] on
station to jump-start a spill was water availability,
oddly enough; it wasn't fuel, it wasn't provisions.
And so [the Kennicott] has its own water-making
capability, because one of the design factors is for
it to be able to remain on station for up to 20 days,
initially, until such time as replacement resources
[arrive].
So, that was also three-cent crude oil charge. So, I
think you're right - is [the fact that just the crew
producers are paying this fee] fair? Well, it's not
fair. On the other hand, I think ... the task force
members from the crude industry ... do see a potential
gain down the road, in that these 900 nontank vessels
are likely to use our response co-ops. (Indisc.) today
(indisc.) over the last 10 years, to meet the
requirements for the existing regulated industry. By
adding [these] vessels you're increasing the base
support of those co-ops, so you're going to spread the
cost of those co-ops. So, I think there is some
potential down the road here that the crude industry
recognizes that by a greater sharing in their
preparedness costs for these co-ops that have evolved
over time, that they could actually see a reduced rate
down the road. That's one of those market efficiency
things. So, I think there was a lot of things that
went into the thinking and the discussion here to see
if there would be some paybacks down the road. I
think this approach is unique, using existing marine
infrastructure to solve it. And we're trying to
strengthen it [and] at the same time have more
participants play in it. So, we're hoping that the
different arrangements that are made will actually
result in a better safety net, at a lower cost,
because we have more players. And I can't translate
that into actual cost for you, but I think it's those
kinds of things that lead them to agree with the
concept, perhaps.
Number 2483
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated his previously stated concern,
by reading recommendation number 31, which recommends that the
nontank community "should not be charged user fees to support
the nontank program." He stated that it really bothered him
that the state has not come to the point of saying "enough
already. There is enough sucking off this industry-supplied
money." He commented that Alaska is implementing more and more
user fees within the state and to its visitors, so why not
charge the vessels, instead of making the oil companies pay.
Number 2384
MR. ROGERS addressed Representative Green's concerns about the
funding issue by saying he understood the points that he had
raised. He commented that he thought that the task force was
"looking at a balancing of costs and an attempt to recognize
that this imposes costs on the regulated industry."
Number 2360
MR. FUHS stated the following in response to Representative
Green's previous question:
"Where does it stop?" Where it stops is at the three
cents a barrel. The department cannot spend more than
the three cents generate. And that was established by
the legislature, and I think the industry looked at
that. The legislature established that three cents to
deal with prevention and response issues, and we felt
like, at least this request did directly relate to
prevention and response. And I think that's one of
the reasons why the industry looked at that in a
favorable way. No one was saying, "Let's put new
taxes on the oil industry to pay for this." But since
the fund does exist, established by the legislature,
and it qualified, it seemed it was a legitimate cost-
sharing for a program that was prevention and
response.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled what a "bloodletting" session it
was when the decision was being made between the two- and three-
cent split. He remarked that at the time the three cents was
decided upon, the state was shipping out over "two million" a
day, whereas the amount being shipped out today is under one
million, and decreasing. He said "the three cent going in is
going to deplete, with more and more sucking from it, and less
and less going in." Representative Green asked if we were going
to go back to the industry and ask for four cents when we
realized that we were spending more than we thought. He stated
that he had a problem with the fiscal note: "They mixed an EVOS
[Exxon Valdez Oil Spill] money in there that is going to dry
off." Representative Green said:
I'm just concerned that we look at the fiscal note; we
really decide as a committee we don't mind charging
one industry to do another industry's business. If
that's really what we want to do, so be it. I'll be
voting against it, but just so you know, I don't think
that's fair.
Number 2251
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if the creation of this legislation was
born of the need to regulate gray-water discharge from cruise
ships.
MR. FUHS replied no. He explained that the drive for
legislation was the result of some cruise ships running aground,
as well as the M/V Kiroshima, the Japanese vessel that went
aground in Dutch Harbor.
MR. DIETRICK added that "it was also the (indisc.) on [the]
Oregon coast, and so all Pacific West Coast states and British
Columbia have now adopted programs for nontank vessels as a
result of a number of incidents from each kind of vessel, up and
down the coast."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said that the private sector, although not being
asked to pay for this program, would have costs involved with
supplies, maintenance, and training. He asked if any
consideration had been given to those costs.
MR. FUHS answered that an exact figure is not available. He
explained that most are expected to join a co-op, because it
will be the most cost-effective plan. The co-ops cannot give a
cost estimate until they know how many people will join. He
said the bill does allow participants to meet the requirements
themselves, but they do not know ahead of time how many people
will choose to do that. He mentioned a fiscal note from the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), and said:
They've got ten vessels: seven in Southeast, two out
West, and one that goes in between. And their yearly
fee is $23,500 to cover those vessels with the
existing oil spill co-ops. Now they'll have some
additional training and drills, and they'll need to
show that they have contracted with an incident
command co-op, which ... [is] being formed - the
Marine Exchange. So, that kind of gives you a range
of costs. It's substantial, but it's not really
crippling, because of the way that we allowed
streamline contingency plans; that everything's
streamline (indisc.). If you're a tanker vessel, your
c-plan is probably six inches [of stacked pages] deep.
If you go with this streamline model your c-plan
should be no more than two pages long. And that's ...
how we're able to reduce the fiscal note and reduce
the number of DEC personnel, except to actually review
these c-plans.
MR. FUHS, in response to Co-Chair Scalzi, clarified that there
is a surcharge for how much fuel each vessel is carrying, which
is based on a risk factor through the co-ops; therefore, the
larger vessels, container vessels, and oar ships will be paying
more.
Number 2056
CO-CHAIR SCALZI expressed his understanding of Representative
Green's aforementioned concerns. He said he could perceive how
legislation could eventually be extended to cover smaller
vessels that would not be "as fiscally strong to handle that
kind of thing." He asked if the task force had discussed
whether or not the Alaska State Coast Guard (ASCG) should be
operating the program instead of DEC. Co-Chair Scalzi remarked,
"Being in the marine industry, I know that they're pretty much
the organization that I find has the most efficiency in
regulating the maritime industry."
MR. DIETRICK answered:
Currently, under ... OPA, the Oil Pollution Act that's
passed at the federal level, these vessels are not
regulated, in that they're not required to have
contingency plans, contracts with a bonafide response
cooperative with a specified response capability, et
cetera, which is why the West Coast states have
stepped in to fill that gap.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said that he knew that the ASCG was not involved
in regulating OPA. He restated his question regarding whether
or not there had been any discussion in the task force about
contracting with the ASCG for its services in overseeing the oil
spill prevention and restoration plan.
MR. DIETRICK responded:
In terms of what's happening at the federal level,
that would put the [Alaska State] Coast Guard in that
position, there's been one bill introduced to date, at
the federal level [in] the last session, that is much
more stringent and restrictive than what the Alaska
package is. Now whether or not that moves -- and that
would effectively end [OPA] to put the [USCG] in the
business of regulating these nontank vessels under
federal law. The other point to this is we do have an
operating agreement with the [USCG] in Alaska. That
there's a DEC -- we have a memorandum agreement that
is very comprehensive, that covers all aspects of the
activities in the oil spill prevention response world
and how we coordinate, communicate, and get together
on a response. So, we're both operating under that
agreement and that's what we use to coordinate our
activities. And I presume that will continue until
such time as there is something passed at the federal
legislation that would actually put them in the
driver's seat, I think.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Dietrick to reiterate information he
had shared in an earlier Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities meeting, regarding the effects of the $141,000 on the
budget and the possible necessity for budget cuts.
MR. DIETRICK said:
In discussing the fiscal note and the long-term
viability of the response fund to be able to support
this, we did look at the "out year" cost, once we're
over the hump here, of $141,000 per year, against ...
projected revenues from the response fund. And in
fact, as we discussed earlier, [Legislative] Finance
has just recently done a projection for [fiscal years
2002, 2003, and 2004] to look at the balances at the
end of these fiscal years to see whether or not it's
supportable. The three-cent surcharge on crude oil
production in the State of Alaska generates
approximately $9 to $10 million a year, on an annual
basis. That's with the projected revenue forecast
from the Department of Revenue, the farthest
[forecast] of which goes out now 'til the year 2010.
The department uses those projections in its budget
preparation; we accept those estimates that
[Department of] Revenue makes on crude oil production
and the revenues that it will generate. So looking at
the $141,000 in the "out years" as the long-term cost
of the state for conducting this program, as a
percentage of the ... revenue generated by the three-
cent surcharge of approximately $9 to $10 million
dollars a year, roughly in that neighborhood, this is
about one and one half percent of what the surcharge
generates on an annual basis, at least up to almost
2010.
"What are the other things that may be reduced in the
'out years' [before] the response fund ends?" I think
that's a very good dialogue because we need to look at
the response fund, and we have been looking at it on a
long-term basis, as opposed to a one-time fiscal year
basis. Some of the other things that we see in the
future that would be reduced from the fund will be the
effects of Senate Bill 128, which was passed two years
ago, which significantly reduced the net worth
threshold for parties who were eligible for financial
assistance from leaky underground storage tanks. So
the possibilities that the demand to compensate, or
for leaky underground storage tanks will be reduced I
think is better. It took ten years for the state to
meet the 1998 deadline to remove all the leaking tanks
in Alaska. That was a landmark event, and indeed,
Alaska hit almost 100 percent of that on the deadline.
So, all of our leaky underground storage tanks, of
which there were about 7,000 in the state, have been
pulled and replaced now with new up-to-date tanks.
So, [with] the financing that the fund provided for
that, we're over the hump on that. Now, we still have
sites that have contamination left ... for which the
contamination has been cleaned up, but that's an
example of the kind of thing where the demand on the
fund will be going down.
Another example is the rural above-ground storage
tanks in Alaska. The fund was initially used back, I
think, in '94, as well. When the [US] Coast Guard
threatened to shut down fuel deliveries to the rural
bulk fuel [tank] farms in Alaska, they cut a deal with
the state, [they] said, "If you initiate a program to
start fixing these, we won't pursue our shutdowns."
The response fund was tapped at that time to provide
seed money to start some repair work at these, and
it's been contributing to that over time.
Last year the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund was
split, and it ... was returned to the state. And $20
million was returned to the state through the Denali
Commission to go to work on replacing above-ground
rural storage tank farms. And $18 million was
earmarked for remediation for cleanups at those sites
where leaks had occurred. So we now have two
significant revenue streams for something that the
response fund had provided seed money for, which will
again, I think take some pressure off the response
fund to do that. Of course, as you know, that's [an]
estimate to replace all those in an excess of $200
million, so there's no way that the response fund
could have taken care of that job at the levels it's
at. There are those things that I think will cause
the pressures to be reduced on the fund that will
enhance ... maintaining the balance over time.
Number 1584
CO-CHAIR MASEK read directly from page 2 of the new fiscal note,
and asked what the "newly formed Marine Exchange" is.
MR. FUHS answered that it existed before the inception of the
task force and it served to unite the maritime industry to serve
its best interests. When the task force was formed, there was a
need for incident command. Mr. Fuhs said that the spill
response co-ops will respond, but the insurance companies and
ship owners want a responsible party (RP) to gauge what the
right amount of response is and assure that the spending does
not go unchecked. He talked about the capabilities of the
tanker companies who have their own capabilities to make those
decisions in-house, versus the smaller ship companies, for whom
"the only reason [they] have oil on board is because it makes
the ship go." Mr. Fuhs stated that the reason the co-op exists
is so that the small companies don't have to hire "three or four
new people" to deal with incident command. He said that the co-
op will use transponders on vessels to aid in response and that
that information would be made available to the USCG. He said,
"It's a specialized facet of this that really wasn't covered,
and that's why the Marine Exchange ... is going to handle that
portion of it."
Number 1425
MR. DIETRICK, in response to a question from Co-Chair Masek,
gave a summary "of the logic behind the fiscal note." He noted
that the "phase-in" time for the bill's legislation is "rather
extended," explaining the reason is to allow sufficient time to
get the regulations in place, which is the main goal in fiscal
year 2002. He said that the following contingency plans will be
put into effect in 2003 and carry through to 2004: the
registration of the PRAC; the training activities; the
prevention credit program; and the electronic posting. The peak
years of activity will be 2003 and 2004. Mr. Fuhs explained
that the permanent, full-time positions are increased by one
until 2003. A couple of positions were reduced to temporary in
2003 and 2004, out of consideration that in 2005, after the main
activity had taken place, those positions would no longer "stay
on the books." He said that the task force hopes that the
program will reach its plateau by 2005, saying "the industry
actually gets a two year period after regulations to ... bring
the last of the equipment on-line. And that was out of regard
for them wanting to have two budget years, essentially, to
spread the capitalization costs; it was another way to make it
affordable to the industry." Mr. Fuhs said that the task force
would assess the activity workload in 2004.
Number 1295
CO-CHAIR MASEK pointed out that there were at least five people
from the petroleum industry who served on the task force. Among
those industries that would be impacted by the bill, she listed:
container ships industry; noncrude; spot charter; cruise ship;
crude industry; and seafood processing. She asked about a
seafood agent named Jeff Thompson (ph).
MR. FUHS responded:
That is a vessel agency, and they're the ones that
clear all the foreign vessels. And their concern was
over spot charters. You might not know even a week
before, what vessel's going to come for your fish or
your iron ore. So that's how we needed a streamline
process. They would hold a generic contingency plan,
and when that vessel would come in, they'd have to
sign on that the department would turn that around in
five days. That's the commitment they've made to
clear a spot charter vessel, to make sure that we
don't interfere with commerce and delay any of those
vessels.
MR. FUHS, in response to a question from Co-Chair Masek, said:
Representative Green raised a very good point, and I
remember all of this when people were proposing things
that really had nothing to do with prevention and
response. And I think when we split the nickle, that
was an historic compromise. I think if anybody would
go back and try to add to that or change it, I think
you know where that'd go, that would go straight to
the trashcan in a heartbeat. And that's just talking
political reality. ...I don't really think it affects
the oil industry that much; they pretty much accepted
the three cents and they'd like it to be used for
prevention and response. Who the costs will really
hurt are our industries in this state that are
marginal industries. And right now our fishing
industry, because the prices are down, some of the
stocks are down, if you start putting additional costs
on to the transportation industries, they're going to
pass those along, straight to the customer. And so
the fishing industry gets a double whamy. Some of
their ships have to meet these requirements and pay
that, and pay higher shipping costs because their
carriers are also having higher costs because of this
regulation. And that's why people were really nervous
about this. The timber industry, our costs are down
and our volumes are down, so you don't get the economy
to scale. Red Dog's still chugging along OK, but the
price of gold and silver is down. So there is not a
lot of margin in these industries to say that ...
"just write a blank check and you guys are going to
pay for it." It would have implications through[out
all] resource industries throughout the state. That's
why so much emphasis was put on trying to contain the
costs for the industry on this.
CO-CHAIR MASEK commented that it seemed that the task force and
agencies involved had worked hard together to reach a
compromise. She said that the plan is flexible and gives the
legislative body the power to come back and make changes if
needed. She stated that the issue needs to be dealt with right
away. She acknowledged Representative Green's objections to the
bill. Co-Chair Masek expressed that she is happy to see that
"the private industry is trying to form co-ops, so that in the
future they can be able to pay the fees that are necessary and
not have to go back into the state for funding."
Number 0902
MR. DIETRICK stated that the reason the task force was created
last year was due to "the debate about the affordability and the
marginal economics of this group of vessels." The task force
looked at every possible method of keeping the costs down in
order to benefit the state "by getting them to participate in
the safety net, but to do it in a way that was affordable." He
said the plan is sustainable by the surcharge.
CO-CHAIR MASEK read the following segment of Section 8 from the
sectional analysis prepared by Breck Tostevin: " ... new
provisions requiring oil discharge prevention and contingency
plans for nontank vessels and railroad tank cars transporting
oil in order to implement the response planning standards
adopted by the Twenty First Legislature ... " She said "that
portion there would reflect to a lot of the discussion that
we've had here in this committee today." Hearing no questions
from those witnesses in the room or via teleconference, Co-Chair
Masek closed the meeting to public comment and opened up
committee discussion.
Number 0713
CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that, after having had the chance to
interview members of the industry and representatives of the
task force, he thinks the bill should be moved forward because
of its "broad support." He said he had some of the same
concerns as Representative Green regarding funding and future
regulatory changes that could occur; however, he does not want
to "hamper" such a well-supported bill because of something that
may happen in the future.
Number 0601
CO-CHAIR SCALZI moved that CSHB 55(TRA) be moved from committee
with individual recommendations and attachments. There being no
objection, CSHB 55(TRA) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the following meetings: a Federal Co-
Management overview on Wednesday, February 14, 2001; and a joint
meeting with the House Special Committee on Oil & Gas,
concerning the Alyeska Pipeline, on Thursday, February 15, 2001.
She invited Representative Fate to introduce a topic.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to the change in 1994 from village
status to tribal status. He stated that the topic is very
applicable to the House Resources Standing Committee, since it
is about federal and tribal co-management of game, as well as
the subsistence issue. He recommended that the House Resources
Standing Committee consider having an overview regarding this
subject.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if the committee had any interest in a
tribal overview.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI suggested incorporating that into the co-
management overview.
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated that Co-Chair Scalzi's suggestion would
be considered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|