Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/26/2023 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB143 | |
| HB98 | |
| Overview(s): Office of History and Archeology | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 2023
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act relating to the Department of Environmental
Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and advanced
recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 143(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to state ownership of submerged land underlying
navigable water within the boundaries of and adjacent to federal
areas; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
OVERVIEW(S): OFFICE OF HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 143
SHORT TITLE: ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/23 (H) RES, L&C
04/05/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/12/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/19/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/21/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/21/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE: STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND
SPONSOR(s): SADDLER
03/06/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/23 (H) JUD, RES
03/29/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/31/23 (H) Moved HB 98 Out of Committee
03/31/23 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/03/23 (H) JUD RPT 6DP
04/03/23 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, CARPENTER, EASTMAN,
GRAY, ALLARD, VANCE
04/14/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/14/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/21/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/26/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, the House
Resources Standing Committee, of which Representative McKay
serves as chair, explained Amendment 1 to HB 46.
JUDY BITTNER, Chief
Office of History and Archeology
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Overview: Office of History and Archeology."
SARAH MEITL, Compliance Coordinator
Office of History and Archeology
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview on
the Office of History and Archeology
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:32 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Mears, Armstrong,
Dibert, McCabe, Saddler, Wright, and McKay and were present at
the call of order. Representative Rauscher arrived while the
meeting was in progress.
HB 143-ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
1:04:44 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act relating to the Department of
Environmental Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and
advanced recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing
for an effective date."
1:05:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 143,
labeled, 33-LS0427\U.2, Radford, 4/25/23, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 26 - 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
1:05:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG objected for discussion.
1:05:57 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Resources
Standing Committee, of which Representative McKay serves as
chair, explained Amendment 1 to HB 143. He stated that it would
delete Section 6 from the proposed legislation. He expressed
the opinion that the language on page 4, lines 26-31 is
unnecessary and confusing. He explained that the language
relates that solid waste processing would not include the
extraction of materials from solid waste through advanced
recycling; however, Section 4 would already clarify what solid
waste includes, and it would not include the materials to be
extracted. He pointed to the definition of "advanced recycling"
in Section 7, and this definition would not include solid waste
at an advanced recycling facility. He added that Legislative
Legal Services has agreed with this change.
1:07:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 to HB 143 was adopted.
1:08:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 143, as
amended, labeled, 33-LS0427\U.3, Radford, 4/25/23, which read as
follows:
Page 4, line 28, following "adhesives;":
Insert ""other recycled product" does not include
products sold as fuel;"
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:08:27 PM
MR. JEPSEN stated that Amendment 2 would clarify on page 5 of
the proposed legislation that products sold as fuel are not
considered advanced recycling products. He continued that this
would also clarify the definition of "advanced recycling" in
Section 7. He stated that this would be consistent with 23
other states and federal code. He added that Legislative Legal
Services has agreed with this change.
1:09:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 to HB 143, as amended, was
adopted.
1:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 143, as
amended, labeled, 33-LS0427\U.1, Radford, 4/24/23, which read as
follows:
Page 4, lines 16 - 20:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, lines 26 - 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
1:10:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS acknowledged that most of what the
amendment would do has already been covered with the removal of
Section 6. She noted that Section 4 refers to the definition of
"solid waste", and this would apply to recyclables currently in
regulation. She expressed the opinion that these regulations
are not strict, as they cover basic public safety and nuisance
items. She cited the solid waste regulation, 18 AAC 60.10, and
expressed the opinion that there should not be an objection to
the adherence to these minimal standards.
1:11:26 PM
MR. JEPSEN, in response to the proposed Amendment 3, stated that
the bill is not trying to exempt post-use polymers and plastic
feedstocks from code. He stated that the definition would
simply be clarifying that post-use polymers and plastic
feedstocks are not just solid waste. He expressed the opinion
that 18 AAC 60.10 is completely reasonable in state code, and
municipal code should adopt a similar regulation; however, the
input products should be regulated for what they are, which is
not solid waste. He suggested that if the bill is passed, these
codes would be rewritten, including any public safety and
nuisance items.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS stated that currently recycled products
would be considered solid waste. She stated that currently
existing recycling operations follow this solid waste
definition; therefore, advanced recycling should follow the same
rules.
1:13:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Armstrong, Mears,
and Dibert voted in favor to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 143, as
amended. Representatives McCabe, Rauscher, Saddler, Wright, and
McKay voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote
of 3-5.
1:14:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HB 143, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note.
1:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected. She expressed support for
recycling materials, diverting them from the waste stream;
however, she expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation
would not be necessary for any operation to function in the
state. She stated that this may be necessary in other states
with stricter regulations, but it would not be necessary to do
business in the state.
1:16:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Rauscher,
Saddler, Wright, Armstrong, and McKay voted in favor of the
motion to move HB 143, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. Representatives Mears and Dibert voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 143(RES) was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-2.
1:17:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:17 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.
HB 98-STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND
[Contains discussion of SB 92.]
1:21:13 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to state ownership of
submerged land underlying navigable water within the boundaries
of and adjacent to federal areas; and providing for an effective
date."
1:21:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 98, Version 33-LS0432\S, Bullard,
4/22/23, as a working document.
CHAIR MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:22:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, as prime sponsor, presented the summary
of changes for Version S [included in the committee packet],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Change 1: The phrase "and adjacent to was removed
throughout the bill (7 locations).
Change 2: A technical correction was made to the
definition of "navigable water" to point to
the correct statute (page 3, line 17)
Change 2: A technical correction was made to delete
the errant "1491" (page 63, line 13)
Change 3: Mendenhall Lake and River was deleted from
the list (version A page 69, line 27)
Change 4: Further clarification was added to the
definition of "Federal Area" to ensure that
it cannot be interpreted to include private
lands (Beginning page 87, line 22)
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained the changes were made to better
match SB 92, the companion bill in the Senate. He continued
that the first change would clarify that when a piece of federal
land is adjacent to a waterway, the ownership line would be in
the center of the waterway. He added that the third change
would delete the Mendenhall River from the list of state and
federal areas, as the river is currently the subject of a
lawsuit between the state and federal governments, and the
lawsuit would need to be resolved before the river could be
included. He stated that the fourth change would further
specify what federally owned areas would be. He added that the
final change would clarify that this would not include any
Native lands included in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA).
1:25:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS questioned the status of the companion
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that SB 92 is being heard in the
Senate Rules Standing Committee. He expressed the understanding
that when SB 92 is before the House, it should be the same as HB
98. In response to a follow-up question, he reiterated that SB
92 and the current version of HB 98 should be the same.
1:26:47 PM
CHAIR MCKAY removed his objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed CS for HB 98, Version 33-LS0432\S, Bullard, 4/22/23, as
a working document. There being no further objection, Version S
was before committee.
1:26:58 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 98, Version S, was held over.
^Overview(s): Office of History and Archeology
Overview(s): Office of History and Archeology
1:27:18 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
an overview of the Office of History and Archeology.
1:27:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.
1:28:44 PM
CHAIR MCKAY introduced the presenter.
1:29:11 PM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief, Office of History and Archeology (OHA),
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Overview: Office of History and Archeology" [hard copy included
in the committee packet]. She stated that she would present on
the role OHA plays in the cultural resource management and
environmental review process in accordance with state and
federal regulations. She stated that as an officer, or state
historic preservation officer (SHPO), she acts as the state
liaison with the federal government in concurrence with the
National Historic Preservation Act, advocating for the state.
On slide 2, she pointed out that OHA has 18 employees, who are
mostly historians and archeologists. The office is responsible
for operating and monitoring all the state and federal programs
concerning preservation. She pointed out that OHA has a
project-based budget, and she stated that the funding comes from
a grant from the National Parks Service and other programs.
MS. BITTNER discussed the federal Section 106 review process,
which reviews projects for the potential impact on cultural
resources. She stated that this review would not stop projects;
rather it would ensure responsible development.
1:33:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned the project process and the
statement that no projects would be stopped if items of
archeology are found.
MS. BITTNER responded in agreement. She stated that this is a
regulatory process, and if the regulatory steps are followed and
information is gathered, then the lead federal agency would make
a decision on this. In response to a follow-up question on the
interaction between OHA and the federal government, she stated
that if the federal government is involved in a project, the
project would be reviewed on the state and federal requirements,
and the state would be working with the federal agency and the
applicant. She said that if the information gathered from the
project area were identified as significant, then the project
would be regulated.
1:36:20 PM
MS. BITTNER moved to slide 3 and pointed out the federal and
state statutes that govern the reviews, which are the Alaska
Historic Preservation Act and the National Historic Preservation
Act. She discussed each of these in detail. She pointed out
that under the federal act, the federal government would be
required to consult with the state as part of the Section 106
review; however, the final decisions would be the responsibility
of the lead federal agency. She added that the state would have
a voice on any adverse effects on the resources. She pointed
out the large number of upcoming projects, as seen on the map on
the slide.
1:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented on the large number of projects
shown on the map and requested information on the number of
airport infrastructure projects.
MS. BITTNER responded that OHA has been "taken aback" by the
[number of] projects. She expressed the understanding that
there would be new money in addition to the federal agency
money. She stated that OHA would review all the federal
projects.
1:41:15 PM
MS. BITTNER moved to slide 4 and explained that OHA is guided by
a combination of processes, policies, regulations, and
guidelines, which are created on both the state and federal
levels. She identified and discussed the state and federal
statutes and regulations, pointing out how the process would
follow these. She mentioned how the National Register of
Historic Places Bulletins would help determine the significance
of properties.
MS. BITTNER moved to slide 5 and pointed out the five basic
steps for review of projects. She stated that the first step
would be to define the project and area of potential effect.
She pointed out that step two would be research, a survey of the
property, and the consideration of other areas of study, such as
community outreach. She stated that once the information is
gathered, the third step would be determining the permits
required, and this would be done by evaluating the identified
resources. She pointed out that the National Register Bulletins
would help with this process. She said if a site is considered,
under the fourth step, the information would then be sent to
both state and federal authorities for review. She said that
OHA would comment on the decision as to why a site would or
would not be considered historical. She said that there would
be a 30-day review in determining if the site is historical.
She said that the effect the project would have on historic
properties would also be considered, and the fifth step would be
resolving the adverse effects, such as a loss of a heritage.
She stated that this would involve a consultation with
communities, Tribes, or any entity that has an interest in the
resources.
1:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned the 30-day determination.
MS. BITTNER responded that when there is a request for a
concurrence or determination on an eligibility, OHA has 30 days
to report back to the federal agency. In response to a series
of follow-up questions, she stated that this is per federal
regulation. She added that this is dependent on all the
information being complete, as the 30-day clock begins once a
completed packet is submitted. Concerning the map on slide 3,
she stated that the projects on the map are those coming to
Alaska. She stated that the agency who is funding these
projects would contact OHA for a review. She pointed out that
these are only anticipated projects, so information would need
to be gathered on the project before a determination would be
made. She answered that each project would need to go through
the steps, and this includes gathering field information, [and
this time frame could be variable in Alaska because of the
climate]. She stated that for small and discrete projects, no
field effort may be needed; however, projects vary, and some
require a multi-seasonal effort.
1:55:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed the understanding that OHA
would start its work once a permit or application is received.
MS. BITTNER stated that this is correct. She stated that the
office would receive documentation once the application is
submitted. She suggested that the earlier OHA is contacted, the
better, so it can advise through the entire process. She added
that this way the office would be familiar with the project.
Concerning the determination of project significance, she
deferred the question to Sarah Meitl.
1:57:49 PM
SARAH MEITL, Compliance Coordinator, Office of History and
Archeology, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department
of Natural Resources, answered that the criteria used to
determine significance would be based on the National Register
of Historic Places, and this is written into the regulations.
She stated that subjectivity has been a concern, but the four
criteria in the National Register Bulletin has helped to reduce
any biases. She stated that offices across the country are
involved in this process to make sure there would be quality
control and an outside standard with an independent review. In
response to a follow-up question, she gave the areas of
significance in four parts. The first part would involve events
and patterns through history, the second part would involve
people, the third part would be design, as in a historic
district, and the fourth part would concern potential
information. She stated that each of these would be used to
understand if something makes the information gathered "rise
above the ordinary."
2:00:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT questioned whether an Elder from the
community near the site could visit the site during the process.
MS. MEITL stated that this would be one of the roles of the
consultation process. She stated that regulations include that
consulting parties would be contacted, especially if the site
has religious or traditional significance.
2:01:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT, concerning federal sites, questioned who
has precedence.
MS. BITTNER responded that federal agencies are required by
regulation to consult with the state liaison, which is OHA. She
explained that this is why the state would have a voice on
federal resource cultural issues and determinations. She stated
that part of the National Historic Preservation Program is to
provide the state a role in this, and this happens in all
states.
2:04:22 PM
MS. BITTNER continued to slide 5 and discussed the project
review efficiencies, as there is a small staff with many
projects to review. She stated that OHA uses tools, federal
regulation, and internal procedures to deal with the large
volume. She pointed out that programmatic agreements are a
primary tool, as this is an alternative regulatory procedure,
which allows one process to be used for both state and federal
large projects. She explained that streamlining is one of the
benefits of using these agreements. She stated that internal
procedures have been developed to help expedite projects, like
grouping projects together, so projects would not be reviewed
twice under both federal and state regulations. She said OHA
would provide advice to projects on compiling documentation, as
OHA's goal is to help agencies be successful. She stated that
it is recommended that projects be involved early with OHA, as
this would help projects meet the Section 106 requirements.
2:09:24 PM
MS. BITTNER pointed out that slide 6 show statistics on the
volume of work OHA does. She pointed out that in 2002, there
were around 10,000 project reviews completed. There were 18,000
individual reviews, with 7,200 projects reviewed under the
programmatic streamlined process. She expressed the importance
of this process and listed several other statistics on the
activity of OHA. She stated that most of the work comes from
the oil and gas, mining, transportation, national defense, and
housing sectors. She pointed out the vastness of the state and
its diversity.
2:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT requested an example of what would allow a
project to continue if something of culturally significance were
found.
MS. MEITL answered that the cultural resources and historic
properties are very diverse. She stated that the effect on the
property would be assessed, and the bigger the effect, as
complete destruction, the more mitigation would be done. She
said that the office would try to match up the importance with
what the project would do.
2:12:46 PM
MS. BITTNER moved to slide 8 and discussed project errors that
effect project delivery, such as when the SHPO leaves issues to
the "eleventh hour" when project planning and construction is
imminent. She stated that in these instances the office is left
to "scramble." Another issue would be if the field effort were
shortchanged for cost savings. If there is not a thorough
effort in the fieldwork, there could be inadvertent discoveries
that could be costly. She stated that problems also arise when
the field report is inadequate, and this could cause more work.
She stated that problems also arise when not enough time has
been factored in for the planning or consulting requirements on
a project. She advised that if each of the steps are not done
in advance before the project, there could be litigation. She
continued that time should also be considered in regard with
government-to-government consultation. With over 250 Tribes in
the state, this could be a very timely process, as there are
properties with cultural significance that can only be
identified by Tribes. She reiterated that OHA could help advise
on the scope and scale of projects concerning Section 106.
2:17:45 PM
MS. BITTNER moved to slide 9 and referred to the Alaska Heritage
Resources Survey, which supports the state's only database of
reported cultural resources and their locations. She stated
that there are over 50,000 locations in the database. She
stated that it is available on the internet and is essential for
project planning. She added that this is an integral part of
the project review. She said that the database is updated with
new sites all year. She moved to slide 10 and addressed the
state cultural resource investigation permits (SCRIPs). These
permits are also known as "archeology permits." She stated that
in 2022 there were 79 permits issued, which is more than double
the number issued in 2019. She stated that this permit would be
required to do investigation work on state land. She said that
75 percent of the 79 permits were for Section 106 projects. She
noted that only one person in the office would issue these, and
this speaks to the staffing needed to meet the program needs at
OHA. She expressed the concern that with the increase of
reports, combined with permit holders not getting the reports in
sooner, the next field season would be affected. She noted that
often the results from one season would be used for the next
season.
2:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the Moose Creek Bridge
project on the Glenn Highway, which has been stopped. He said
that this was after 25 years of work and millions of dollars,
and he said now the current road is unsafe. He commented that
year after year there are complaints. He offered the
understanding that 25 years of work has gone into looking for
archeological pieces, and this has finally stopped the project.
He questioned what archeological findings stopped the project.
He stated that this question is from the community of Sutton.
MS. MEITL, in response, expressed the understanding that
cultural or archeological resources had not stopped the project.
She stated that OHA had a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) that
was in process and being worked through. Ultimately, she
explained that other factors came into play besides the
resources found, including design requirements by the Alaska
Railroad and a right of way that became unattainable. She
stated that DOT&PF requested that the agreement be closed, and
it has moved to alternative designs. She reiterated that this
was not a result from the cultural resources side.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed the understanding from DOT&PF
and the federal government that archeological resources were
found. He stated that he uses the bridge "every day," and it
needs to be replaced. He reiterated that he has heard that
archeological finds had shut the project down.
2:26:53 PM
CHAIR MCKAY questioned what archeological objects were found.
MS. MEITL stated that there are a number of historic properties
in the location, such as a railroad that was used for coal
mining 100 years ago and a Native village at the Moose Creek
mouth. She stated that the bridge had needed mitigation for
both properties, and this required some investigation. She
suggested that there may have been a cemetery during the
railroad period, and this needed investigating as well.
Regardless of the resources, she explained that the process
continues while there is mitigation, and the projects would not
stop. She opined that if DOT&PF had continued with mitigation,
the project would have moved forward.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed the understanding that DOT&PF
decided not to do the project.
MS. MEITL responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether there was
intervention from OHA that would have stopped the project.
MS. MEITL stated that OHA did not have a role in the decision
for the project not to move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER suggested that OHA would have had some
say about its process.
2:29:58 PM
MS. BITTNER expressed the understanding that from the MOA,
stipulation and mitigation measures were identified for data
recovery on the archeological sites, with the possibility of an
identified cemetery site. She said that OHA had identified in
the MOA what mitigation measures would take place for the
resources adversely affected; therefore, on the SHPO side,
determinations of effect and mitigation measures had been worked
out. In response to a follow-up, she stated that sites were
identified. There were several surveys done in Moose Creek for
more than one season. Field efforts were done, and reports were
written. She continued that reports were used to identify the
effects, and mitigation measures were discussed, and these were
identified in the MOA. Some of the stipulations agreed to some
of the excavation that was to take place, but more information
was still needed. She stated that it was spelled out how
information would be gathered, and decisions would be made.
2:32:45 PM
MS. MEITL stated that OAH would be able to provide to the
committee the MOA and DOT&PF's request for closure of the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether the recommended
mitigation would have been too costly for the project to
continue.
MS. MEITL responded that the MOA is not "a one-way street" with
OHA dictating what the mitigation is going to be. The
mitigation would be developed through consultation and
negotiation, and the parties involved, and in this instance, it
would be the federal agency, DOT&PF, and OAH needing to all
agree. She stated that often the conversations are about
whether the mitigation is appropriate and reasonable, especially
regarding the cost. She stated that OAH had not been informed
by DOT&PF that the mitigation was unreasonable nor that it would
be too costly to carry out.
2:35:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 143 Amendment #1 (U.2).pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Amendment #2 (U.3).pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Amendment #3 (U.1).pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| CS HB 98 (RES) version S.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 Summary of Changes (A to S).pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HRES OHA Overview Presentation 4.26.23.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2023 1:00:00 PM |