HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 25, 1996 8:08 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Pete Kott Representative Don Long Representative Irene Nicholia MEMBERS ABSENT Representative John Davies COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 438 "An Act relating to the indexing of documents recorded in the state recorder's offices; and providing for an effective date." MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24(RES) Relating to a division of game in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and to management of game. - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 240 "An Act relating to the statewide bonding pool for the reclamation activities imposed on mining operations, and extending the pool's use to surface coal mining projects." - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(RES) "An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and hazardous waste." - MOVED HCS CSSB 69 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 438 SHORT TITLE: RECORDING: INDEX DOCUMENTS BY LOCATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Kelly,James JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/22/96 2507 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/22/96 2507 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES 01/31/96 2587 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY 03/12/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/12/96 3089 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2AM 03/12/96 3089 (H) DP: JAMES, WILLIS, ROBINSON, IVAN 03/12/96 3089 (H) AM: PORTER, OGAN 03/12/96 3090 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DNR) 03/12/96 3100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES 03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SCR 24 SHORT TITLE: REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Taylor,Green,Miller,Halford,Frank JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/02/96 2278 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/02/96 2278 (S) RESOURCES 02/14/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/23/96 2510 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 2NR SAME TITLE 02/23/96 2510 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SCR & CS (S.RES/F&G) 02/26/96 (S) RLS AT 12:45 PM FAHRENKMAP RM 203 02/26/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/08/96 2657 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 NR 3/8/96 03/08/96 2661 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/08/96 2661 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/08/96 2661 (S) COSPONSORS: TAYLOR, GREEN, MILLER, 03/08/96 2661 (S) HALFORD, FRANK 03/08/96 2661 (S) PASSED Y13 N3 E4 03/08/96 2661 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 03/11/96 2690 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 03/11/96 2691 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/12/96 3084 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/12/96 3084 (H) RESOURCES 03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SB 240 SHORT TITLE: MINING BONDING POOL SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/26/96 2222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/26/96 2223 (S) RESOURCES 02/05/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/05/96 (S) MINUTE(RES) 02/07/96 2323 (S) RES RPT 6DP 02/07/96 2323 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 02/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 02/12/96 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 02/14/96 2427 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2NR 2/14/96 02/14/96 2429 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 02/14/96 2429 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 02/14/96 2429 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 240 02/14/96 2429 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 02/14/96 2432 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 02/15/96 2769 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/15/96 2769 (H) RESOURCES 03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SB 69 SHORT TITLE: REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/06/95 182 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/06/95 182 (S) RESOURCES 02/22/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/24/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/24/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/27/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/30/95 839 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 5NR SAME TITLE 03/30/95 840 (S) FN TO SB & CS (DPS, DEC) 03/30/95 840 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (DMVA) 03/30/95 840 (S) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO FIN 02/06/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 02/06/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 02/07/96 2322 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 5NR (RES)CS 02/07/96 2322 (S) FN (DPS) 02/07/96 2322 (S) ZERO FN (DMVA, S.FIN/DEC) 02/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 02/12/96 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 02/19/96 2469 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/19/96 02/19/96 2470 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 02/19/96 2470 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 02/19/96 2470 (S) THIRD READING 2/21 CALENDAR 02/21/96 2494 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 69(RES) 02/21/96 2495 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1 02/21/96 2495 (S) ZHAROFF NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 02/23/96 2521 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 02/23/96 2521 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18 N- E2 02/23/96 2522 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 02/26/96 2880 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/26/96 2880 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 426 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3466 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 438 SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder State Recorder's Office Division of Support Services Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street, Suite 1180 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5936 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438 MARY NORDALE, Attorney Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot Past President, Alaska Miner's Association 100 Cushman Street, Suite 311 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-1999 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438 STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director Alaska Miner's Association Telephone: (907) 276-0347 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438 and SB 240 SENATOR BURT SHARP Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 514 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3004 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 24 EDDIE GRASSER, Member Alaska Outdoor Council 4506 Robbie Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 24 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison Office of the Commissioner Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526 Telephone: (907) 465-6143 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 24 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide for Senator Leman Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 115 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 240 and SB 69 ROBERT B. STILES, President DR Ven Corporation 711 H Street, Suite 600 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 276-6868 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 240 MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Section Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907)465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69 CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General Civil Division Department of Law 1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69 RITA VENTA Anchorage Fire Department 1301 East 80th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Telephone: (907) 267-4924 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69 DENISE L. NEWBOULD UNOCAL P.O. Box 575 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 776-3150 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-41, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIR JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, Kott and Long. A quorum was present. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Kenai and Fairbanks. CO-CHAIR GREEN announced that the agenda was HB 438, SCR 24, SB 240 and SB 69. HB 438 - RECORDING: INDEX DOCUMENTS BY LOCATION  Number 0048 CO-CHAIR GREEN announced the first item on the agenda was HB 438, an act relating to the indexing of documents recorded in the state recorder's offices; and providing for an effective date. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Sponsor of HB 438, said the bill would require the recorders office to list the recordings not only by grant and grantee, but also by location. He said this would be helpful in cross referencing information with various programs such as the airborne geophysical survey. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there were changes to the fiscal notes and said the Recorder's Office fiscal note was decreased to zero. He said some money is required for the Information Resource Management (IRM) section of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for computer reprogramming which will allow location information to be put into the computers. He said the fiscal note for the first year is $90,000 comes out of program receipts, not out of the general fund. He said the Recorder's Office generates more program receipts than it expends. Number 0232 CO-CHAIR GREEN said if money is being lost from the general fund, the additional receipts collected from the Recorder's Office, wouldn't that be shown as (indiscernible due to committee packet on top of the microphone) program receipts rather than a straight zero fiscal note. Number 0300 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said this would not be true with the fiscal note from the Recorder's Office because they have shown a zero fiscal note. He said, the fiscal note from the IRM relating to computer work will require some money. He said HB 438 will not create an increase or decrease in burden to the Recorder's Office or an increase in the cost of filing fees. CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if this issue had been misunderstood in "January." Number 0333 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the Recorder's Office had projected a 5 percent growth in the Recorder's Office. He said, after discussions, the office saw that HB 483 would not cause the natural growth in demand as a result of the bill. He said it was determined that the growth would occur with or without HB 483. Number 0382 CO-CHAIR GREEN said after the first year, there is a modest computer use fee of $10,000. He asked if the expense the first year involved the associated costs of putting the location index into the past records. Number 0404 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, under HB 438, this process would not be retroactive. He said the expenses the first year involve programming costs and additional time in educating people. He said the continuance costs would involve upgrade of the system. Number 0465 CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern, if HB 438 only went into effect from the effective date of this bill, of whether it would take several years for the benefits of this bill to be utilized. Number 0485 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that this statement was correct. He said the issue could be examined to determine what resources and computer manpower would be needed to add this information into past records. He said the only method for location retrieval has been through the Cardex system which is manually written and a voluntary service. He said the state of Alaska has not addressed the need to keep location indexes. Number 0557 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it would be possible to retrieve information if you knew the tract number, and asked if it would be just as easy to retrieve that information as if you knew a persons name. Number 0590 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the location index would provide the public with an idea of where that information is located. He said the centralized location will list the page and volume of where to find that information. Number 0667 SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder, State Recorder's Office, Division of Support Services, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She clarified that the location index is something that the Recorder's Office is already doing and has been doing for decades. She said it a computerized system and operated by a third party contractor, who provides information as a courtesy. She said when volume levels have increased, this service has been viewed as less important or less critical than meeting the statutory mandates. She said the system has developed many gaps and omissions in the form of location indexing. MS. YOUNG said the grant or grantee index is the official index and is maintained on a daily basis. She said, over the last year or so, the Recorder's Office has also been maintaining the location index on every reported document. She said the office is able to do this service within the existing workload levels. Number 0812 MS. YOUNG referred to the earlier fiscal note and said it assumed that the workload levels would increase and staff would need to increase as well. She said "that is true, but that is not something that is a directly related to the fiscal note and that is why we did revise the fiscal note." Number 0831 MS. YOUNG referred to the IRM fiscal note regarding the associated computer work with HB 438 and said it is for an intra-departmental system which is also tied to the resource information. She said this is something that the Recorder's Office does not integrate with at the present time. She said this ability is necessary for her office, as well as the user group, to be able to utilize the other resources available in the DNR. She said the fiscal note is separate from the recording system.. Number 0894 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked for information about the geographic information system which is currently being updated. He asked if that system will accomplish what the committee is trying to accomplish in HB 438. Number 0909 MS. YOUNG said the geographic information system, a system maintained by the department, is a separate data base from the recording index system which is maintained on the mainframe of an independent contractor. She said these data bases do not integrate information currently. She said the IRM fiscal note is for the necessary programming for both systems to access information from each other. Number 0960 MARY NORDALE, Attorney, Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot, Past President, Alaska Miner's Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She said HB 438 is the result of a series of meetings that began last spring in cooperation with the Recorder's Office, the Division of Mining and Water Management (DMWM) and the people who maintain the geographic location system. She said these discussions began as a result of a decrease in the budget for the DMWM. One of the programs that the DMWM had maintained for a number of years was the Cardex system, a hand posted system for maintaining geographic information on mining claims. She said, as the meetings progressed, it was learned that the state land records are not maintained in a modern fashion. She said the mining community is concerned that, if the Cardex system is eliminated, there is no way to accumulate the historical information which is a necessary component when developing mines. Number 1056 MS. NORDALE said the geographic information system, which the DNR is attempting to install for the maintenance of all land records, is terrific and useful to various industries including mining, forestry, oil and gas, and other resource based industries. She said this system won't work unless a requirement is put in the statute that states location indexes must be maintained. She said this mandate would allow easy integration between the Recorder's Office and the Land Records Management system which the DNR is attempting to put into place. Number 1100 MS. NORDALE said discussions also revealed that the third party contractor, who maintains the grantor or grantee (indiscernible), has done a program that does not work with a state laboratory records. She said if the legislature enacts HB 438 and grants the DNR the funds to do the programming which would integrate these two systems, the state will get some control over the land and land management systems. She said HB 438 is essential to resource industries in the state because it helps retrieve land titles and descriptions. She concluded by saying that Earl Bipline (ph.) supports her testimony. Number 1178 STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miner's Association, testified via teleconference offnet. He said he is speaking for the association and that they support HB 438. He said the proposed changes would improve the efficiency and flexibility of the data recording system. Co-Chair Williams joined the committee meeting at 8:27 a.m. MR. BORELL said he sees HB 438 as one way in which the system can be improved. Number 1269 CO-CHAIR GREEN closed testimony and asked the committee if they had any questions. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said it appeared that HB 438 was a way in which the state could update the antiquated computer programs. He then asked if there had been discussions with the Recorder's Office as to why this change could not have been included in their capital budget request rather than having a separate bill which mandates this specific thing. Number 1299 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he could follow up on this question, but said that although the Recorder's Office is already doing the location information there is nothing that mandates that service. He added that a capital grant could be possible. Number 1346 MS. YOUNG said the location index is not just a software upgrade problem. "Two separate data bases and what the IRM fiscal note is addressing is only the information within the department, it is not going to change the structure or in any way affect the recording indexing system that the third party contractor maintains. What this does is take back up information that the department itself has and attempts to integrate that with other data bases in the department. So, we are not changing the recording system itself in any way." Number 1419 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN made a motion to move HB 438 with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objections HB 438 was so moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources. SCR 24 - REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME Number 1482 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the next item on the agenda was CSSCR 24, relating to a division of game in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and to management of game. SENATOR BERT SHARP, sponsor of CSSCR 24 (RES), read from a sponsor statement, "CSSCR 24 (RES) simply put is a request by the legislature, to the Governor, to remove the name Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) and replace it with the Division's original name, Division of Game (DG). The first whereas notes that, then Governor Cowper, in 1989 renamed the Division of Game, the Division of Wildlife Conservation. What's in a name you say? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet you say. The rose, Division of Game, that everyone could recognize as responsible for the management of games resources, was replaced by a broad array of flowering plants that emits such a range of scents that every "posey" sniffer claims to detect their favorite and demands that their sense of smell is the most accurate and overpowering and should dictate the Division's actions. Unfortunately, the rose which represents the Division of Game's commitment to the management of game, bases on sound scientific data, has deteriorated to a mangy bramble. The fragrance from this bramble is now the least detectable element of the swirl of odors emitting from the Division of Wildlife Conservation. No longer is the scientific management of Alaska's game resources the Division's primary goal. The goal of achieving and maintaining high sustainable population levels of game animals for personal use harvest and viewing by Alaskans is no longer a commitment of the Division. No longer is hands on active management of the resource considered their primary responsibility. Their mission now is more confused and is now being focused on the management of people not of game." He said the actions of the past years back this statement up. "They now advocate the need to manage public opinions as one of their responsibilities, such as their newly proposed `human dimensions' program costing over a quarter of million dollars." He said there is an extensive public process involved with the Board of Game to change any regulations or establish new regulations which sometimes takes up to five years of public input. He said there is adequate public process without the Division of Wildlife Conservation involving themselves in managing public opinion through the use of wildlife funds. "The fact is that 100 percent of this Divisions's budget is paid for by taxes and fees on hunters, shooters, sportfishing activities and their license fees and associated equipment that these people use. The name change in 1989 to DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION encouraged the fragmentation of the Division's mission into many parts, many with diametrically opposed goals. The Division's resources have been redirected n many areas toward benefiting non- hunters, even though those people do not contribute to the Division's budget one dollar. I submit that a name does carry a significant meaning. Ask those engaged in the commercial fishing industry, would they favor a change of name from the Division of Commercial Fisheries to the Division of Conservation of Marine Life? I think not. Let's send this reasonable message to the Governor. Let's get back to basics, let's manage the resource as a resource for Alaskans, harvestable resource as well as a viable viewing opportunities for all. Let's re-establish the Division of Game. Number 1730 EDDIE GRASSER, Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, was next to testify. He said the council supports CSSCR 24 (RES) for a variety of reasons. He said, when the name change occurred, some members supported the change, others reluctantly agreed and others opposed it. He said the practices of the Division of Wildlife Conservation have lead to a determination that it was bad to change the name. Number 1798 MR. GRASSER said there are a lot of hunters that belong to the council. He said there is a lot of frustration regarding the management policies within the DFG. He said there are game populations no longer being managed actively by the DFG and the opportunity for human harvest is diminishing. He said, Unit 13 in the Nelchina Basin, has a high number of moose, although it has decreased from 22,000 to 18,000. He said only 750 moose have been allowed to be harvested over the past four years. He said the small harvesting number is because of other species who hunt moose in the area. He added that the DFG has liberalized the bear harvest in the basin. He said, in the McGrath area, there is one wolf for every 12 moose. He said this situation has lead to a high frustration level due to the lack of management which he said had been formulated from public misconceptions. Number 1812 Representative Barnes joined the committee meeting at 8:40 a.m. MR. GRASSER said anti-hunting groups have pushed for the so-called "balance" in the management of wildlife. He said, while these groups continually call for a balance, they refuse to acknowledge that two-thirds of Alaska is either closed to hunting or is off limits to any type of meaningful state management because this land is owned by the federal government. He said these groups feel that only a tiny portion of the land is being managed for their use, but added that the federal land is huge and that it is being managed for this group's use. Number 1889 MR. GRASSER said one of the issues that brought the management issue to a head was the Payne bear hunt in McNeil River Game Refuge. He said, by the director's own admission, the Division of Wildlife Conservation supported the closure of the bear hunt because of public perception. He said this was the wrong thing for the Division of Wildlife Conservation to do as hunting in this area has gone on for many years. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation should have begun a program of public education to demonstrate that viewing and hunting are compatible. He said as a result of this policy, the frustration of the hunting community has continued to grow. Number 1931 MR. GRASSER said the state needs to recognize that the Division of Wildlife Conservation is fully funded by hunters and trappers. He said there is dialogue in the papers, et cetera in which anti- hunters argue that their money is not being spent wisely. He said it is not this group's money, it is the money of the hunters and it should be spent in a better way. Number 1946 MR. GRASSER referred to other bills introduced by Senator Sharp which have been labeled "intensive management." He said it is not "intensive management," but a return to management. He said a balance has been struck and reiterated the federal land component. Number 1971 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked how many acres are off limits to hunting in Alaska. Number 1979 MR. GRASSER said he believed it was a little over 50 million acres that are completely closed to hunting. Representative Nicholia joined the committee meeting at 8:35 a.m. Number 1983 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if these acres are managed by the federal government which has no management of game policy. Number 1997 MR. GRASSER concurred and added that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have moved towards a biodiversity management scheme which is a "hands off scheme" and does not recognize the human interaction within the natural environment. Number 2019 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, was next to testify. He said there is significance in a name and gave information on the view of the Division and Department on why the present name is appropriate. He said the responsibility for managing the state's wildlife resources comes from the state's constitution. In the constitution, it mandates management of wildlife species for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans. He said there are 520 wildlife species in Alaska, 70 of which are hunted species. The Division of Wildlife Conservation spends 95 percent of its budget managing these hunted species. He said the other 4.5 percent goes to the wildlife education program, endangered species program and to the wildlife viewing program. He said these small programs offer benefits to the hunting community. MR. BRUCE said the wildlife education staff works directly with the teachers in the educational system, grades kindergarten through high school, in developing wildlife curriculum which educates people about the benefits of wildlife, how to preserve the species and the ethics of hunting and using the wildlife. During this interaction, the staff discovered information, in the curriculum which was anti-hunting and incorrect. He said the staff worked with the Department of Education in the Anchorage school system to remove that material from the curriculum and had information substituted which correctly portrayed the ethics of hunting and how it relates to the conservation ethic that the state supports. Number 2119 MR. BRUCE said the Endangered Species Program that the Division of Wildlife Conservation oversees has an excellent record. Since the legislature passed that act, no species in Alaska, that Alaska manages, has been listed on the Endangered Species Act and several species have been removed. Number 2135 MR. BRUCE said, it is the Division of Wildlife Conservation belief, that management of game involves the management of people. He said this is why Division of Wildlife Conservation has a Board of Game system and intensive public involvement in the regulatory process. He said he believed a lot of the issue was a matter of emphasis and perception. He said, some people believe that, there should be more emphasis in certain areas as compared to other areas. He said there is always room for discussion and a difference of opinion on those matters, but the Division of Wildlife Conservation works hard to support hunting. He said of the 180 employees in Division of Wildlife Conservation, only five work on non-consumptive use programs. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation feels that this is a reasonable balance in line with the state's constitution and the mandate to serve all the people. Number 2183 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked him to repeat his references to the constitution. Number 2194 MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am I did refer to Article 8 of the state constitution which is the ... which talks about the common use, maximizing the uses of wildlife for all of the people subject to preferences among beneficial uses. Which is something that this body and the Board of Game is charged with determining those preferences." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "since he has (indiscernible )correctly portrayed what the constitution says, subject to preference among beneficial uses. It does not say anything about subject to preference among beneficial users, does it?" Number 2230 MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, no the language is uses." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Thank you." Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the Division of Wildlife Conservation doing about the wolf problem in McGrath. Number 2249 MR. BRUCE said the issue of predator control is the most controversial issue in wildlife management. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation and DFG is concerned about the high ratio of wolves to moose in the area and that options are being explored to correct that situation. He said, if a program of predator control were chosen, "it would have to go through the Board of Game in the area, approved, and then it would also have to meet the Governor's criteria for predator control program." He said that staff from the Division of Wildlife Conservation have gone out to the area and said that one of the human dimension efforts was directed at McGrath to find out what they recommended doing. Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the timeline would be on this issue. Number 2302 MR. BRUCE said he could not lay out a specific timetable. He said he would need to contact the director of the Division, to see if there was a proposed timetable and what it would be. Number 2313 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it would roughly be months or years. Number 2319 MR. BRUCE said any type of predator control needs to occur during the winter in a period of snow. He said it would probably not be possible to do anything this year. Number 2334 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, through the chair, Mr. Bruce, would you tell me who establishes the policy which is implemented for your department?" Number 2344 MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am, the policies that the Department implements are established by the Legislature through its statutory authority and then through the Board of Game through its regulatory authority." Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "What was that statement you made about the Governor, subject to the Governor's policies?" Number 2359 MR. BRUCE, "Well, the Governor has laid out a criteria that he thinks a predator control must meet in order to be implemented and that is what I was referring to." Number 2365 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, since the Legislature and only the Legislature, through its statutes, regulations that we promulgate in the form of law that is not to be superseded by the Departments, plus the budget process, can you tell me how the Governor can override those laws?" Number 2380 MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, I don't believe the Governor is overriding the laws of that the Legislature has passed. I believe the Governor is using his discretion as the chief executive to direct policy in a way that he thinks is consistent with the public good and the desires of the Legislature and the Board of Game." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "MR. Chairman, that to me, and I have been here a long time, is one of the worst statements that I have ever heard made to this Legislature. The Governor has no authority whatsoever to establish policy. He has the authority to carry out what is in the law, he cannot make up the law and he cannot make up his own administrative direction. And I have known more than one Governor to be sued over that. And that is a terrible statement you made and Mr. Chairman, I want it off the record verbatim." A discussion ensued about the issue of including this section of the meeting verbatim in the minutes. TAPE 96-41, SIDE B Number 0000 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the comment about the number of federal lands that are protected and off-limits to hunters, he asked if the state was being overly protective of state lands. Number 0019 MR. BRUCE said he could provide information on the number of participants in wildlife viewing. He said Division of Wildlife Conservation conducted a large effort to try and get feedback from hunters and non-hunters and their uses of wildlife and said that study provided information. He said there is also information on specific areas where are those activities are very prominent such as McNeill River, Walrus Island, Potter Marsh and Kramer's field. He said, as a general comment, the activity in those areas is quite high and there are many people participating in viewing as well as hunting activities. Number 0060 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if most of the people are viewing in established viewing areas as opposed to those hunters who go out into areas that would not be accessed by the average viewer. Number 0069 MR. BRUCE said one of the growing elements of the visitor industry is guided trips to view wild lands. He said there are operators in many areas of the state who take people out into remote areas. Number 0095 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed, from Division of Wildlife Conservation to Division of Game, would there be an adverse affect on people wishing to view wildlife. Number 0114 MR. BRUCE said this issue is one of perception and message. He said a name should be used which most accurately describes the broad mission to serve everyone. He said the Division and the Department will still do their best to serve the multiplicity of uses. He said most of the expenditures, within the Division of Wildlife Conservation, go to the hunted species. He then reiterated that even some of the activities that are not specifically directed to hunters, can have a beneficial affect by providing correct information to young people regarding the positive benefits of hunting and countering misinformation. He said the program, in total, is very supportive of the hunting community and hunting as a legitimate use of Alaska's wildlife. He said this policy would not change. MR. BRUCE said the issues involving programmatic decisions within the Department relates more to the funding situation. He said some general fund monies supported a few of these activities, such as the wildlife education program, until very recently. He said, as general funds are being reduced throughout government and the funding sources available through the DFG fund and the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Program have increased, there has been a tendency to use those funds in lieu of declining general funds. MR. BRUCE said the Division of Wildlife Conservation will continue with its program under whatever name. He said the legislature will decide what the perception and the message is that the state wants to present to the public. Number 0204 CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that there was a correlation between the focus change of the Division of Wildlife Conservation and the change of the name from Division of Game to Division of Wildlife Conservation. He asked if this question had been previously asked to the director and asked where he was. Number 0236 MR. BRUCE said these questions were answered. He said the director is at the Board of Game meeting. He said he tried to summarize the same arguments that the director or the deputy director had made in earlier testimony, especially testimony given on the Senate side. Number 0257 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed to Division of Game, if the focus of the Division would change. Number 0273 MR. BRUCE said it is a question of perception and people might see things differently. He said, "I don't think you can really see a significant difference in the way the Division spends its monies." He said the non-hunting provisions within the Division are a small part. He said most of the effort is directed at the hunted activities. He questioned whether the name were changed if it would cause a reduction in the 4.5 percent. He said there are other factors driving the policy and they have little to do with the name of the Division. Number 0312 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked if the Board of Game was under the Division of Wildlife Conservation. Number 0326 MR. BRUCE said the Board of Game is organized administratively under the Division of Administration and the Commissioner's Office, not under the Division of Wildlife Conservation. He said the board is semi-autonomous and consists of seven people who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed through the Legislature. He said the board makes the difficult decisions of how the resources are used among the various competing users and serves as a way to bring the public into the management decisions made by the Division. He concluded that the board is housed administratively in the department, but it functions as an independent entity in the decisions it makes. Number 0373 CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that Mr. Bruce had not been with the Division when the name change was made. He then asked if there had been a change of direction when the name change occurred as alluded to by the sponsor. Number 0388 MR. BRUCE said he had talked with the director, the deputy director and other staff who do not believe that there has been a change of focus. They believe that the reason the name was changed is because it more accurately reflected the mission of the Division at that period in time. He said it was more an alignment of name with function, at that period, rather than the signaling of any change. Number 0422 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked him to confirm this statement in the context of what the sponsor and witnesses believe. Number 0426 MR. BRUCE said yes it was true, "with all due respect to those individuals." He referred to his earlier statement that people perceive things differently. He said the perception of staff, within the Division, was that the name change did not signal a change of focus. He said it is hard to measure perception and to determine who is correct. Number 0457 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name were changed to Division of Game if it would merely be a perception change. MR. BRUCE said that was correct. Number 0463 REPRESENTATIVE LONG questioned if the name change involved in CSSCR 24 (RES) would be considered a directive from the Legislature to change direction. Number 0492 MR. BRUCE said it is not that the Division is not interested and responsive to legislative direction, but clarified that CSSCR 24 (RES) requests a name change and sends a message about the Legislature's perception that the program is not orientated towards a certain kind of emphasis. He said the Division would take the message to heart. He repeated that the small amount spent towards non-hunting and said before that amount was reduced, the Division would want to meet with the Legislature to make sure that was the desired direction. He said the resolution is a request, it does require or mandate the Department to do anything. Number 0556 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the Legislature is charged, by the constitution, to manage the fish and the wildlife in the state of Alaska. She said the Legislature delegates their authority to carry out the laws they promulgate. She said the Legislative Branch promulgate and establishes in the policy to the Board of Game. She said the board is not the ultimate authority, the Legislature is. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSCSR 24 (RES) with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections CSSCR 24 (RES) was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources. SB 240 - MINING BONDING POOL Number 0661 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide for Senator Leman and the Senate Resources Committee, testified on SB 240. She said the difference between SB 240 and HB 439, clarifying that she had not seen the latest version of HB 240, is that the two versions are virtually the same. She said the exception is that the Chair of the Senate Resources Committee choose not to include the Surface Coal Mining Advisory Commission because of the associated cost and the likelihood that the issues raised can be addressed by the Alaska Minerals Commission. She said, upon testimony on the Mining Bonding Pool in the Senate Resources Committee by the Alaska Minerals Commission, the commission said they could address those issues. She said the Senate felt that now was not a good time to introduce a new commission and they felt that the Alaska Mineral Commission could address it. Number 0724 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that SB 240 would not include language allowing the commission and said HB 439 has been stripped of all but the commission and had a zero fiscal note when it was passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee last week. Number 0747 MS. KREITZER said the Senate Resources Chair did consider that possibility and made an explicit decision not to include it in SB 240. CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if that was because of the fiscal note. Number 0760 MS. KREITZER said it was excluded because of a fiscal note concern and the fact that the Alaska Mineral's Commission indicated that they considered the work within the realm of their responsibilities. Number 0785 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the Senate Resources Chair realized that a zero fiscal note was possible would he still have concerns about the inclusion of the commission. MS. KREITZER said she would have to understand the need for the commission as opposed to the Alaska Mineral's Commission. She said she was not privy to the testimony of the House Labor and Commerce and asked Representative Kott to explain what occurred. Number 0812 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, generally, the premise was that a separate commission was established with a sunset date of two years. He said three members would be appointed by the Governor, three members appointed by the President of the Senate and three members appointed by the House Speaker. The House Labor and Commerce Committee felt the work that was charged in HB 240 would in fact be done by the committee. He said the Alaska Mineral's Commission had some opportunity, as the sunset date is several years down the road and the date it would probably be extended whereby this task force or commission would just have two years to accomplish their work. He said the industry testimony agreed that this commission was needed. Number 0863 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had concerns about including a commission in the context of adding another layer of bureaucracy. he said he agreed with SB 240. Number 0901 STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miner's Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said the association supports SB 240. He said, when the original state reclamation statute was established, coal mining was recognized as something that should be added in the future. He said, at the time, the sponsor of the reclamation bill, Representative Betty Fahrenkamp, specifically decided not to include coal and left the word, "may" because she did not want to get the whole coal issues in with the reclamation bill. He said the reclamation bill was an offshoot of several previous pieces of legislation and it was difficult enough to get a statute in place which met both the needs of reclamation of state lands and have a reasonable bill. The original bill would have had greater difficulties passing if coal was included. Number 1003 ROBERT B. STILES, President, DRVen Corporation, President, Alaska Coal Association, was next to testify. He said his corporation is in strong support of SB 240, as they were in support of HB 240. He said no Western coal producers has ever defaulted on a reclamation bond. He added that typical reclamation bonds for surface mining operations are dictated by surface mining statute and is typically on the level of $5,000 to $10,000 an acre and said SB 240 would do nothing to change that. He said the net effect will, not only increased the asset value of the state bonding pool with the addition of coal mining, but the income to the bonding pool will also increase. He said, given the fact that no one has ever defaulted on a bond, the risk level of the bond will actually decrease. He said this is a win-win situation for everyone. Number 1076 MR. STILES said that SB 240 will assure everyone that bonding is available for, what will typically be, greenfield coal developments in Alaska. He said greeenfields are atypical of coal developments in the rest of the nation. He said, usually, coal is developed in areas where an existing infrastructure is already in place. Number 1104 MR. STILES referred to the question raised by Representative Kott and said that his corporation is in support of the temporary Coal Commission. He said that particular commission is now present in an alternative bill, CSHB 439 and is important because the funding for the regulatory program, which controls coal surface mining in the state of Alaska, was at some degree of risk. He said when the Federal Surface Mining bill was enacted, Alaska in its unique circumstance was not considered. As a result of that recognition, a special study was conducted, in 1980 by the National Science Foundation, which found that many of the regulations associated with the federal bill are not applicable in Alaska and recommended that Alaska be granted latitude in developing its regulatory program which governs surface mining in the state. He said, for unknown reasons or obscure reasons, the regulatory program developed for the state did not take advantage of the latitude that was offered as a result of this study. MR. STILES said one of the missions of this commission, were it to be established, would be to re-examine the regulations in regards to this study along with information that has been developed over the last 15 years in order to recraft and re-evaluate the surface mining regulatory program as it applies in the context of the state. He said this requires the commitment of some resources and said the industry is willing to commit the resources on their behalf to that commission and would support the state doing the same. Number 1270 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the change on page one from "may" to "shall" and asked if an individual who wishes to mine gets to develop a mine as a result of this language change. He suggested that this individual might be someone who should have a bond. He asked if this concern was shared by the industry. Number 1332 MR. STILES said the concern is the one inch thick regulatory program. He said surface coal is unique in the resource industries in that it is the only one with an entire regulatory structure developed for it alone. He said bonding is one of the hurdles typically associated with the opening of a greenfield coal mine. He said working your way through a very complex regulatory program and permitting process is difficult and cited an example of an application consisting of a 35, three inch, three ring notebooks thick document. He said this application is a significant document which represents several million dollars. He said an individual, that gets through the process to the point where he is at the bonding stage, deserves the mine. Number 1429 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the fluctuation in coal prices and asked about an influx of miners into areas. He then asked if only big mining companies would be involved. Number 1481 MR. STILES said the bonds, in the state bonding pool, are just like bonds that you would get through regular surety. The bonds are secured with some hard fast asset. He said if an operator had a bond called on him, he would never get a surface mining permit anywhere in the country which is a fairly significant deterrent. He said the fact, that the bonds are secured with assets in the state, reduces the risk of a call on the bond pool. He said the bonds are larger, but the assets which have to be pledged to secure the bonds are larger which creates a balance. Number 1551 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SB 240 with zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objections SB 240 was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources. SB 69 - REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE Number 1594 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the next item on the agenda was SB69 (RES) an act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and hazardous waste. MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) deals with regulatory reform and can be a confusing bill to look at. She said this bill has been two years in the making, starting after SB 33 passed the legislature two years ago. She said CSSB 69 (RES) is an attempt to get at all these reporting requirements for businesses with regards to hazardous chemicals, materials and waste. Number 1664 MS. KREITZER read from the sponsor statement, "As we downsize government, and make it more user friendly, we have to assess the efficacy of current statues and regulations." She said that is part of what has been done with CSSB 69 (RES). She said there is nothing that can be done with the federal requirements and CSSB 69 (RES) has focused on state programs to coordinate it with the local reporting requirements that exist. She said in discussions with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the fire departments, the state fire marshall, the question addressed was what is nice to know as compared to what information is needed. She said, as government is downsized, information cannot be requested which is not going to be used. She said CSSB 69 (RES) tries to get at the heart of what it was, why the laws were passed to begin with and what it was that they were looking at. Number 1720 MS. KREITZER said the Senate Resources Committee changed CSSB 69 (RES) so that if this bill were passed there would be nothing that exists in the law more stringent than the federal reporting requirements. She referred to Section 1, Title 18, and said AS 18.70.90 refers to the state Fire Marshals Placarding Program. She said this program, established in 1986 or 1987, charged the state fire marshall with going out and putting a placard on every building outside the municipality of Anchorage to denote what fire hazards or hazardous chemicals were within that building. Since enactment of that program, 14 facilities outside the municipality of Anchorage, have been placarded by the state Fire Marshall. She said this is not an effective program, the state fire marshall recognizes that it is not an effective program, and CSSB 69 (RES) deletes this program. She said in Section 1, where you see AS 18.70.090, it deletes the portion on line 11 referring to the state Fire Marshall's Placarding Program. She said Section 2 does the same thing, it deletes reference to the state Fire Marshals Placarding Program. Number 1822 MS. KREITZER said there is another placarding program, the municipal placarding program, which was established in 1968. This program allowed municipalities to create their own placarding program for their fire departments. She said, currently, the municipality of Anchorage is the only municipality which has the placarding program. She said discussions were held with the municipality of Anchorage to find out what would work with them. She said one form would be developed to meet federal, state and local reporting requirements. Instead of the Division of Fire Prevention creating the program the form would be approved by the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission (SERC.) She said this commission is made up of nine state departments and seven public members and its mission, under federal law, is to receive reports of hazardous substances. She said it makes sense for the commission to receive the reporting forms and to approve it. Number 1977 Senator Leman joined the meeting, but declined to give testimony. MS. KREITZER said that Senator Leman served on the Anchorage Local Emergency Planning Committee and knows this subject very well. MS. KREITZER said, in Section 3, page two, CSSB 69 (RES) amends the municipal placarding program to "pave the way" for one form which would receive approval from SERC. Number 2029 MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) makes changes at the state level. She said SERC, or a municipality, is allowed to remove a substance or add a substance. She said the adding of a substance is under federal law. She referred to Section 4, lines 25 through 31 and said this was added because the federal government went through a change in what it calls these substances and the language in CSSB 69 (RES) reflects these changes. She said the language includes poison gas hazard division number 2.3 and poison 6.1, explosives 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 excluding smokeless gunpowder, blackpowder and ammunition. She said those exclusions were made because first responders are not stupid and if the sign says it is a gun shop, there is the expectation that there will be gunpowder and that it would not need to be reported. Number 2090 MS. KREITZER said the same thing occurs on page three, lines 2 and 3, where the language, "consumer commodity of a hazardous material" was deleted. She said this is the "K-Mart" placard, because consumer commodity is targeted at the department stores where they have substances such as weed killer. She said the fire department should know that if you are going to a huge department store there would be various chemicals located at that location. She said this type of placard was not a federal requirement, so it was deleted. Number 2130 MS. KREITZER said hazardous chemicals or hazardous material, other than the one described in Section 1, if handled in a single day of an amount equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds, "this change was made in the Senate Resources Committee and again we are talking about the state placarding program." She said this brings the municipal placarding program, Anchorage being the only one, into alignment with the federal reporting requirement so that they are not asking for something in excess of the federal requirement. Number 2168 MS. KREITZER said "compressed gases" was deleted in the Senate Resource Committee as it is not a federal requirement. She said, currently, the municipality does require this to be reported. Her understanding, upon discussions with the drafting attorney, is that since they went through a public process to add that to their program this revision in CSSB 69 (RES) will not affect the municipality of Anchorage's program. She said anyone who would want to come and start a new program would have to go through a whole public process of adding compressed gases. Number 2206 MS. KREITZER referred to Section 5, regarding inspections and penalties, and said it is current law under the municipal placarding program. She said it allows municipalities to conduct inspections, establish and impose penalties. She said CSSB 69 (RES) just removes reference to the state Fire Marshall's Program which is being deleted under the bill. Number 2228 MS. KREITZER said, "Section 6, the same thing, current law we are just deleting the state Fire Marshall's Placarding Program under Section 6." Number 2238 MS. KREITZER referred to Section 7, and said the DEC is currently the department that sends out the Tier 2 reporting forms for hazardous substances. She said, it makes sense to have DEC hand out the new steam-lined forms, since they are handing out the current form. She said the reference to the Division of Fire Prevention is deleted. Number 2272 MS. KREITZER referred to Section 8, Section 9 and Section 10 and said all of these reporting requirements have had their definition of what a hazardous chemical is was set by various agencies. She said CSSB 69 (RES) tries to reference all of those chemicals so that on this one form, what you are reporting and the thresholds for reporting are all the same. She said if you are a business that operates within the municipality of Anchorage or outside the municipality than you must report, under federal law, hazardous chemicals, materials or waste on the one single form provided by the DEC. Number 2336 MS. KREITZER referred to Section 11, and said it repeals the state Fire Marshall's Placarding Program. She said those are definition sections under Title 29, which is the municipal placarding program. She said CSSB 69 (RES) is a complicated bill in that it has to reference so many different statutes and sections of federal law. Number 2380 MS. KREITZER said the Department of Law (DOL) has suggested an amendment, located in the committee packet, which explains the settlement of the Toksook Bay case. She said the DOL feels that CSSB 69 (RES) is an appropriate vehicle for that amendment. Number 2430 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the portion about eliminating the placards for compressed gases and asked if this was an on-sight placard that would be used by emergency responders and for people working around these gases. TAPE 96-42, SIDE A Number 0000 MS. KREITZER said, in discussions with local fire departments from Mat-Su, Kenai, Kodiak and Anchorage, this elimination was the result. She said when Title 3 was passed and the state of Alaska created SERC and the local Emergency Planning Committee, the state provided computers to many of these local Emergency Planning Committees. These computers are shared with local fire departments. She said the local level is working with businesses so that they report compressed gases, and do on-site visits. She said the fire departments say they are doing well with getting information once the businesses understand why the fire department wants the information. She said the information is forthcoming, including information that businesses are not required to report. She said the responders have this information on computer. MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) is working towards a goal, outside of this bill, is to get fire departments to a place where police departments are at now. So that when fire departments arrive at a scene they already know what is there. She said it is not possible to update a placard on a consistent basis. She said the placard indicates the whole essence of what is in the building, but don't really tell detailed information about substances in the building. She said moving to a computerized process is probably the best thing for the fire departments to do as well as focusing on the pre-fire planning efforts which would note the compressed gases and other types of things. Number 070 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his background included fire protection in a small, non-profit fire department and said the less organized, volunteer fire departments might not have the resources to do pre- fire planning such as going in and surveying the buildings to record things. He expressed concern, regarding the system referred to by Ms. Kreitzer, for these smaller fire departments who don't have the resources to do this system and who might need these on- site placards. Number 0250 MS. KREITZER said that if these smaller departments do not have the time to go and do pre-fire planning surveys, they don't have time to go out and do placards. She said the State Fire Marshall has only placarded 15 buildings and has no intention of expanding the program and said there will be no additional money from the state to do so. She said local fire departments should do local training and use those resources to do pre-fire surveys. She related her experience of living in a small community and said that if she was going to be the first response she would want to know what was in that building before she responded to the emergency. Number 0328 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 as proposed by the DOL. CO-CHAIR GREEN requested that the DOL speak to the amendment first. Number 0390 MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, requested that Mr. Kennedy comment on this proposed amendment. Number 0424 CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law, was next to testify. He said the proposed Amendment 1 is part of the Administration's response to the lessons learned in the Toksook Bay lawsuit. He said this was a case in which the state received a school from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1989. He said, in 1990, an old fuel pipe gave way which caused a large spill affecting the village water system. He said the state and the lower TSUK school district were both strictly and jointly liable for damages from that spill. He said the case has now been settled and there is a contempt judgement against the state for just under $1.3 million, currently being sought in appropriations by the legislature this session. MR. KENNEDY said, in response to this experience, both the Administration and some members of the legislature feel this is an inappropriate arena for strict liability and so the proposed amendment states that the state would be immune from strict and joint liability for environmental releases at Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) school sites. He said the amendment has a very narrow scope, both the state and school districts remain liable if they are at fault (indiscernible due to coughing) "at fault and it only applies to damages." The state and school district would maintain their responsibilities to clean up any spills that occur. CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the motion to adopt Amendment 1. Hearing no objection Amendment 1 was adopted to CSSB 69 (RES) by the House Standing Committee on Resources. Number 0620 RITA VENTA, Anchorage Fire Department, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said the Anchorage Fire Department has worked with Ms. Kreitzer for two years trying to put CSSB 69 (RES) together. She said Anchorage has its own program of placarding since 1986. She said CSSB 69 (RES) affects some of those reporting requirements. Number 0660 MS. VENTA referred to Section 4, and said that the Anchorage Fire Department requires the reporting of compressed gases within 250 feet or more. She said she believes this language is important to keep in the bill and requested that this language not be deleted. She then referred to Section 9 and Section 10 and asked that the language, "or by a municipality for purposes of its own reporting program", be retained to allow the current program to be maintained. Number 0727 MS. VENTA said that when Section 4 was being explained, she thought existing programs will stay the way they are and new programs will comply with CSSB 69 (RES). She asked if this was true. Number 0743 MS. KREITZER referred to Section 4, and said after checking with the drafting attorney the current program as it exists in Anchorage, because of the public process which it has undergone, will not change or be altered by CSSB 69 (RES). She said, as a result of this, on page three, lines 10 through 12, the delineation of the language "and compressed gases equal to or more than 200 cubic feet" would not impact Anchorage. She said this language was getting at the difference between federal and state law. The feeling of the Senate Resources Committee was that the legislature should not require anything more stringent than the federal law and this is the reason why this language was deleted. She said this deleted language has no affect on the municipality of Anchorage's program. Number 0836 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS clarified that Ms. Kreitzer would like to leave the language as it is in CSSB 69 (RES). MS. KREITZER said "and compressed gases equal to or more than 200 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure" language remain as a deleted phrase on lines 10 through 12, because this is an addition to the current federal reporting requirements. She said the state should not be stringent than the federal requirements and that the definition does not affect the Anchorage program. A new placarding program would have to go through a public process if they want to include anything greater than the federal requirements. CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that the committee should not correct the deletion. Number 0902 MS. KREITZER referred to Sections 9 and 10, the deletion of the phrase, "or by a municipality for purposes of its own reporting program", and said there is some give and take when you try to do stream-lining for regulatory reform and she said this is one of those situations where depending on which side of the fence you are on, it is a give or a take. She said, if the state allows municipalities to continue to make changes for the purposes of their own reporting program then the single form cannot be used. She said CSSB 69 (RES) would require that municipalities make changes within the way that it is set out in the bill, through a public process and in concert with SERC to keep businesses reporting on only one form. She said the addition of this phrase runs the risk of CSSB 69 (RES) not being effective. Number 0956 CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that Anchorage would be different from other areas of the state. Number 0973 MS. KREITZER said the EPA recognizes that Anchorage is different and are currently relooking the threshold levels and substances under the Emergency Planning Community Right To Know Act. She said the laws under the EPA apply to cities such as Los Angeles and Anchorage. She said the federal requirements are stringent enough for the municipality of Anchorage and said that the municipality of Anchorage is not currently seeking to change or add substances to their program. She said CSSB 69 (RES) will not change their program according to how the municipality of Anchorage is operating their program now, but would change any new program. Number 1025 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to page three, line six, regarding going from 500 pounds to 10,000 pounds of hazardous chemicals, materials or waste and asked if this was an EPA requirement. Number 1038 MS. KREITZER said the 10,000 pounds was a federal requirement. She referred to page two, beginning at line 23, and said this referred to the other substances listed such as flammable solids, gas hazard division number 2.3, and said these are the substances that are extremely hazardous and have their own reporting thresholds. She said the 10,000 pounds is what the federal government has realized as a safe requirement level. She referred to two handouts titled, "ARCO SARA Title III, Section III Reporting, February 23, 1995" and "Anchorage Fire Department, Tier 2 Hazardous Material Inventory." DENISE L. NEWBOULD, UNOCAL, testified via teleconference from Kenai. She said UNOCAL is a primary operator of oil and gas extraction in Cook Inlet and operates an ammonia fertilizer plant in Nikiski. She said in UNOCAL uses a variety of hazardous chemicals and materials. She said her company participated in the working committee with Ms. Kreitzer during the past two years working to reform the reporting requirements for hazardous chemicals and substances. She said her company fully supports regulations which protect life and property against fire and other emergency situations. She said her company recognizes that this need has produced a variety of state, federal and local reporting requirements in a variety of formats and frequencies, assessable chemicals, threshold quantities, storage use and transportation information is required to meet this need. She said it is difficult for any company which uses hazardous substances or produces a hazardous waste to track these various requirements and to comply with them. She said CSSB 69 (RES) clarifies, standardizes and stream-lines these recording requirements. She said this simplifies her company's task to comply with the regulations and facilitates information exchange and analysis amongst the regulating entities and the emergency responders. She said, for this reason, UNOCAL supports CSSB 69 (RES). Number 1206 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that no one from the environmental community wished to testify. Number 1215 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSSB 69 (RES) as amended, with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection HCS CSSB 69 (RES) was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Standing Committee on Resources, Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m.