Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/03/2019 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 | |
| SB43 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB116 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 116-AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
2:31:48 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that the final order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act
relating to the renewal or extension of site leases for aquatic
farming and aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery operations."
2:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that SSHB 116 would simplify the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) lease renewal process for aquatic farms that
grow products such as oysters, kelp, and other shellfish. She
continued:
If enacted, HB 116 would help Alaska-based aquaculture
businesses succeed by shortening the lease renewal
process. Aquaculture is an industry with a lot of
promise and Alaska with more coastline than all the
other states combined has a bountiful potential. The
Alaska Mariculture Taskforce set a goal of making this
a $100 million industry in the next 20 years. As you
can see from the flowchart in your bill packet,
requirements to permit and operate an aquatic farm, or
related hatchery, is complex. The most rigorous and
time-consuming portion of the approval process is the
DNR aquatic farming site lease, both the original
lease and the subsequent renewal. Due to recent
increases in the number of aquaculture farm
applications - there was one application in 2016, 17
applications in 2017, and 16 in 2018 - coupled with
recent cuts to agency staff, it now takes an average
of 18 months or more to approve an aquatic farm lease.
By simplifying the renewal process, we can reduce risk
for businesses making significant capital investments
and reduce the workload on overstretched agency staff.
House Bill 116 aligns the lease renewal process for
aquatic farms to the process used for other DNR
leases. This would significantly shorten the first
renewal process while still allowing appropriate
regulatory oversight, public engagement, and appeals
of DNR's decisions. I would like to mention that this
bill would not affect leases for salmon hatcheries.
As a new legislator, I am pleased with how this bill
began and how it was developed. Shortly after taking
office I was contacted by a constituent who is
currently in the process of transferring an aquatic
farm lease, a process that would not be affected by
this bill. They shared their experiences with the
lease transfer process and suggested a few possible
changes that might help applicants. During subsequent
conversations DNR staff mentioned the streamlining of
the aquatic farm renewal process as a way to reduce
uncertainty for applicants and increase agency
efficiency.
2:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether hatchery includes salmon
hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed there was a title change from one
version to another version of the bill where it states shellfish
hatchery. He asked whether the only change was the title.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded yes, the title was specifically
changed because people were thinking the bill did include salmon
and she wanted to make it clear that [salmon hatchery leases]
wouldn't be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested the committee be shown how the
process currently works.
2:36:41 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor explained that when
applying for a DNR lease to use public lands for a private
purpose, aquatic farm leases are under a separate section of
statute. Most leases given by DNR are under AS 38.05.070, he
said, which includes general leases for things like cabins,
lodges, fish processing plant docks, hydroelectric facilities,
grazing, and other uses where the state grants a private entity
rights to public land.
MR. SMITH brought attention to the aquatic farm application flow
chart in the committee packet and stated that the first
application for a lease goes through a large public notification
and comment process that can be found in AS 38.05.945. He
explained aquatic farms get up to a 10-year lease, and near the
end of that 10-year lease a renewal can be applied for but that
it currently involves a very lengthy public comment process.
However, he pointed out, general leases can be renewed by the
director under a shortened public comment process if the lease
is in good standing and is determined to be in the best interest
of the state.
MR. SMITH said the sponsor's understanding from DNR in terms of
the impacts on the applicant of the [proposed] change, is that
the applicant [for an aquatic farm lease renewal] would still
submit similar information to DNR. But the [proposed] benefit,
he continued, would be that under the AS 38.05.945 notice it
would take about 90 days for the shortened, optional lease
renewal process rather than taking 18 months for renewal.
2:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the leases
[for aquatic farms] are good for 10 years. He inquired whether
there are any records for lease renewals that have been denied.
MR. SMITH answered that, according to DNR, the department has
never denied an aquatic farm lease renewal under the current
process.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked how many have been renewed.
MR. SMITH replied he doesn't know the total number of lease
renewals. He said an impetus for this bill is that the number
of lease applications has increased significantly in recent
years and those will be coming up for renewal 10 years after the
initial lease was started. So, he continued, probably only a
handful of lease renewals have been happening every year, but
the concern is that 10 years from now there will be 17-20 lease
renewals.
2:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that there are
a fair number of aquatic farms in Southcentral and Southeast
Alaska. He inquired whether there is productivity or the
potential for development in other coastal areas of the state or
along lakes.
MR. SMITH responded he doesn't know and deferred to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to provide an answer.
GAROLD "FLIP" PRYOR, Fish and Game Coordinator, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), confirmed there is
potential in other areas, but that he cannot say specifically
where concentrations of interest are located.
2:43:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there is a typical amount
of land involved or whether the amount varies. He further asked
whether the amount is a lot of land, and, if so, the reason why.
MR. SMITH answered that the amount varies significantly, with
some of the largest being over 150 acres and some with acreage
in the single digits. He deferred to DNR to provide specifics.
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), confirmed
there is a wide variety from the single digits up to 200 acres.
He explained it depends upon what the individual is farming; for
example, spat for oysters is confined to a penned area that
doesn't take up much state tideland, whereas kelp needs hundreds
of acres to produce a large volume of the product.
2:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled the statement that SSHB 116 does
not impact salmon or finfish hatcheries as opposed to shellfish
hatcheries. She inquired whether these two types of hatcheries
are linked together under the current statute such that they
both have the same lengthy renewal process as was described [for
aquatic farms], or whether finfish hatcheries fall under the
general leasing statute.
MR. SMITH replied that a variety of mechanisms are used for the
land that salmon hatcheries utilize. He offered his belief that
the nonprofit Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC)
hatchery is an agreement between the City and Borough of Juneau
and DIPAC. He offered his further belief that others are
situated on private land ...
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN interjected that they all are on public
land [in this case]. She reiterated her question of whether
salmon hatcheries fall under the same current statute as
shellfish hatcheries for a lengthy renewal process, or fall
under the general leasing statute's shortened renewal process.
MR. SMITH offered his understanding that when salmon hatcheries
require a DNR lease and when that lease is renewed, it is
typically done under AS 38.05.070, the general lease statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN concluded that only shellfish hatcheries
have been held to this lengthy renewal process.
MR. SMITH responded only shellfish and other aquatic organisms
like kelp, but not salmon hatcheries.
2:47:39 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN opened invited testimony.
2:47:54 PM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation (AFDF), testified in support of SSHB 116. She said
AFDF has been spearheading an effort to develop the mariculture
industry in Alaska. She stated that through the governor's
Mariculture Taskforce a comprehensive statewide plan for
developing the industry has been completed, with a goal to grow
a $100 million industry in 20 years. She noted the industry
would be applicable in Southeast, Southcentral, Kodiak, and
Southwest Alaska, and that currently there are farms in Kodiak.
She offered her understanding that there has been at least one
farm application for near Sand Point. A positive result of the
Mariculture Taskforce's work has been increased private sector
interest in aquatic farming, she said. The recent interest has
increased applications to the state, she continued, which has
led to a backlog and increased the processing time from about 12
months to about 24 months as DNR works through the applications.
MS. DECKER noted that the initial application process is very
rigorous. She said DNR consults with multiple agencies and
considers user conflicts, biological concerns, habitat concerns,
marine mammal protection, navigation hazards, public comment
periods, and others. If an application makes it through this
process and is approved, she continued, the farm must, after 10
years, go through a renewal process that is at a higher standard
than other industries and other leases, which is what is being
talked about. She stated SSHB 116 would be a good step in the
direction to efficiently develop this industry because it would
reduce the workload at DNR; prioritize DNR's staff time on the
new farm lease applications, which would help grow the industry;
and give more certainty to farmers who have invested in
infrastructure during the first 10 years of the lease.
2:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to the flow chart for the
existing process and asked whether the sponsor has one for what
the bill is addressing.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that the main process being talked
about in this flow chart is within the box labeled "DNR *Aquatic
Farm Lease". She said a main point is that people put up a lot
of capital to start their farm and it takes three to seven years
to get to the spot of knowing whether the farm is going to be
viable. The renewal comes at 10 years, she continued, and
currently for this second step the farmer must go through the
whole rigorous process again. She said [SSHB 116] would make
the [first] renewal simpler and smoother for everyone, and then
at 20 years the farmer would have to go through the whole
original process again [for renewal]. She deferred to ADF&G to
elaborate further.
MR. PRYOR responded that the aforementioned is an accurate
description of what is going on with the flow chart.
2:53:04 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN restated Representative Rauscher's question as
to how the proposed change to the renewals would affect the flow
chart. Co-Chair Lincoln asked whether the steps in the proposed
changes are captured on the flow chart, or some steps would be
eliminated, or how it would vary under the proposed changes.
MR. PRYOR answered, "I believe you just take the last line of
the flow chart and where it says you get approval then you go to
the bottom line. After the 10 years you would just start over
at that bottom line again."
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked whether it is at the line labeled "DNR
Final Decision".
MR. PRYOR replied, "That's my understanding."
2:53:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired how the shorter process would
be enacted; for example, whether it would be enacted with an
application or whether it would be an understanding that it is
going to happen. He further inquired whether at 20 years it
would be by going through the whole thing again with an
application process.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY responded that for the 10 years the
applicant goes through the rigorous process, and then the farmer
would still have to fill out an application and practically do a
lot of the same steps. She said it's just that there would be a
shorter public review process involved, and that there would
still be regulatory oversight and opportunity for the public to
weigh in, and DNR would hear any appeal of it.
2:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested Mr. Pryor to describe the
difference in the current leasing process between a shellfish
hatchery and a finfish hatchery and how it would be different
under SSHB 116.
MR. PRYOR offered his understanding that [SSHB 116] would bring
this more on line with how the finfish leases work - when it
comes time to renew, rather than starting at Step A in the flow
chart the renewal would go through the commissioner, and the
commissioner would look at the renewal and make the decision
there without going through the top five or six steps.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that currently finfish farms are
allowed to have the shortened renewal process and it is only
shellfish hatcheries and farms that have been unable to do this
for DNR renewals.
MR. PRYOR answered that that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether shellfish farms are limited
to a 10-year lease by practice or by statute. She further asked
whether finfish hatcheries are limited to [a 10-year lease].
MR. PRYOR replied he is unsure how that works.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the average length of [time] is
for finfish hatchery leasing locations.
MR. PRYOR responded that he doesn't know.
2:57:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER read aloud from a letter he received,
which states in part: "Leave the word "Renewal" in as critical
for [relevant] considerations in AS 38.05.083 ... Please do not
remove the opportunity of [relevant] consideration upon renewal
of an oyster farm. We are just beginning to understand all the
repercussions this presents, as farming in our navigable waters
grows...." Representative Rauscher requested a response from
the sponsor because he would like to understand the concern and
how it equates to where the sponsor is at with the bill.
MR. SMITH, on behalf of the sponsor, offered his understanding
that in terms of the function of the bill, "or renew" must be
removed throughout AS 38.05.083 or it will always be triggering
the more extensive public comment period. He pointed out that
the shortened renewal process available for other types of DNR
leases with equal or significant potential impacts on public
lands is an optional choice for the director of the Division of
Mining, Land and Water. He said he understands from DNR that it
would be case dependent, such that if a leasee wasn't following
stipulations of the lease, or if there were significant problems
with neighbors and the public, and there was a lot of clamor
about a lease for any type of reason, the director doesn't have
to choose the [proposed] shortened lease renewal process and
could choose to use the process as outlined from the beginning
of the flow chart. He offered his further understanding that if
there are issues with a lease, upon renewal [the department]
could make changes to that lease.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the bill states that
there is an option to choose [the longer lease renewal process]
if there is a problem.
MR. SMITH offered his understanding that that optional choice is
found in the bill on page 1, Section 1, line 5, which states,
"The director may renew a lease issued under this section". He
pointed out that the word "may" is used as opposed to "shall".
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether anyone else interprets
that to mean the same thing. Responding to Co-Chair Lincoln, he
requested Mr. Smith to restate this question.
MR. SMITH responded that the question is, "Where is it stated in
statute that this expedited lease renewal process is an optional
decision?" Responding further to Representative Rauscher, he
said it is stated in the bill on page 1, Section 1, line 5.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the word "may" gives
[the director] that power.
3:01:20 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, said if
the question is, "What provides the director with the discretion
to decide to renew a lease?" Mr. Smith is correct that it is the
word "may" on page 1, line 5, of the bill.
3:03:04 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN drew attention to page 2, lines 7-9, which
state: "The commission, for good cause, may deny an application
for issuance [OR RENEWAL] of a lease under this section but
shall provide the applicant with written findings that explain
the reasons for the denial." Noting that "or renewal" would be
deleted under this section, he asked whether being able to deny
an application for "issuance" of a lease, but not for "renewal"
of a lease, has any relevance to the question right now.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered that he thinks the questioning
was whether input from the community was still in there. He
offered his belief that [Mr. Smith] was addressing that if there
seems to be a problem that [DNR] would revert back to the
process of asking the community. He inquired whether his
understanding is correct.
MR. SMITH replied that his understanding from DNR is that the
public can weigh in during the initial lease and also at
renewal.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN stated he would hold public testimony until the
bill's next hearing and noted that there is one more invited
testifier yet to be heard by the committee.
3:04:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the initial
[aquatic farm application] process would remain the same, and
then there would be the renewal. He said his concern is page 2,
Section 3, lines 7-10, and asked whether it would still stand
that the commissioner could deny the renewal of a lease. He
pointed out that "or renew" would be deleted and further asked
whether the commissioner's ability to deny a lease for renewal
would be taken away.
3:05:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied, "We are taking out the renewal
here, but in the statute that we refer to earlier ... it still
can be denied in the renewal process that we would be switching
to, if they had any cause for that." She welcomed clarification
in this regard from ADF&G or anyone else online. She added,
There can always be a reason for denying the renewal, it would
just be it's expedited."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested that the person who answers the
aforementioned question also address whether the commissioner
can deny a person who is in the middle of a lease.
3:06:40 PM
MR. BULLARD responded that in this case it would be the director
and the director would have the latitude to deny a lease on
renewal under AS 38.05.070, which is where the renewal process
is moving from AS 38.05.083. He said if the director determines
that the lease is not in the best interests of the state the
director should not renew the lease. He stated he doesn't know
the answer to the second question of whether that can happen in
the middle of a lease term.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN requested Mr. Pryor to respond to the question
of whether a lease can be terminated mid-lease.
MR. PRYOR replied he is unable to answer the question off the
top of his head. Responding further to Co-Chair Lincoln, he
agreed to follow up and provide the committee with an answer to
the question.
3:08:28 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN reiterated that he would hold testimony from
the public and from the second invited testifier until the
bill's next hearing.
3:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO related that he has experience dealing
with these leases with municipal government as well as
privately. He offered his belief that under statute, violations
of the lease terms can result in forfeiture of all of the lease
provisions.
[SSHB 116 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/20/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43 (SFIN) - Sectional Summary.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43, Version A.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43, Version B.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Work Draft v. M - Explanation.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note One - DCCED-CBPL 2.15.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Fiscal Note Two - DCCED-CBPL 4.9.19.PDF |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 DCPL Letter .pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Bunch Testimony.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Additional Testimony Huttunen.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/9/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 BGCSB Letter of Support 4.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Big Game Commercial Services Board Sunset Review Audit.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/13/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 43 |
| SB43 Supporting Document - RHAK Letter House Resources 4.25.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| HB138 Sponsor Statement version U 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 version A 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Fiscal Note 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 40 CFR Part 131 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 18 AAC 70.016 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 Water Designation FAQ 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 response 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material Commissioner Hartig Letter to Senate 4.22.2019.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HR138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC P&P re Tier 3 Nomination 11.21.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - AML Presentation Tier 3 Designation Impact 05.03.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC attachment sent to EPA 3.6.2018.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re HB 138 and Ballot Initiatives 5.1.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Documents - SEACC Letter and Reference Material 05.01.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Letters of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Suppporting Document - Doyon Letter of Support 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Coalition Letter of Support 4.28.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Documents - Chilkat Indian Village 04.26.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB116 Sponsor Statement 4.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 DNR Fiscal Note 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U Sectional Analysis 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Explanation of Changes ver A to ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Aquatic Farm Application Review Flow Chart 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 - AFDF Letter of Support 2019-04-15.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ASGA Letter of Support 04.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Supporting Document- Mariculture Plan.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letter of Opposition-Hillstrand.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC State Tier 3 Review 5.3.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Document - EPA to DEC Email 11.23.18.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re DEC Statutory Authority to Designate Tier 3 Waters 5.2.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition to House Resources Committee from SEACC - 5.1.19 (002).pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Conitz Letter of Opposition 05.02.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |