Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/05/2018 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB199 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 199-FISH/WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION; PERMITS
1:38:27 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 199, "An Act establishing general fish and
wildlife permits and major and minor anadromous fish habitat
permits for certain activities; establishing related penalties;
and relating to the protection of fish and game and fish and
game habitat."
1:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 199, Version 30-LS0438\M, Bullard,
4/2/18, as a working document. There being no objections,
Version M was before the committee.
1:40:02 PM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, stated he would be using a document titled, "HB 199
Explanation of Changes Version I to M." He directed attention
to the changes in subsection (f) on page 8, lines 6 through 13,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Added language to clarify that 30 days of public
comment is required for the issuance of a general
minor permit, but not for amending or rescinding a
general minor permit. For amending or rescinding, only
public notification is required. As has always been
the case, the minor permit only requires public
notification but not 30 days of public comment. This
change was made so that the commissioner can amend or
rescind a general permit immediately without 30 days
of public comment if it is determined that the permit
does not protect anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat.
MR. GRUENING commented on the changes in subsection (f), by
reminding members that a general permit is one that would be
issued for ATV stream crossings and represents a blanket
authorization. It did not make sense to wait 30 days to amend
or rescind permits for ATV stream crossings if the ATVs were
causing irreparable harm.
1:42:02 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to the next change in subsection (d) on
page 10, lines 7-10 of the document titled, "HB 199 Explanation
of Changes Version I to M," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Following "AS 16.05.887." inserted "The bond shall be
the amount determined necessary by the commissioner to
ensure restoration of anadromous fish habitat if the
applicant does not meet the permit conditions and
mitigation measures imposed on the activity under AS
16.05.887." This is a clarification that conforms the
language in (d) to the language (a)(5) on page 8,
which is the first reference to the bond. The bond is
for the restoration of habitat if the permit
conditions and mitigation measures are not complied
with and not the to ensure the completion of
mitigation measures. This conforming change was made
throughout the bill. In the previous version I, the
first reference to the bond in (a)(5) accurately
stated its purpose. However, subsequent references on
Page 11, lines 20 through 21 and Page 11, line 27
incorrectly identified the bond as being for the
completion of mitigation measures. As identified in
(a)(5), the bond was always meant for the restoration
of habitat if the permit conditions and mitigations
measures are not complied with.
1:43:37 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to the next change in subsection (g), on
page 11, lines 18 and 19 of the document titled, "HB 199
Explanation of Changes Version I to M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Following "activity" inserted "and determines that the
activity requires a bond," This change clarifies that
the commissioner can determine that a bond is not
necessary for a certain activity. Although this was
possible in the previous version if the commissioner
determined that the amount of the bond was $0, this
language is more concise and avoids potential
confusion regarding interpreting the statute. An
interested person can request reconsideration of
whether a bond is required or not.
MR. GRUENING commented that the changes in subsection (g)
somewhat answered Representative Tarr's question at a previous
hearing. This language was more precise, he added, noting it
was a cleaner way than to require a bond and set it at "$0."
1:44:30 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to the next change in subsection
(a)(3)(B), on page 13, line 26, in the document titled, "HB 199
Explanation of Changes Version I to M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In the previous version, only the reduction or the
elimination of a bond could be challenged, and one
could not request reconsideration of the increase of
the amount. This was an oversight and was corrected.
MR. GRUENING said that this would allow an avenue for those who
believe the bond is set too high; in all fairness for everyone.
He said that concludes the changes in the bill.
1:44:53 PM
CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Gruening to provide a brief sectional
analysis for HB 199, Version M.
1:45:04 PM
MR. GRUENING agreed to do so, explaining that he would not
review changes previously covered in the "HB 199 Explanation of
Changes Version I to M." He then skipped over Sections 1, 2,
and 3, which were previously discussed in a prior committee
meeting.
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 4, on page 3, lines 19-28 of
the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (a) specifies that the commissioner of
ADF&G must identify all or portions of each river,
lake, stream, or wetlands, and the lands beneath that
are anadromous fish habitat. Under current law, each
anadromous waterbody must be field sampled and then
nominated to be included in the Anadromous Waters
Catalogue (AWC). This maintains that requirement.
Subsection (b) defines:
(1) anadromous fish habitat to mean all or
portions of a permanent or intermittent river,
lake, stream, or wetland, and the lands beneath
that contribute directly to the spawning,
rearing, migration, or overwintering of
anadromous fish.
(2) a "river", "stream", or "wetland" to include
the foreshore portion of the river, stream, or
wetland above the mean low tide line.
1:46:41 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 5, on page 3, line 29 through
page 6, line 4 of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional
Analysis version M," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 16.05.875. Anadromous fish habitat permit.
Subsection (a) creates the requirement that, except in
an emergency or as authorized by a general minor
permit, an anadromous fish habitat permit must be
obtained before constructing a hydraulic project or
using wheeled, tracked, excavating, or log-dragging
equipment, or before conducting an activity that has
the potential to use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or
change the natural flow or bed of a river, lake,
stream, or wetland that is identified as anadromous
fish habitat. This maintains the wording in current
statute regarding the types of activities that would
be required to be permitted.
Subsection (b) requires an applicant to complete an
application and provide all necessary information that
ADF&G deems necessary to assess the proposed
activity's effects on anadromous fish habitat.
Subsection (c) requires the commissioner to review a
completed application accompanied by the required fees
and make a determination about the proposed activity's
effects on anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat. It also specifies that before making a
determination, the commissioner may work with the
applicant to plan the activity to avoid or minimize
the potential effects.
Subsection (d) establishes the minor permit
classification for applications that will not
adversely affect anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat.
Subsection (e) establishes the major permit
classification for applications that have the
potential to adversely affect anadromous fish and
anadromous fish habitat.
Subsection (f) requires public notice for the
commissioner's determination for classification of
major and minor permits.
Subsection (g) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
1:48:37 PM
MR. GRUENING turned to page 3 of the sectional analysis. He
referred to page 5, line 12 of the document titled, "HB 199
Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 16.05.877. Consideration of effects of activity
on anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.
While most permit applications can be processed as
minor permits, this section identifies criteria used
to determine if an activity has the potential to cause
adverse effects on anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat. If the commissioner determines that the
potential exists, the application will be processed as
a major permit.
Subsection (a) sets out the factors for the
commissioner to consider in determining whether a
proposed activity has the potential to cause adverse
effects on anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat.
Subsection (b) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
1:49:09 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 6, on page 6, line 5-23 of the
document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 16.05.881. Construction without approval
prohibited.
This section is amended to make reference to the new
two-tiered permitting scheme and retain the
requirement that a person or government entity can be
found guilty of a misdemeanor for failing to comply
with this chapter.
MR. GRUENING characterized this as minor wordsmithing to conform
to the bill and make changes in the bill with respect to the
two-tier permitting system.
1:49:25 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 7 on page 6, line 24 through
page 14, line 10, of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional
Analysis version M," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 16.05.883. Minor anadromous fish habitat permits.
Subsection (a) establishes the commissioner's
authority to issue a minor permit. The commissioner
must give public notice of the decision to issue a
minor permit. The minor permit must include any permit
conditions and mitigation measures necessary to
protect anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.
Subsection (b) establishes the general minor permit.
This allows the issuance of a blanket permit for minor
activities on a regional or geographical basis without
an application by a determination by the commissioner
for activities that will not cause significant adverse
effects on anadromous fish habitat if certain
conditions are met. This provision allows ADF&G to
issue blanket permits for similar activities. E.g. ATV
stream crossings. (1), (2), and (3), set the
conditions that must be met for the issuance of a
general permit.
Subsection (c) specifies that when the commissioner
makes a determination to issue a general minor permit,
they must provide notice, a public comment period,
and, if requested, hold one public hearing. It also
stipulates that the general permits must be renewed
every 5 years.
1:50:17 PM
MR. GRUENING stated that there was a little confusion on
whether all permits would need to be renewed every five
years. This renewal referred to a general minor permit, he
said. He continued reviewing Section 7, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (d) clarifies that the commissioner may
issue a regional or geographical authorization for a
general permit or may require a person to obtain
written authorization. The department must approve or
deny the request within 5 days. It further allows
general permit authorizations to be issued
electronically. It clarifies that, if applicable,
authorizations for general permits shall set out
conditions and stipulations to avoid adverse effects
to anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.
Subsection (e) gives the commissioner authority to
modify or rescind a general permit if the commissioner
determines that the general permit does not protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat. If a
general permit is amended or rescinded the
commissioner must provide public notice. (1) and (2)
provide additional details for public notice for
general permitting.
Subsection (f) stipulates the public notice and
comment requirements for issuing a general minor
permit.
Subsection (g) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
1:51:33 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to page 8, line 16 of the document titled,
"HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 16.05.885 establishes the requirements for the
major permit process. The major permit process under
Sec. 16.05.885 provides for more scrutiny of proposed
activities that have the potential to cause adverse
effects on anadromous fish and anadromous fish
habitat. It requires the commissioner to prepare a
fish habitat permit assessment that details the
activity, the potential effects, possible alternatives
or modification to the activity, the proposed permit
conditions, the amount of bonding needed to restore
habitat if the permit conditions and mitigations are
not complied with, and if a permit may or may not be
issued based on whether the plans and specifications
are sufficient to protect anadromous fish and
anadromous fish habitat. This process allows the
commissioner to gather the kind of information, at the
applicant's expense, that can help inform the types of
mitigation requirements and permit conditions that are
necessary to protect fish habitat. Most notably, it
also provides opportunities for public involvement
through notice and a public comment period on the
draft assessment. The current law does not provide for
any public notice or opportunity to participate in the
process.
1:52:43 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (a) of the document titled,
"HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (a) requires the commissioner to prepare a
draft anadromous fish habitat permit assessment and
identifies the information that must be included in
the assessment to help inform the decision-making
process. Of note is (6)(A) and (6)(B) which contain
the commissioner's initial determination that a permit
may or not be issued based on whether the activity's
adverse effects can be prevented or if the effects can
be minimized to the extent necessary to protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat, the
affected habitat can be restored to the extent
necessary to protect anadromous fish and anadromous
fish habitat, or the effects of the activity can be
otherwise mitigated to the extent necessary to protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.
1:53:13 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (b) of the document titled,
"HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (b) specifies that the commissioner shall
collect or shall require the applicant to collect
information to determine whether a proposed activity
should be permitted under this section. It further
allows the costs of preparing the assessment and
collecting the information requested by the
commissioner to be shifted to the applicant.
Subsection (c) provides for public notice and an
opportunity for the public to comment on the draft
assessment.
1:53:37 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to page 10, line 2, of the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (d) requires the commissioner to provide
public notice of and publish a final assessment and a
written permit determination after reviewing public
comments. The final assessment and permit must include
all permit conditions, required mitigation measures,
and imposed bonding.
1:54:00 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (e), of the document titled,
"HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (e) imposes conditions that the
commissioner must meet, and an applicant must comply
with, before issuing a permit. The commissioner must
find in a written determination that public notice was
provided, the permit conditions and mitigation
measures are mandatory and enforceable, and that the
activity shall be permitted because the activity's
adverse effects can be prevented or the effects can be
minimized to the extent necessary to protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat, the
affected habitat can be restored to the extent
necessary to protect anadromous fish and anadromous
fish habitat, or the effects of the activity can be
otherwise mitigated to the extent necessary to protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat. To
receive a permit, the applicant must accept all permit
conditions and mitigation measures and provide a bond
to cover the restoration of habitat if the permit
conditions and mitigation measures are not complied
with; additionally, a permit may only be issued if a
request for reconsideration was not timely received.
MR. GRUENING said this would happen if the commissioner
determined that a bond was required, which is challengeable.
1:55:03 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (f), of the document titled,
"HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (f) specifies that if a request for
reconsideration of the commissioner's final assessment
and written determination is timely received, a major
permit shall be issued when the commissioner denies
the request for reconsideration or issues a new
determination and the requirements in (e) have been
met.
1:55:31 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsections (g) (h) and (j), on page
11, line 18, of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis
version M," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Subsection (g) describes the bond requirements to pay
for the restoration of anadromous habitat. If the
commissioner determines that a bond is required,
applicants must provide a performance bond sufficient
to cover the cost of restoring anadromous fish habitat
if permit conditions and mitigation measures are not
complied with. The bond must be a secured bond. This
section further allows the commissioner to raise,
lower, or eliminate the bond if conditions change, but
they must provide public notice of the change. Any
changes to the bond are subject to a request for
reconsideration.
Subsection (h) exempts governmental agencies from the
bonding requirements of the section, allows the
department to receive the bond from another government
agency, and clarifies that the bond may initiated and
held by the department or by another state agency.
Subsection (i) requires the approval of the
commissioner and, if required, a new performance bond,
before a permit can be transferred or assigned.
Subsection (j) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
1:56:09 PM
MR. GRUENING referred Section 16.05.887 on page 12, line 19, of
the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 16.05.887 sets forth the requirements for
permit conditions and mitigation measures for permits
issued under this chapter. When issuing a permit, the
commissioner must prevent or minimize adverse effects
on anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat. The
commissioner must establish, in order of priority,
permit stipulations and mitigation measures that first
avoid adverse effects through siting, timing or other
project design stipulations. If effects cannot be
avoided, impacts of the activity must be minimized by
limiting the degree, magnitude, duration,
implementation, or other design stipulations. If
effects cannot be avoided, the commissioner must
require that impacted fish habitat is restored or that
other appropriate mitigation measures be taken that
are determined to be necessary to protect anadromous
fish and anadromous fish habitat.
1:56:55 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (a) and (b), of the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (a) requires that activities be implemented
in a manner most likely to avoid or minimize adverse
effects on anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat
and that the commissioner has determined will protect
anadromous fish and anadromous fish habitat.
Subsection (b) requires the commissioner, when
developing a permit, to first try to avoid adverse
effects by working with the applicant on project
design and by imposing siting, timing and other
stipulations and conditions. If adverse effects are
not avoidable, the commissioner must minimize the
adverse effects of the activity by limiting the
degree, magnitude, duration, implementation, or other
design stipulations. And finally, if adverse effects
do occur, the commissioner must restore the impacted
fish habitat or take other appropriate mitigation
measures that are necessary to protect anadromous fish
and anadromous fish habitat.
1:57:31 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to subsection (c) and (d), of the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (c) provides that the department shall
adopt regulations establishing permit conditions and
mitigation measures applicable to activities subject
to permitting requirements.
Subsection (d) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
1:57:47 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to page 13, line 17 of the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 16.05.889 sets forth the administrative review
and appeal procedures for decisions made under this
chapter.
Subsection (a) allows an interested person to request
a reconsideration of a determination to classify a
permit as a minor or major, a final determination to
issue or refuse to issue a permit, as well as the
amount of the bond or a reduction, increase, or the
elimination of the bond requirement.
Subsection (b) sets a 30-day time limit to request
reconsideration of decisions made under this chapter.
The request must be in writing.
Subsection (c) requires the commissioner to respond to
a request for reconsideration within 30 days. The
request is deemed denied in 30 days if the
commissioner does not act. If the commissioner grants
the request for reconsideration, the commissioner has
an additional 30 days to make a final determination.
Subsection (d) establishes that the commissioner's
determination on reconsideration is a final agency
action under the Administrative Procedure Act. A
person may appeal the final determination to the
superior court within 30 days and may only appeal the
points raised in the request for reconsideration.
MR. GRUENING said he thought this section had been covered at
the last meeting. The basic idea was that instead of being able
to challenge all the determinations at any point, the statute
would limit when the challenges could be made, but it still
maintains those avenues for challenges. He said this
streamlines the process.
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 8 on page 14, lines 11-17, of
the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 16.05.891. Exemption for emergency situations.
Section 16.05.891 adds "state agency" to the exemption
for emergency arising from weather or stream flow
conditions. It also contains a conforming language to
reflect the new provisions in this chapter.
MR. GRUENING added that currently the bill provided the
"riparian owner" has the ability under emergency situations to
make changes to a river bank without a permit. The Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities pointed out that it was
important to add "state agency" to the exemption.
1:59:03 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 9 on page 14, line 18 through
page 16, line 2, of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional
Analysis version M," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 16.06.893. Fees. This section directs the
commissioner to charge reasonable fees to process and
administer the fish habitat permits. Subsection (a)
establishes the authority for the commissioner to set
fees.
Subsection (b) allows the commissioner to adopt
regulations governing fee waivers when it is in the
public interest.
Subsection (c) requires the fees collected to be
separately accounted for.
Sec. 16.05.894. Notification of Violation Section
16.05.894 requires the commissioner to provide notice
to a permittee for permit violations and order the
violation to be stopped. If a violation cannot be
stopped, the commissioner is required to order the
permittee to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of
the violation on fish habitat.
MR. GRUENING clarified that the department currently does not
charge any fees for fish habitat permits. He noted in
subsection (b) that the commissioner can also waive a fee for
another government agency.
2:00:05 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to page 15, line 10, of the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 16.05.897 specifies that an existing facility,
activity, operation, or project that has in full force
and effect all authorizations required by law relating
to the protection of anadromous fish and anadromous
fish habitat on the effective day of this act will
remain under the permitting regime as it existed the
day before the effective day of this act, including
renewals and minor authorizations in perpetuity, until
that existing facility, activity, operation, or
project significantly expands or increases in scope,
area, or frequency, or otherwise takes action outside
of, those actions for which it was authorized on the
day before the effective date of sec. 3 of this Act.
2:01:05 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to proposed Sec. 16.05.899 Enforcement
Authority, of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis
version M," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 16.05.899 gives authority for departmental
employees designated by the commissioner to directly
issue citations for a violation of AS 16.05.871-
16.05.901 or a regulation adopted under those statutes
if it is not a misdemeanor and there are is probable
cause to believe a violation has occurred.
MR. GRUENING recalled this had previously been discussed.
This proposed section would allow ADF&G to directly issue
citations instead of arranging for a Fish and Wildlife
Trooper to issue the citation.
2:01:15 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 10 on page 16, lines 3-6
of the document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version
M," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
AS. 16.05.901(a). Penalty for Violations.
Section 16.05.901(a) is amended to provide ADF&G with
additional authority to respond to violations of this
chapter. Under current law, ADF&G can only pursue a
misdemeanor charge for permit violations.
2:01:25 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 11 on page 16, line 7
through page 17, line 21, of the document titled, "HB 199
Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (c) allows ADF&G to prosecute knowing
violations of AS 16.05.871-16.05.901 or a regulation
adopted under those statutes as a class A misdemeanor.
Subsection (d) allows ADF&G to prosecute criminally
negligent violations of AS 16.05.871-16.05.901, a
regulation adopted under those statutes, a permit
condition and mitigation measure imposed, or an order
issued under 16.05.894 as a class A misdemeanor.
MR. GRUENING, referring to subsection (d), said that the
commissioner might order a party to cease and desist an activity
and if the activity continued, with criminal negligence, the
party would be held liable. He related that criminal negligence
means a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in perceiving a risk. It would
not be a strict liability offense, he said.
2:02:26 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 11 on page 16, line 7 through
page 17, line 21, to subsection (e), of the document titled, "HB
199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (e) provides that if someone fails to
notify the commissioner of an activity for which a
permit is required and causes damage to anadromous
fish habitat or by neglect or noncompliance with
permit conditions and mitigation measures causes
damage to anadromous fish habitat, a person is guilty
of a class A misdemeanor.
MR. GRUENING noted the wording was slightly different from
the current law in AS 16.05.896.
2:03:01 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 11 on page 16, line 7
through page 17, line 21, to subsection (f)-(j) of the
document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (f) establishes that each day of violation
is a separate violation.
Subsection (g) sets out the process and requirements
for the commissioner to impose a civil penalty for
violations of a fish habitat permit.
Subsection (h) allows the commissioner to ask the
attorney general to seek an injunction to suspend an
activity where a person has failed to comply with a
notice of violation from the commissioner.
Subsection (i) gives the commissioner the authority,
after notice, to repair damage caused by violations
that have not been corrected and to hold the violator
liable for the costs.
Subsection (j) applies fine amounts set by the Supreme
Court for citations issued by ADF&G. This allows for
ADF&G to write tickets for violations that can be
handled without the involvement of a state prosecutor.
MR. GRUENING stated that subsection (j) went hand-in-hand
with the previous section that gave them the authority to
issue the citation. This would give the court the
authority to set the fine amounts for citations, he said.
2:04:04 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 11 on page 16, line 7
through page 17, line 21, to subsection (k) in the document
titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Subsection (k) clarifies that the definition of
"anadromous fish habitat" is consistent with the
meaning provided throughout the chapter.
MR. GRUENING stated that the rest of the changes in Sections 12-
17 of the bill were technical changes in order to account for
clerical changes, renumbering, inserting the new statutes, and
references, which do not have any substantive effect.
2:04:24 PM
MR. GRUENING referred to Section 18, page 20, line 13 of the
document titled, "HB 199 Sectional Analysis version M," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Repeal of 16.05.851 and 16.05.896.
This section repeals 16.05.851 and 16.05.896. The new
sections and permitting structure render the sections
obsolete.
MR. GRUENING clarified that AS 16.05.851 is the exemption of the
Fishway Act that allows a person to instead of providing passage
to establish an onsite hatchery below the blockage, enhance and
offsite hatchery, or start an offsite hatchery, which was
previously discussed.
2:04:45 PM
MR. GRUENING stated that AS 16.05.896 was just referenced. It
provided that if someone failed to notify the commissioner and
caused material damage on anadromous fish habitat, which would
be a Class A misdemeanor. He indicated this provision is still
in the bill in another section.
2:05:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to proposed AS 16.05.897
[page 15, line 10] to applicability of permitting requirements.
He asked for further clarification on when the grandfathering
provision appeared and if it has changed in substance from
Version M to Version I. He understood the bill has gone through
many iterations.
MR. GRUENING responded that this language first appeared in
Version [N], but the language has remained unchanged since
Version I, which referenced all authorizations required by law.
Previously in Version N, it referenced on "state"
authorizations.
2:06:18 PM
MR. GRUENING provided a brief history. He explained that the
original grandfather clause [in Version N] did not include
renewals or minor authorizations in perpetuity. The original
version of the grandfather clause [Version N] referenced
required "state" authorizations, but the language was changed to
"all" authorizations. During a meeting with the Alaska Power
Association, it was pointed out that some hydroelectric projects
have authorizations that pre-dated statehood, such as the
Snettisham hydroelectric project in Juneau. He reiterated that
the grandfather language has remained unchanged since Version I.
2:06:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the proposed language
in AS 16.05.901(f), which establishes that each day of violation
is a separate violation. He wondered if that concept presently
exists in current law for permit violations.
MR. GRUENING responded that he would need to check the statutes.
He said his inclination was that language in [AS.16.05].871
stipulated it; however, he was unsure. He offered to research
it further and provide it to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS thanked him for the reference. He
was curious because the House State Affairs Committee has been
considering violations for fire-life safety issues.
2:08:44 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 199 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Resume for Orville Huntington Redacted.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Supporting Document Al Cain ATA 03.31.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Resume for Alan Cain Redacted.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Supporting Document Orville Huntington ATA 03.31.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Supporting Document Orville Huntington YDFDA 03.20.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Supporting Document Al Cain UFA 04.02.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 199 Sectional Analysis Version M 04.04.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 ver I 03.30.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 ver M 04.02.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| Supporting Document HB 199 Nondalton 04.04.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Explanation of Changes version I to M 04.04.18.pdf |
HFSH 4/5/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |