03/18/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Alaska Board of Fisheries | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission | |
| HB185 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 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 Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Commissioner
Cora J. Campbell - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Michael E. Smith - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Geology Commissioner
Daniel T. Seamount - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 185
"An Act relating to an exemption from authorizations that may be
required by the Department of Environmental Conservation for the
firing or other use of munitions on active ranges."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal
management program and relating to the extension; relating to
the review of activities of the Alaska coastal management
program; providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 185
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
03/18/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
03/07/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/16/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CORA CAMPBELL, Appointee
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the appointee to commissioner
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
STEVEN FLORY
Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
WAYNE HEIMER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
CRAIG COMPEAU
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife - Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
JULIANNE CURREY, Executive Director
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
JOHN JENSEN
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
SARA JACKINSKY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Cora Campbell as
commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
MITCHELL HRACHIAR
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding the appointment of Cora
Campbell as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game.
PAUL A. SHADURA II
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
BOB HEINRICH
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
GARY OLSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist
United Fishermen of Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Cora Campbell
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
MICHAEL E. SMITH, Appointee
Alaska Board of Fisheries
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Board
of Fisheries.
WAYNE HEIMER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Michael E.
Smith to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
CRAIG COMPEAU
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Michael E.
Smith to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
REUBEN HANKE
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Michael E.
Smith to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
STEVEN FLORY
Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Michael E.
Smith to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
DANIEL SEAMOUNT, Appointee
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HB 185.
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 185, provided
information and answered questions.
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 185, provided
information and answered questions.
MAJOR JUSTIN TRUMBO, Regional Environmental Coordinator
U.S. Air Force
Region X
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
San Francisco, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 185
LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 185, answered
questions.
LYNN KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 185, answered
questions.
GLENN GRAY
Glenn Gray & Associates
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 106, continued a
PowerPoint presentation that he began on 3/16/11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:28 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Feige, P. Wilson, Dick, Gardner, and Munoz were present at the
call to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Commissioner
1:07:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business is
the confirmation hearing for Cora Campbell, appointee as
commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Co-Chair
Seaton asked Ms. Campbell to tell the committee about herself
and state why she would like to be the commissioner.
1:08:10 PM
CORA CAMPBELL, Appointee, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), stated she is a lifelong Alaskan originally from
Petersburg. She grew up in the commercial fishing industry and
commercially fished from the time she was a child until she had
children of her own. During that time she participated in
seining, gillnetting, and trolling for salmon, herring
gillnetting, and crab fisheries, mostly all in Southeast Alaska.
During the off season she worked for a local fishing association
based in Petersburg, but whose members included fishers from
Ketchikan on up to the Bering Sea. Her role with that group was
to represent the fishermen in the various regulatory forums.
Thus, she spent a lot of time at the Alaska Board of Fisheries,
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and tracked state
and federal legislation. During that time she also served on
the advisory panel to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and she served on the advisory panel to the North
Pacific Research Board, focusing on economic development and
cooperative research projects.
1:09:39 PM
MS. CAMPBELL said she then transitioned to a statewide
organization where she administered an outreach education
program about subsistence management. This was at the time when
management regulations under the Federal Subsistence Board were
starting to diverge significantly from state regulations. The
program focused on providing information about the federal
management process and educating Alaskans who might be impacted
by those decisions about how to participate in the process.
MS. CAMPBELL related that about four years ago she began work in
the governor's office as fisheries policy advisor since that was
primarily her background and expertise at the time. However,
her responsibilities were subsequently expanded to include
wildlife issues, issues with the Department of Environmental
Conservation, and other issues with natural resources
management. By the time she left the governor's office she had
a fairly broad portfolio and exposure to a number of different
departments and issues. She began serving as acting
commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game on December
1, 2010.
1:11:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that she is personally impressed
with Ms. Campbell and Ms. Campbell's strong background for the
commissioner's position. However, she said she is receiving
calls from people who fear that Ms. Campbell's commercial
fisheries background will prejudice her in favor of commercial
interests and against sport fishing and subsistence users. She
asked what Ms. Campbell has to say to those people expressing
this concern.
MS. CAMPBELL allowed that her professional experience has
largely been in the commercial industry and she grew up
commercial fishing. However, while growing up she also sport
fished and her family fished personal use fisheries for food.
When she began working in the governor's office, she
transitioned from working for any particular part of the
fisheries to a position with statewide responsibilities where
she advocated for all constituents and all resource users, a
role she has been successful at for the past four years. She
has established relationships with sport fishing groups,
subsistence users, and is comfortable working in a fair and
balanced manner.
1:13:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether Ms. Campbell is aware of the
program where Bristol Bay drift fisherman are all charged a 1
percent tax for fisheries development.
MS. CAMPBELL responded yes.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested Ms. Campbell to explain how an advocacy
organization like Trout Unlimited can be given grants for
marketing work from these tax collections. He further asked
whether ADF&G has oversight to verify that these tax monies are
used properly.
MS. CAMPBELL answered she does not believe ADF&G has any direct
oversight responsibility over regional seafood development
associations because they are incorporated under statutes and
regulations for the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development.
1:14:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired how the state decides whether a sport
fishing group is the best choice to market commercial salmon.
MS. CAMPBELL understood the program to be a self-assessment in
which the fishermen vote to assess themselves a 1 percent tax to
be used for purposes of development for their fishery. The
fishermen elect a board of directors from among those folks
paying the taxes and the use of those monies is largely directed
by that board. She said she does not know to what extent the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
regulations may direct appropriate uses of those funds.
1:15:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she has known Ms. Campbell for
quite some time and has watched her grow over the past 11 years.
She said she feels strongly that Ms. Campbell is very capable of
being the ADF&G commissioner and is fair and honest and will do
a good job.
1:15:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that he is impressed with how the
people who originally opposed Ms. Campbell's appointment have
completely turned around to supporting her appointment. He
noted that the state constitution says wildlife for sustained
yield. He asked whether Ms. Campbell feels current predator
control policies are aggressive enough.
MS. CAMPBELL replied that she believes the department has
shifted over the past several years to being more active in
predator management and to refine intensive management programs.
The results of those efforts are starting to be seen in several
areas, but not to the abundance levels that the department would
like to see in many areas, including some of the areas
represented by Representative Dick. While she embraces the
Division of Wildlife Conservation's philosophy that those
programs are appropriate, there are still some challenges. One
current challenge is that in areas where state and federal lands
are in a patchwork, the department does not have the cooperation
of some federal land owners. That is a significant impediment
because the moose, caribou, and wolves do not know where the
lines are. The department is trying to establish some type of
cooperation with some of the federal land managers to allow more
programs to take place and to refine those management programs.
1:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related the issue of possible environmental
effects from barges travelling up the Taku River to a Canadian
mine. One group of people opposes critical habitat designation
for the river and another group made up mostly of fishermen
supports such a designation. She requested Ms. Campbell to
comment on whether a critical habitat designation would be the
most effective means for protecting the river bottom and what
other options there might be given that the Taku River is an
international waterway.
MS. CAMPBELL responded she does not want to take sides in the
debate about whether a critical habitat designation is the right
approach for protecting the Taku River. She said she
understands the concern about the proposed activities on the
river. The department feels confident that it has the authority
through the permitting process to protect the river, the river
bottom, and the salmon habitat. She understands, however, that
not everyone shares that level of comfort. A critical habitat
designation can have a lot of flexibility because the
legislature has very broad discretion to talk about what types
of activities would and would not be allowed. Thus, it is
likely that there is a mechanism through legislative discretion
to address some concerns people might have about that
designation being overly restrictive.
1:20:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
1:21:34 PM
STEVEN FLORY, Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee, reported
that the advisory committee voted unanimously to fully endorse
Ms. Campbell's appointment as commissioner of ADF&G. This
endorsement includes supporting votes from commercial fishermen,
sport fishermen, and non-hunters. Various committee members met
with Ms. Campbell and the committee feels that what she does not
already know she is willing to learn, and she is open to new
ideas and willing to discuss issues with the general public and
advisory committees.
1:22:47 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, said his group had the pleasure of working with Ms.
Campbell first in her capacity as the fisheries advisor in the
governor's office and now as the acting commissioner of ADF&G.
She is very smart and articulate and is approachable on issues.
She takes the time to listen to stakeholders and members of the
public and then works responsibly to seek a resolution if one is
warranted. Therefore, his association endorses Ms. Campbell for
commissioner of ADF&G.
1:23:35 PM
REUBEN HANKE testified that he worked with Ms. Campbell at the
fisheries level in the governor's office and interacted with her
at the Alaska Board of Fisheries level. He said she is very
approachable and willing to listen to all sides of fish and game
issues, and will make a great commissioner. He looks forward to
working with her.
1:24:29 PM
WAYNE HEIMER offered his support for Ms. Campbell's appointment
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. He
noted that during his 25 years of working at ADF&G and the 12
years since he left the department he has watched every kind of
commissioner come through and has concluded that the personality
of the commissioner is less important than the philosophy of the
governor with whom he or she serves. He offered his support for
Governor Parnell's philosophy and agenda, and the people working
for him.
1:25:41 PM
CRAIG COMPEAU, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife - Alaska, related
his organization's wholehearted support for the appointment of
Ms. Campbell as commissioner of ADF&G. He said his organization
is impressed with her decisive action and that she hears both
sides of an issue. Over his 50 years in Alaska he has seen
commissioners with much thicker resumes who have performed very
poorly, in his opinion, in relation to wildlife populations and
abundance management.
1:27:00 PM
JULIANNE CURREY, Executive Director, Petersburg Vessel Owners
Association, noted that her organization includes over 100
members of multi-gear and multi-species fishermen from Ketchikan
to the Bering Sea. She stated that the association supports Ms.
Campbell's appointment to commissioner of the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game. She said she is particularly delighted to speak
in favor of Ms. Campbell's appointment due to her unique
background in the fisheries management process, along with her
history of personal participation in commercial, sport, and
personal use fisheries. The association has worked alongside
Ms. Campbell for a long time and she is brilliant, articulate,
and understands the need for putting the resource first. The
broad range of support for Ms. Campbell is a testament to her
ability to manage the department.
1:28:02 PM
JOHN JENSEN said he is in favor of Ms. Campbell's appointment.
As a user of all of the state's resources - subsistence,
hunting, and fishing - he trusts Ms. Campbell's capability to
manage these resources for all the people of the state.
1:28:34 PM
SARA JACKINSKY urged a vote against Ms. Campbell's confirmation
as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. While
Ms. Campbell is likely a wonderful person, she is not qualified
to hold this position because her degree is in education and she
has no scientific, research, conservation, statistical, or
economic background, and no education in fisheries issues. Her
commercial fishing experience as a child is being considered as
her professional resume. Her appointment would be a slap in the
face to those in commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing.
The people of the state deserve a commissioner who is
knowledgeable and has a background and education in an
appropriate area. This is a case of "who you know" with no
regard to the importance of the position.
1:30:05 PM
MITCHELL HRACHIAR testified that as a scientist with a degree in
geology and a social science degree in geography he was taught
to present the data, establish trends based on data, and present
answers from that data. Ms. Campbell's degree in education does
not provide the background necessary to make sound decisions on
a broad spectrum of issues such as complex trends in the ocean
environment. He can only hope she has the knowledge and
foresight to advise on closures of a fishery or game management
area for long term viabilities, and these questions should be
asked by the legislative bodies. For example, Cook Inlet is
experiencing a downturn of halibut and hordes of hunters gather
around the terminus of Denali Park. He said he is wondering
whether Ms. Campbell would support closures of breeder halibut
and broader buffer areas around the park to promote wildlife
habitat and viewing. He noted that Ms. Campbell's degree in
education is from the same university as Governor Parnell's,
Pacific Lutheran University, and stated that faith-based game
management is not a science. He reported that on a governor's
press release he observed a copyright and he questions whether
the government has the right to copyright data. This is
becoming an issue with the Freedom of Information Act as people
are being denied their rights for open information.
1:33:02 PM
PAUL A. SHADURA II said he is representing himself but he wears
several hats in the community with his membership in a number of
groups. His family history includes Russian, English, and Aleut
descent and he is considered Alaska Native. He said he believes
all Alaskans should have the opportunity to serve the people of
the state of Alaska. It is not often that there is the
opportunity to promote a youthful Alaskan to public service.
There is no greater reward to the residents of Alaska than to be
guardian to the state's precious fish and game resources. Ms.
Campbell has the proven skills, as specified in statute, of
being "a qualified executive with the knowledge of the
requirements for the protection, management, conservation, and
restoration of the fish and game resources of the state." He
said his personal experience with Ms. Campbell is that she has
consistently shown a keen sense of understanding for her fellow
Alaskans. She listens and is respectful. He offered his belief
that Ms. Campbell will revitalize the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game and will attract new expertise into a department that
is currently suffering from an exodus of long time, experienced
fish and game leadership.
1:35:15 PM
BOB HEINRICH noted that he was born in and lives in Cordova and
was in the state before there was even a fish and game
department. He said he supports Ms. Campbell's appointment and
that she is a breath of fresh air; additionally, he likes that
Corey Rossi and Craig Fleener work for her.
1:36:30 PM
GARY OLSON stated that he founded the Alaska Moose Federation
but is testifying on behalf of himself. He said he sees as
attributes Ms. Campbell's youth and that she does not come from
within ADF&G. The state's history of moose population decline
has affected too many people and this past is not something to
be proud of. A fresh face and all the new people surrounding
her are to be commended and she has his full support.
1:37:36 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska, noted that
he is also president of Cordova District Fishermen United. He
offered the support of United Fishermen of Alaska for Ms.
Campbell's appointment as commissioner of the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game. He said being young is a plus for Ms. Campbell
because as a long time fishermen he has found that some of the
best ideas and the new ideas come from the younger fishermen.
Many past commissioners have come from inside the department so
the opinions of the department have never changed. This is a
fresh look and a fresh start. He worked with Ms. Campbell for
many years before she was in the governor's office as well as
when she was in the governor's office, and she is very sharp and
will do a good job for Alaska.
1:39:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify.
1:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to forward the name of Cora
Campbell to the joint session of the House and Senate for
consideration. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Cora Campbell was advanced from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that advancing a confirmation does not
reflect a member's vote during the joint floor session; it is
moving the nomination to the joint floor session for a
confirmation vote.
[Later in the hearing additional testimony in support of Ms.
Campbell's appointment was given.]
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Alaska Board of Fisheries
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Board of Fisheries
1:40:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is the
confirmation hearing for Michael E. Smith, appointee to the
Alaska Board of Fisheries. Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Smith to
tell the committee about himself and state why he would like to
serve on the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
1:41:47 PM
MICHAEL E. SMITH, Appointee, Alaska Board of Fisheries, said he
is currently the director of wildlife and parks for Tanana
Chiefs Conference. He explained that in this capacity his role
is to advocate for subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans.
His background in fishing arises from his early life on the
Yukon River in the village of Nulato where he was raised. He
spent his summers at fish camp learning the traditions from his
elders, seeing the different species of salmon as they went by,
and learning the different ways of preparing those fish. After
working on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System he again went
fishing, but this time it was below the Yukon River Bridge and
was as a commercial fisherman. When the Yukon River fishery
collapsed he became involved in management and regulatory
advocacy with Tanana Chiefs Conference. He started attending
advisory committee and other meetings and became heavily
involved in fishery activities, primarily on the Yukon River.
During that time he was advisor to the Yukon River Panel, which
is the treaty panel for the Yukon River with Canada. He has
been on the Escapement Goal Committee for the Yukon-Kuskokwim
area and he has also participated at the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council level on the King Salmon Bycatch Committee.
1:44:16 PM
MR. SMITH noted that he has also participated on the Alaska
Board of Game Tier II Committee and currently sits on the Alaska
Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Thus, he has a wide
experience in regulatory management. About 10 years ago the
Yukon River experienced its first crash and he focused on Yukon
River salmon issues. He has grown since then and learned the
process and feels comfortable in being able to represent the
people along all of the Interior's rivers. He offered his
appreciation of Governor Parnell's trust in his abilities.
1:45:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for Mr. Smith's opinion about establishing
a hatchery in the Yukon River drainage similar to the one in
Prince William Sound.
MR. SMITH replied that hatcheries have been talked about quite
often on the Yukon River. For the most part, most residents and
most participants are fairly reluctant to participate in a
hatchery because the decline is not seen as being significant
enough to go that route at this time. The limited usage of the
hatchery in Whitehorse does not seem to bother anyone; however,
a hatchery intended to intentionally supplement the king salmon
run would likely be met with resistance and at this point would
have to be shown to be really needed.
1:46:59 PM
WAYNE HEIMER testified that he supports the nomination of Mr.
Smith because he has heard Mr. Smith make a number of
presentations and Mr. Smith understands the Yukon River as well
as anyone. He said Mr. Smith can work with any number of groups
of people and brings a perspective to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries that has been lacking.
1:47:43 PM
CRAIG COMPEAU noted that he is a 50-year resident of Fairbanks
who has been heavily involved in sportsmen's and wildlife issues
in Fairbanks. For the past four years he has watched Mr. Smith
in action at meetings and giving testimony and he is very
impressed with Mr. Smith's professionalism and ability to gather
information and make sound decisions on Yukon River fisheries
and other issues. He finds Mr. Smith to be articulate, well
informed, and carrying a powerful message that will be wonderful
for all the folks along the rivers in the state of Alaska. He
therefore strongly endorses the appointment of Mr. Smith.
1:49:08 PM
REUBEN HANKE stated he has known Mr. Smith for several years and
thinks Mr. Smith will do an excellent job on the Alaska Board of
Fisheries. He has attended several of the meetings that Mr.
Smith has been involved with and at which Mr. Smith did a great
job. He added that Mr. Smith is well rounded, approachable, and
understands the complex fisheries of Alaska.
1:50:02 PM
STEVEN FLORY, Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee, related
that he has served with Mr. Smith on several subcommittees of
different organizations, such as the Alaska Board of Game, the
Alaska Board of Fisheries, and the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. He said Mr. Smith is well rounded and even
though he and Mr. Smith have not seen eye-to-eye on every
subject, Mr. Smith has listened, is articulate, does his
homework and is well studied. Mr. Smith always shows up
prepared and with an understanding and is willing to listen to
other points of view. Mr. Smith has a thorough understanding of
the process and is ready to hit the ground running. He reported
that the Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee unanimously
endorses Mr. Smith's appointment.
1:52:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to testify.
1:52:26 PM
MR. SMITH, speaking on behalf of Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC),
offered TCC's full endorsement of Ms. Cora Campbell's
appointment to commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game. He said TCC represents 42 Interior communities and
initially had concerns about Ms. Campbell. However, after
meeting with her, TCC was thoroughly impressed with her
knowledge and willingness to listen to TCC's concerns and her
willingness to protect the subsistence way of life.
1:53:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON congratulated Mr. Smith on the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council's establishment of a cap on the king
salmon catch in the Gulf of Alaska.
1:54:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to forward the name of Michael E.
Smith to the joint session of the House and Senate for
consideration. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Michael E. Smith was advanced from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Geology Commissioner
1:54:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is the
confirmation hearing for Daniel Seamount Jr., appointee to the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC).
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested Mr. Seamount to tell the committee
about himself and state why he would like to be re-appointed to
the AOGCC.
1:57:09 PM
DANIEL SEAMOUNT, Appointee, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC), noted that he has been doing this
interesting, fun, and challenging job for the last 11 years. He
said he is the AOGCC's Chair and Geology Commissioner, John
Norman is the Public Member Commissioner, and Cathy Foerster is
the Engineering Commissioner. For 27 years prior to government
work he worked in industry for three different oil companies
plus the University of California. He mainly did oil, gas, and
geothermal development and exploration in California, the Rocky
Mountains, and the mid-continent, both offshore and onshore. He
has a Masters degree in geology from the University of
California, Riverside.
1:59:42 PM
MR. SEAMOUNT began his PowerPoint presentation with a photograph
of the Alpine oil field, which he said is an example of how an
oil field should be developed because it has a very small
footprint (slide 1). The footprints are becoming smaller and
smaller as time goes on; for example, all of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could now be developed with six small
pads in addition to facilities such as pipelines. He explained
that the AOGCC is a quasi-judicial state regulatory agency that
has oversight for underground oil and gas operations and police
power throughout the state on state, federal, Native, and
private lands (slide 2). The AOGCC regulates the drilling and
production for oil, gas, and geothermal resources.
2:01:19 PM
MR. SEAMOUNT related that AOGCC's mission is to prevent the
waste of energy resources; promote greater ultimate energy
resource recovery; protect underground fresh water from damage
caused by oil, gas, and geothermal operations; protect human
safety on drilling and production operations; and protect the
correlative rights of the owners of oil, gas, and geothermal
leases to recover their fair share of the resource (slide 3).
The jurisdiction of AOGCC is oil, gas, and geothermal resource
development, underground storage of natural gas, and ensuring
accurate metering for custody transfer (slide 4).
MR. SEAMOUNT reviewed the types of permits and decisions put out
by the AOGCC (slide 5). He said that [over the last 10 years]
the AOGCC has evaluated and approved more than 2,300 drilling
permits, more than 4,000 well workover permits, and 46
underground injection orders for enhanced oil recovery, waste
disposal, and gas storage. The AOGCC has done hundreds of
conservation orders, mainly pool rules and setting up the rules
for developing reservoirs within oil fields. Also, the AOGCC
has some special development considerations, such as dispute
adjudication between owners.
2:03:52 PM
MR. SEAMOUNT related that AOGCC currently has 28 staff members
and is going for another engineer and another inspector in light
of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. The present positions include
three commissioners, five petroleum engineers, two petroleum
geologists, six field inspectors, and information technology
(IT), administration, and clerical support staff. He said it is
an exciting time to be on the commission and he would like to
continue serving the people of Alaska.
2:05:47 PM
MR. SEAMOUNT highlighted the current hot topics, which include
North Slope gas sales, gas storage, geothermal and other non-
traditional drilling, response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster,
and the Liberty field. He noted that only 2 of the over 20
basins in Alaska with potential for oil and gas have been
produced. Not seen before are the recent geothermal and coal
gasification projects. Additionally, there are the liquefied
natural gas issues in Cook Inlet and jack-up rigs that are
coming to Cook Inlet. It is an exciting time and he would like
to continue his job as an AOGCC commissioner.
2:07:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested that AOGCC provide the committee with
a map outlining the aforementioned 20 basins and whether they
are on state or federal land and available for lease.
MR. SEAMOUNT agreed to do so and pointed out that the map he
will be sending to the committee is a modified map of a
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) map. He said that a map
on the wall by the elevator down the hall from the committee
room depicts the more than 20 basins.
2:08:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked Mr. Seamount's opinion of
fracking [hydraulic fracturing].
MR. SEAMOUNT replied that fracking has been going on for 50
years. When involved in the industry he was involved in
hundreds of frack jobs with no problems. A lot of what is being
said about fracking is total hysteria and overblown and is out
of ignorance or dishonesty. In further response, he said there
is very large fracking going on right now at Colville River
Field (Alpine Field). The fracks are huge, much bigger than he
did when he was in industry.
2:09:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired how many dry holes and failed plays Mr.
Seamount was responsible for during the time he was in industry
in the state of Alaska.
MR. SEAMOUNT responded that he drilled quite a few discoveries
as well as a few disasters, including twelve-million-dollar
disasters.
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood the ratio of dry wells to
wet to be 5:1. She asked what the ratio is for the North Slope.
MR. SEAMOUNT answered it appears to him that the North Slope has
a very high success rate compared to other areas, probably due
to new technology and better seismic data. The success rate has
been going up everywhere through the years. A lot of the wells
drilled on the North Slope find oil; it is the oiliest basin he
has ever looked at in North America. Many wells get drilled and
plugged despite finding oil because the infrastructure is not
yet there to support it. An oil company CEO will say that if it
is not economic it is not a discovery; however, he predicted
that someday those wells will be produced.
2:12:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired how long it takes to get a permit
through the AOGCC process and how many active permit
applications are before the AOGCC right now.
MR. SEAMOUNT replied that AOGCC processes a drilling permit in 7
days; 10 years ago it was 27 days, and AOGCC made that one of
its performance measures. He estimated AOGCC has 175 drilling
permits a year, which is about 1 every 2 days, so about 3 or 4
are outstanding. While the permits are done fast they are still
done carefully.
2:13:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the number of permits
processed by AOGCC is less compared to previous years.
MR. SEAMOUNT responded that exploration is way down in the last
year and will be down even more next year. Development activity
has been down since 2005. He offered to provide members with a
recent presentation that gave in this regard. He said it used
to be that activity could be correlated with the price of oil,
but that has not been the case in the last five years. In
further response, he nodded in agreement to provide the
aforementioned presentation.
2:14:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony then closed it after
ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:14:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to forward the name of Daniel Seamount Jr.
to the joint session of the House and Senate for consideration.
There being no objection, the confirmation of Daniel Seamount
was advanced from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 185-EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
2:15:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 185, "An Act relating to an exemption from
authorizations that may be required by the Department of
Environmental Conservation for the firing or other use of
munitions on active ranges."
2:16:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, noted
that she would like to address a proposed amended version of HB
185.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 185, Version 27-LS0506\E, Bullard, 3/14/11, as the
work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested an explanation of the differences
between the original bill and Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that the change is necessary
because a long federal vetting process was accomplished and
Version E is the version that they agreed to.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. There being no
further objection Version E was before the committee.
2:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON spoke as follows:
In 2008 the state sought EPA approval of its Clean
Water Act program. From this, the statutory exclusion
for active military ranges under Title 46 was amended
so that now it excludes the firing or other use of
munitions in training activities conducted on active
ranges, including active ranges operated by the
Department of Defense or military agencies, unless it
results in the discharge into waters of the United
States. ... HB 185 clarifies section (e)(7) such that
it cannot be misinterpreted to restrict military
exercises on ranges other than instances where the
federal Clean Water Act [Federal Water Pollution
Control Act] would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON added that HB 185 is a collaboration
between the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and
the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA). She
deferred to DMVA and other military experts to provide further
technical information.
2:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood that the purpose of the bill
is to ensure that military exercises are not restricted except
when it would result in discharge of waste into federal waters.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said her understanding is that right
now when training exercises take place and munitions end up in
the waterway there is a potential for a lawsuit to happen, and
HB 185 would prevent such lawsuits.
2:20:26 PM
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Commissioner, Department of
Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), noted that he also serves
as the Adjutant General for the Alaska National Guard and that
today he is representing the State of Alaska. He said the
military is well supported by Alaska's communities and the state
is a good place for military operations and training. He was
approached some time ago about a potential problem in the
training, in the development of areas like the Joint Pacific
Alaska Range Complex. The statutes covering clean water
constraints in Alaska are more restrictive and/or vague, and can
be interpreted more restrictively, than the federal
requirements. The bill would not reduce the constraints or make
it weaker than the federal requirements; HB 185 would make the
Alaska statute clear so that someone taking the military to task
in a training area does not have the advantage of playing in
those vague areas. The bill would clarify that the constraints
of military development in training areas are to be held to the
federal standards. The insertion specifies exactly what those
standards are going to be.
2:22:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether the problem has been with white
phosphorus shells, lead, or another issue.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS replied that the issues would be almost any
by-product that comes off of the ordinance used in the training
for military; so, those military ordinances could be covered
that affects the water. It would clarify what the constraints
are on the environment.
2:22:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled a court order requiring the cleanup of
white phosphorous due to its impact on migratory waterfowl. He
inquired whether there would not have been an order for white
phosphorus clean up had the provisions of HB 185 been in place.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS responded that the U.S. military is a very
good steward of the environment and would have cleaned up the
environment whether this bill had been in effect or not. As the
military looks at developing areas, it cannot predict exactly
what areas will be challenged in court for constraining the
training. The bill would clarify exactly what in the clean
water laws can be used and narrows the scope of different groups
that may not support training range development. He said it
would not be a lesser standard.
2:24:19 PM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), said HB 185 would not at all take away
from the cleanup or the responsibility of the military, any
agency or department thereof, of taking care of the lands in
Alaska. The white phosphorus in the Eagle River drainage is
absolutely going to be cleaned up and was cleaned up. The
specific language that would be replaced is "of the United
States" which is very vague because there is a lot of water of
the United States. He said DMVA worked with the lawyers at the
Department of Law who work on DEC issues, as well as with the
environmental section of the Department of Defense, to narrow it
down specifically to the waters mentioned in 33 U.S.C. 1251 -
1376. He said there is currently discharge into water in
certain training areas and that all will be cleaned up, is
cleaned up, and will be cleaned up in the future; it is just a
matter of defining what water is in each training area.
2:26:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON informed committee members and the public that
HB 185 will be held over to give people a chance to review it.
He then continued with agency testimony.
2:27:18 PM
MAJOR JUSTIN TRUMBO, Regional Environmental Coordinator, U.S.
Air Force, Region X, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), said he
is the chief environmental legal counsel for state law matters
that affect the Department of Defense. He offered support for
HB 185 on behalf of the military services in Alaska. He thanked
Representative T. Wilson for her efforts to promote Alaska's
continued partnership with the Department of Defense. The
Department of Defense has a long and proud history of
cooperation. Alaska's military installations are vital to DOD's
worldwide mission. In the spirit of cooperation DOD has worked
with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Office of
the Attorney General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and General Katkus's staff and other stakeholders to develop
this amendment.
MAJOR TRUMBO noted that the statute that would be amended
prohibits the disposal of solid or liquid waste into waters or
onto lands of the State of Alaska without authorization by the
Department of Environmental Conservation. This statute was
amended in 2008 when Alaska sought the U.S. Environmental
Agency's approval of its clean water program. As a result, the
statutory exclusion for military ranges was modified so that it
now excludes the firing or other use of munitions unless it
results into a discharge into water of the United States. It is
the phrase "discharge into waters of the United States" that has
created some confusion and HB 185 would eliminate that. The
bill would not repeal any protections under federal law and will
help ensure that military ranges can be used and will be used in
accordance with federal law. Additionally, it would benefit the
State of Alaska in that federal and Alaska state agencies agree
that this amendment would not jeopardize continued U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency approval of Alaska's Clean Water
Act program.
2:30:15 PM
MAJOR TRUMBO said the benefit of the proposed amendment
specifically to the Department of Defense will ensure that
questions regarding the application of Alaska law to military
ranges are determined in accordance with the federal Clean Water
Act. While there may be uncertainty as to how that federal
Clean Water Act program might apply to military ranges, the
proposed amendment will not preclude agencies, the military, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or private parties from
making appropriate arguments under the federal statute. But
unless amended, the application of the "Alaska Clean Water Act"
to military ranges might be inconsistent with the application of
clean water programs to the military in other states.
MAJOR TRUMBO pointed out that because DEC plans to apply its
clean water program to munitions starting October 2011, the
Department of Defense strongly supports passage of HB 185 this
legislative session. The amendment provided by HB 185 will help
ensure that Alaska's continuing capacity to host sustainable
military readiness training for outstanding airman, soldiers,
and sailors is not jeopardized.
2:31:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that he was told HB 185 would not apply
to civilian or other ranges. However, page 2, line 17, of the
bill, states that the exemption is for "the firing or other use
of munitions in training activities conducted on active ranges,
including active ranges operated by the United States Department
of Defense...." This language appears to mean any range,
whether it is local, state, or sport, if it is an active
training range because the language says including DOD ranges
rather than limited to DOD ranges. He requested that this be
investigated and the committee be informed as to what the
military needs and wants to ensure that the bill addresses only
the areas that are intended to be addressed.
MR. PIERRE suggested this question be posed to the Department of
Law to explain why the wording is as it is. He said his
understanding is that this part of the statute for including
other ranges has not changed, but where the new language was put
in and why it was put in was to impact ranges operated by the
Department of Defense or a U.S. military agency.
2:33:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON maintained that it is all the ranges that would
be modified, because it has been left in that same statute, and
not just a DOD range. He reiterated his question to the
Department of Law.
LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, replied
she has the same understanding as Co-Chair Seaton that it would
apply to both military active ranges and other active ranges.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that since this is not the intention
related to him by the sponsor, he would like to request that the
sponsor get it clarified.
2:34:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood that HB 185 would effectively
give primacy to federal regulations for discharge to water for
munitions and active training ranges.
MR. PIERRE replied no, the goal is to "specify very clearly in
our approving process what waters of the United States we are
referring to." Thus, it enables reference to a specific section
when there is discussion about development of future military
ranges in the state of Alaska. This way there is not a wide
swath of questioning that would or would not allow active
military use of future ranges - not existing ranges - to be
permitted.
2:35:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON directed Representative Gardner's question to
the Department of Environmental Conservation.
LYNN KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, regarding what ranges are included,
explained that long before the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) sought primacy for the permitting program
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there was
already legislatively mandated state policy to exempt training
ranges, including military ranges, from the requirements to get
a state discharge permit. When DEC took on primacy for the
federal program, the state statute was revised to include the
phrase "unless it results in a discharge into waters of the
United States" because in certain circumstances ranges may
require a permit under the Clean Water Act. However, DEC has
learned that that language could have the effect of requiring a
state permit under state law even if it was not required under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). The
new language being proposed today would very clearly exempt
training ranges and military ranges from the permitting
requirement that was similar to what was under state law unless
it is required by the Clean Water Act. This proposed language
is consistent with the Clean Water Act and consistent with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval of DEC's program
and would not result in any adverse impact on the program that
DEC is operating right now under the EPA primacy.
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested Ms. Kent to send definitions and
descriptions of the waters being talked about and what would and
would not be exempt.
2:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the definitions of an active
range and an inactive range. In response to Co-Chair Seaton,
she confirmed that she is asking about any active range and
whether it is different for a DOD range versus private range.
MR. PIERRE replied that as the military looks to expand its role
in Alaska for training and to provide a more unique joint force
opportunity in the state, the Department of Military & Veterans'
Affairs is looking at the state's laws to determine how to
develop new ranges and what are the causes for concern. An
active range is one that is currently being used and will be
used in the future. There are ranges that have been abandoned
and the DMVA has received funding from the National Guard Bureau
to clean up abandoned National Guard ranges. Clean up includes
removing the lead bullets and contaminated dirt and DEC makes
sure that this takes place. The bill is not for abandoned
ranges or ranges that will be re-used because that is a whole
new permitting process; it is for active ranges that are
currently being used and will be used in the future.
2:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether all the ranges being
talked about are military.
MR. PIERRE responded that DMVA's concern is for military ranges.
However, as pointed out by Co-Chair Seaton, the language looks
to read that civilian ranges could be impacted as well. The
department will work with the co-chair and DEC to make sure it
does everything right and meets the intent of the language.
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated that the Department of Law will be
requested to send the committee a written definition of an
active range and whether a permit is needed before using a
civilian range.
CO-CHAIR SEATON held over HB 185.
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2:42:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska
coastal management program; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that today's witness [Glenn Gray] was
invited to make a presentation from the districts' perspective
and is not representing any particular district. Next week the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will present its responses
for any issues on which it has a difference of opinion.
2:43:51 PM
GLENN GRAY, Glenn Gray & Associates, first corrected a March 16
statement about hard rock mining in which he had said that it
was up to each individual landowner to have the restrictions.
However, he continued, Representative Feige was correct in
saying that there are some uniform provisions throughout the
state - a hard rock mine development project must obtain a plan
of operations and a reclamation plan from DNR no matter who the
land owner.
2:44:33 PM
MR. GRAY turned to the remaining three slides from his 3/16/11
PowerPoint presentation, explaining that [slide 13] is a summary
of some of the effects that he thinks are of concern to many of
the coastal districts. A top concern is the inability to have
meaningful enforceable policies. The coastal program as it was
set up in 1977, as well as the 2003 changes, is a cooperative
program between the State of Alaska and the coastal districts.
Thus, the coastal districts are not just another stakeholder
because, with the state agencies, the districts implement the
program. A second concern of many people is the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) carve-out. The carve-out is
very confusing to almost everyone. The scope of review is not
always clear, especially if there is a federal permit involved.
Almost every coastal resource or use is affected in some way by
water quality, which adds to the confusion. Another concern is
the centralized decision-making that is the result of having
moved the program to one agency and having all decisions made by
one agency. The legislative audit stated that this has led to a
lack of opportunities for consensus building during project
reviews.
2:46:00 PM
MR. GRAY, based on his talks with some of the districts, offered
suggestions for possible statutory changes (slide 14). He
recommended a clarification of the enforceable policy statutes
because there have been some differences in opinion of what the
statutes actually mean. In his opinion, the proposed work draft
[Version B, moved 3/16/11] would provide that clarification. He
said none of the districts are asking to remove some of the
other provisions; for example, districts cannot arbitrarily or
unreasonably affect uses of state concern. Regarding statutes
for the centralization of power, things can be done to provide
checks and balances. The proposed work draft appears to include
an appeals board/regulatory board and that might be one way to
do it; another idea might be to have a third impartial agency.
Elevations could be decided by all three resources commissioners
as was done in the past, or they could be decided by the appeals
board as written in the proposed work draft. Another change is
elimination of the DEC carve-out. He said he thinks this is
something that would be supported by the federal 3/12/2008
evaluation and he believes the legislative audit recommended
that DNR look into some options to eliminate the carve-out, and
DNR's own draft bill in 2008 would have eliminated the carve-
out. While likely not a purposeful change, the 2003 carve-out
eliminated all possibilities for public comment on the DEC
finding when it does not have a permit; for example, outer
continental shelf (OCS) reviews or federal activities. While
DEC did come up with a good process, there is nothing in
regulation that would require the department to do so.
Regarding the timeline, he said it seems that the 90-day
timeline is a problem when there is a large project with a lot
of unresolved issues. The proposed work draft would address
that by making an exemption for projects with an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), which most large projects will have.
2:48:41 PM
MR. GRAY recommended possible regulatory changes (slide 15). He
pointed out that statutes are not necessarily needed to make
regulatory changes, but unless there is some commitment on DNR
there is no guarantee that suggested regulatory changes will be
made. He said one regulatory change would be to eliminate the
designated area requirement. Whether this is done in statute or
regulation, there would still be the opportunity for designated
areas if a district wanted a special management area, but this
eliminates that tie between the enforceable policies having to
have a designated area first. A tremendous amount of funds have
been spent on these designated areas and mapping, as well as
state time to review them, and they were the topic of several of
the mediations. Regarding enforceable policies, he said he
believes that some of the problems could be fixed just by a
different interpretation of the regulatory language or changing
some of that language. Regarding statewide standards, one
example is the habitat standard which used to cover the entire
coastal zone but now only covers a small part of the coastal
zone, and that is the same for several other standards. That
could easily be fixed in regulation. A minerals standard could
be reinstated to look at mining impacts under its own standard.
2:50:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested Mr. Gray to review prescriptive
requirements for enforceable policies and how that would differ
from a performance-based standard.
MR. GRAY replied that one way to look at this might be to look
at the current statewide standards - almost every statewide
standard is performance based or some kind of a process.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mr. Gray is saying performance
based or prescriptive based.
MR. GRAY responded that he is saying either a performance-based
or a process-based statewide standard because that would provide
flexibility in how to meet that standard. He recalled the
example of a floating facility that he gave on 3/16/11 for which
an actual enforceable district policy stated exactly how many
feet the tide would be, which would be prescriptive. A
performance base would state that the floating facility can
never ground on the bottom, and it would be up to the applicant
to decide how to do that; there might be more ways to do that
than might be in the prescription. Another example is a
proposed policy on the North Slope for avoiding impacts to
bowhead whales, in which a specific decibel level could not be
exceeded when measured at a specific number of miles from the
activity. This is prescriptive, and the company absolutely has
to do that no matter what. A performance base would specify
that at a specific number of miles from the source of the noise
there shall be no deflection of whales, and then it would be up
to the industry as to how to meet that. He said that,
generally, when he was working with the oil industry, the
industry liked these performance-based stipulations or policies
because that gave them some flexibility to meet the intent of
the policy without having to meet an actual prescription.
2:53:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood Mr. Gray to have earlier said that
the statewide standards are almost all performance based.
MR. GRAY answered yes, performance based or process based.
CO-CHAIR SEATON further understood that the local district
policies are required to be prescriptive.
MR. GRAY replied, "Exactly."
2:53:40 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested Mr. Gray to provide citations
regarding the issues depicted on slide 7.
MR. GRAY agreed to do so.
CO-CHAIR SEATON, regarding slide 9, referenced a March 17
document about the Alaska Coastal Management Program's changing
requirements for subsistence use designations. He surmised that
the examples in the March 17 document relate to the arrows and
changes outlined on the slide.
MR. GRAY replied he has the actual documentation in his records
and aforementioned is a summary of the documents. He pointed
out that many of the meetings were not taped and a lot of the
direction was oral, so there was no written record unless a
district sent a follow-up e-mail stating its understanding of
the direction given in a meeting. On several occasions as a
consultant he did that to make sure he understood the meeting
correctly, and the response he got [from DNR] on at least two
occasions was that it would not go back and clarify whether he
had interpreted the various points correctly. He said he
provided to the committee what he could find in some document or
another, but a lot of this was verbal in its original record,
other than notes.
2:56:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired why it is unreasonable to expect the
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) to not change
its regulations. It seems that a natural evolution of
regulations would be expected in the normal process of
regulating things like the coastal management program.
MR. GRAY responded that he did not mean to give that impression.
While not speaking for any specific district, he said he thinks
the districts would have welcomed some changes to the
regulations for a while now. However, personally, he has not
heard any commitment to make any changes other than to the
consistency review regulations.
2:56:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, regarding DCOM asking for more and more detail
in terms of larger and larger map scales, said that does not
seem unreasonable to him. While such maps may cost money, the
boroughs are not destitute.
MR. GRAY related that he received a call from DCOM yesterday
saying that it is in the process of changing that map scale. He
said his personal opinion is that it is unreasonable because
such maps would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for some
of these boroughs, which is significant even for the North Slope
Borough. The Bering Strait district, which is the third
largest, receives an annual grant of $75,000 and this must cover
everything from travel to employment of the program director.
CO-CHAIR SEATON commented that he does not have any problems
with going through a regulatory process and making changes.
However, what is being looked at here is that the districts were
told how to write their enforceable policies to make them
consistent with the statewide standards and requirement for
enforceable policies. But over time, as they went through the
process of creating an enforceable policy, the requirements for
writing the enforceable policy changed and the districts are
therefore always trying to develop a plan that is required and a
policy that is required, but the requirements for that policy
keep changing. This is where much of the frustration has come
from numerous districts over the past several years.
2:59:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether Mr. Gray has been working actively
to make statutory changes to the Alaska Coastal Management Plan.
MR. GRAY responded that he has no means to do that.
Occasionally an aide will give him a call and he will give his
opinion, but he did not prepare this bill.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that was not what he asked; he said he asked
whether Mr. Gray has actively lobbied for changes to the Alaska
Coastal Management Plan regulations.
MR. GRAY answered he is not a lobbyist so he does not lobby, but
that, yes, he has been promoting changes.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired how much time Mr. Gray has dedicated to
that.
MR. GRAY replied he does not know how to make a guess at that.
He said it is a small part of what he does and that currently he
has seven different contracts with coastal communities, not all
on coastal zone issues, so his day is pretty full.
3:00:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON held over HB 106, noting that the committee
packets include bullet points on the proposed committee work
draft for HB 106 as well as a sectional analysis on the proposed
work draft [Version B, moved 3/16/11]. He urged members to
review these documents.
3:01:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Cora Campbell ADF&G Commissioner Resume.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRES 3.7.11 HB 106 Coastal Management Program.PDF |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| CS HB 106 Workdraft Version B.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| Cora Campbell correspondence.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Michael Smith Alaska Board of Fisheries Resume.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Dan Seamount AOGCC Commissioner Bio and Resume.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0185A.PDF |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Blank_CS_HB185.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB185 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB185-DEC-WQ-03-11-11.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Summary.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AK_CWA_Support_Letter_Mar_2011.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DMVA Letter to Support CWA Amendment.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AMCP_Powerpoint_3-11 (2).pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Cora Campbell support letters.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AMCP_Powerpoint_3-11 (2).pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| ACMP Work draft Sectional (2).docx |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Workdraft Version B bullet points (2).docx |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| ACMP Coastal District Comments I.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| ACMP Coastal District Comment II.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| ACMP Approved Coastal District Enforceable Policies.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |