Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/09/2015 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| Overview: Wetland Mitigation | |
| SB70 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2015
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Mia Costello, Vice Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: WETLANDS MITIGATION
- HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 70
"An Act relating to exceptions from designation as a special
purpose site under art. VIII, sec. 7 of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska for portions of Denali State Park, Captain Cook
State Recreation Area, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, and
Willow Creek State Recreation Area to allow leasing a right-of-
way for a natural gas pipeline."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Opposing the proposed designation of an Aleutian Islands
National Marine Sanctuary.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Urging the federal government to empower the state to protect
the state's access to affordable and reliable electrical
generation.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Supporting the introduction and enactment of federal legislation
acknowledging that the federal government is financially
responsible under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for
the remediation of contaminated land subject to conveyance under
the Act; urging the United States Department of the Interior to
implement the six recommendations to identify and clean up the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands in its 1998 report to
the United States Congress; and urging the President of the
United States and the United States Congress to remediate and
make free from pollutants lands in the state conveyed under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 70
SHORT TITLE: GAS PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY; PARKS;REFUGES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/06/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/15 (S) RES, FIN
03/09/15 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA LONGAN, Executive Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview of wetlands compensatory
mitigation and DNR's efforts to better understand the federal
decision making process. Evaluated the state's options to get
more involved with wetlands mitigation.
BEN ELLIS, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 70.
DON PERRIN, Acting Coordinator
State Pipeline Coordinator's Office
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 70.
FRANK RICHARDS, Vice President
Engineering and Program Management
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions on SB 70.
MIKE THOMPSON, Environmental Regulatory and Lands Manager
Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 70.
JOHN HUTCHINSON, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions regarding SB 70.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:31 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Costello, Coghill, Stoltze and Chair
Giessel.
^Overview: Wetland Mitigation
Overview: Wetland Mitigation
3:31:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the first order of business to be the
overview of wetlands mitigation in Alaska.
She recognized Senator Bishop in the audience.
3:31:18 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
SARA LONGAN, Executive Director, Office of Project Management
and Permitting (OPMP), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Anchorage, Alaska, said she would be discussing wetlands
compensatory mitigation and DNR's efforts to better understand
the federal decision making process as well as evaluate the
state's options to get more involved with wetlands mitigation.
MS. LONGAN began with a general overview of federal regulations
that require wetlands compensatory mitigation. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, one of the multiple and
major permits necessary specifically to place fill into wetlands
or waters of the United States. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) developed regulations commonly referred
to as the Wetlands Mitigation Rule. The ACE must comply with
these regulations and the EPA maintains veto authority. While
the ACE leads this effort, it is in full consultation and
coordination with EPA and other federal agencies.
Project applicants go through great efforts to minimize impacts
to wetlands and aquatic resources. They are required to produce
aquatic site assessments (ASA), very recently referred to as
wetlands functional analyses. This science is very critical,
because the ACE uses it to determine the appropriate category of
wetland impacts for purposes of assigning a mitigation ratio
that can be translated into an in-lieu mitigation fee (ILF). She
observed that the regulatory guidance particularly regarding the
parameters necessary to fulfill these ASAs have been changing
over the last few years and total mitigation costs are
increasing.
MS. LONGAN said project applicants must offset the unavoidable
impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources and that there are
various ways to achieve those goals:
1. Restoration
2. Enhancement
3. Creation
4. Preservation
There are three mechanisms to do that:
1. Mitigation bank credits
2. In-lieu fee (ILF) program credits
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation, watershed approach
It is required and preferred that these three preferences and
options are conducted in the same watershed where the impacts
are taking place.
3:35:17 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked where in the process of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental impact
statement (EIS) the discussion about the scope of mitigation
happens.
MS. LONGAN answered late in the process at end of NEPA
evaluations.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked for examples of enhancements. For example
are the extensive culvert repairs done statewide for fish
habitat and tsunami debris cleanup, which didn't even originate
here, comparable mitigation measures?
MS. LONGAN answered that it's on a case by case basis under the
ACE purview in consultation with the EPA. DNR is engaging now
and more consistently participating in those conversations,
because they tend to agree with him that culvert replacements or
debris contamination site cleanup should qualify for wetlands
compensatory mitigation.
SENATOR STOLTZE said he didn't see the nexus between the good
idea and some type of action and asked if the state agency needs
more assistance in engaging in the process. Is more coordination
between the borough and state entities needed?
MS. LONGAN answered that her presentation would describe efforts
under way at DNR to actually establish and seek its own approval
from the ACE to run its own mitigation program.
3:38:10 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN joined the committee.
MS. LONGAN described a mitigation bank as a wetlands area that
has been restored, established, enhanced or preserved then set
aside to be used to offset unavoidable impacts. Upon approval,
permittees purchase credits from the bank based on wetlands
functions and number of acres of restored. The mitigation bank
sponsor is responsible for the success of the mitigation plan.
Offsite mitigation is allowed.
Under the in-lieu fee program (ILF), the permittee provides
funds to an in-lieu fee mitigation sponsor (non-profit or public
agency) that are used to build and maintain mitigation sites.
The success of the mitigation plan relies upon the ILF sponsor
and mitigation typically occurs "off-site." The difference is
that mitigation occurs typically after a project is permitted.
SENATOR COGHILL said she didn't have to answer now, but the
first thing that came to his mind was accountability for a
mitigation sponsor.
MS. LONGAN said there is another option for a project applicant
(the permittee) to develop and seek approval of their own
mitigation plan. This can be done on-site or off-site. Simple
arithmetic. The higher the mitigation number the larger the
total mitigation costs.
She noted that OPMP is hearing mainly from the mining companies,
but perhaps others are impacted, but since the implementation of
the 2008 rule, permittee responsible is occurring much less
often in Alaska.
She explained that the Mitigation Ratio is an aggregate index
used to calculate the gain and loss of wetlands to be adjusted
based on the functions and qualities of those wetlands. This is
simple arithmetic: the higher the wetlands mitigation ratios
are, the greater number of acres are necessary for offset
purposes. Therefore, also, is the higher total mitigation cost.
In Alaska, mitigations ratios typically range from 1:1 up to 3:1
depending on wetland category and type of mitigation. Ratios for
preservation, for example, will be set differently compared to
restoration or enhancement.
MS. LONGAN said some mitigation ratios are 10:1 and there is a
list of factors that federal agencies may use to increase these
mitigation ratios. That can include whether the wetlands being
impacted or the aquatic resources are used to support a
threatened or endangered species. If a federal agency deems
those same resources as very rare, again there is a list of
criteria that can offer them the opportunity to have higher
mitigation ratios.
3:41:25 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said his understanding is that those are more
subjective.
MS. LONGAN responded that this is one of the reasons that
compelled DNR and OPMP to pay closer attention to how federal
decisions were being made. That is why she can report that over
the last year and a half, OPMP has gone through some pretty
resource-intense efforts to get more engaged with the federal
agencies. They do have concerns when perhaps subjective federal
decisions are made that are increasing these ratios as high as
10:1 or higher and want to understand what science is being used
to make those determinations.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if somewhere along the line she would give
them a criteria baseline for things the department would look
at.
MS. LONGAN replied that they could do that, but it is early in
the process.
3:42:42 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked where the authority came from to change
the criteria. Was it from Congress or were federal agencies
taking things into their own hands and providing for no voice
from the state?
MS. LONGAN answered that the mitigation ratio criteria is
actually listed in the 2008 federal rule.
SENATOR MICCICHE said Alaska has 174 million acres of wetlands
and asked if Alaska's wetlands are treated differently than
other states with less wetlands remaining.
MS. LONGAN replied that DNR's observation is no and explained
that a 1994 federal report called out specific unique
characteristics of Alaska that the federal agencies have not
been taking into consideration as they have made recent
mitigation decisions.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if there is an index of formulas and
ratios that one could look at.
MS. LONGAN replied that is precisely what DNR wants to
understand better. They have looked at ratios used in other
states in the Lower 48 and she will report on how they make
those determinations as well as how they establish fees.
SENATOR STEDMAN said some constituents had complained about
running into the mitigation issues when trying to develop small
areas of four or five acres.
3:45:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
3:46:01 PM
MS. LONGAN said she would discuss that, but first she wanted to
describe how the 2008 mitigation rule was developed and why it
is difficult to implement in Alaska. When the current federal
"No Net Loss Policy" - which states that where there is an
impact there shall be no net loss of wetlands and aquatic
resources - was being developed, Alaska was not experiencing a
rapid decline of wetlands as was the case in the Lower 48.
The Alaska Wetlands Initiative compelled the federal agencies to
produce a report in 1994 that described the unique
characteristics of Alaska's wetlands. This report concluded that
a flexible regulatory approach was necessary, emphasizing the
"practicability" and "flexibility" of the regulatory program to
reflect circumstances in Alaska. This initiative is not
currently in effect.
3:47:01 PM
MS. LONGAN said Alaska has 174 million acres, 43 percent of its
land mass, of wetlands. This means limited lands are available
that would be eligible for wetland compensatory mitigation. It's
difficult to comply with the rule, because wetlands can only
qualify to be used for mitigation if there is an imminent threat
to them. Because of our pristine nature and small inventory of
previously disturbed wetlands, it is difficult to have enough
wetland credits eligible and compliant with the rule. Other
limiting factors unique to Alaska are that there is only one
federally approved ILF compensatory mode mitigation program
sponsor for projects proposed on the Arctic Slope that has a lot
of oil and gas and resource development activities.
She said the ILF program sponsors must produce an "instrument,"
a report describing their methodologies in terms of how they are
to manage their ILF program. This report is submitted to the ACE
ultimately for approval. Some of the Alaska ILF programs will
disclose what their cost per acre include. Some examples of cost
per acre credits in Alaska can range from $44,000 up to $125,000
per acre, the larger number more typically seen in southeast
portions of the state. These costs are established solely by the
ILF program sponsor and they are driven by the type of wetland,
the value, and the geographic area.
OPMP investigated what other ILF programs are like in the Lower
48 and readily admits that the costs are sometimes much smaller
than what states like New Jersey, Florida, or others are
charging. OPMP is hearing from the operators that collectively
an increase of the mitigation ratios as well as significant cost
per acre is burdensome in Alaska because of its large size.
There is very little existing infrastructure in some regions of
the state, so the proximal distance for project applicants to
get to their project site collectively with all the other
factors, raise the chances that these mitigation costs will run
the risk of making a once commercially viable project perhaps no
longer economically feasible.
MS. LONGAN said there are three ILF programs and one is being
proposed; there are five mitigation banks and four being
proposed in Alaska.
3:50:02 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO mentioned that ConocoPhillips' Moose's Tooth
project is being required to mitigate "travesty wells," which
are solely the responsibility and cause of the federal
government and asked if this is the first time a private company
is being required to mitigate on federally owned land.
MS. LONGAN answered that it is the first case in OPMP's
experience, but it was placed on hold as the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is now undertaking the effort to develop an
NPRA regional mitigation plan. Today she wanted to underscore
that she is talking about a very specific regulatory function
for wetlands compensatory mitigation. Equally important and what
happens through the NEPA process is the capital "M" mitigation
which means that project applicants are mitigating for all other
impacts: from subsistence to wildlife and air quality. At
Moose's Tooth, DNR saw those two and the wetlands compensatory
mitigation were getting conjoined in a way that OPMP perhaps
felt that some "double-dipping" was occurring. The BLM listened
to this concern, but it's another reason why DNR is wanting to
get more involved.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if anyone had litigated the compensatory
program as a taking on patented land anywhere in the U.S. before
the Clean Water Act.
MS. LONGAN said she hadn't heard of that occurring, but she
would look into it.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for a list of properties in mitigation
banks, because there is an interest in changing the status if
they can. The area he represents is a rainforest and people
don't have the capital to litigate this and the fee is viewed as
extortion. He asked what happens to the private land owners who
inadvertently breach this rule.
MS. LONGAN said she would investigate that issue further for
him.
3:56:03 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if Native corporation lands come under the
404 Permit process also.
MS. LONGAN answered yes. She explained that approximately a year
and a half ago, OPMP was asked to creatively think about the
problem and to identify goals for solutions. They asked
themselves how DNR or anyone could get more involved with
wetland mitigation. A limiting factor is that so few lands in
Alaska are privately owned.
However, everyone is familiar with the fact that the state owns
and manages a very large portfolio of acreage throughout the
state and this may be an opportunity. They asked the ACE about
suitability and implementation questions and they have been very
supportive. In fact, they have been collaborating on identifying
and developing an Alaska-specific wetland compensatory
mitigation program.
According to the ACE, the requirements for DNR to develop a
prospectus and submit it for approval to run a state-managed
umbrella in lieu fee program (ILF). To do this, DNR must
inventory its state lands with the best science and information
available. This can be done using multi-layered screening
criteria and geographic information system (GIS) audit developed
in collaboration with mitigation specialists.
3:59:00 PM
She explained that the federal agencies have had a statewide
interagency review team, the group that evaluates the existing
ILF program and mitigation banks that are seeking approval. This
is paid back significant dividends, because it has allowed OPMP,
DNR and other state agencies a seat at the table when those
conversations are being had.
As soon as OPMP was learning more about the compensatory
wetlands mitigation process, they realized that although they
are part of the NEPA conversation throughout, they never heard
about the specific regulatory function making decisions about
wetlands compensatory mitigation. She thanked the ACE and the
BLM, because in this example OPMP suggested having the
conversation as part of NEPA. That, in fact, occurred for the
Greater Moose's Tooth project.
She said the state tries to partner with the federal government
where it makes sense to develop a general permit. Companies have
been asking for more consistency in wetlands compensatory
mitigation. Where this goal hasn't been achieved, at least the
federal and state agencies are having the conversation.
A major part of seeking approval from the Corps of Engineers
will be an inventory of state lands. A screen shot of ongoing
efforts revealed DNR mapping using sophisticated tools in areas
of the state where just a few years ago they weren't adequately
mapped. This is a key part if the state is to be successful in
seeking approval from the ACE to develop and ILF program.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the federal government had been doing
any GIS mapping on BLM and forestry lands.
MS. LONGAN replied that mapping is taking place among the
federal agencies, particularly BLM, but she didn't know how much
progress had been made on any particular parcel.
4:01:18 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the wetland mitigation ratios on
federal lands are more generous.
MS. LONGAN answered that as of about two years ago, OPMP didn't
know the answer to that, and that is why state participation on
the State Interagency Review Team is so important. Restoration
projects take place on federal lands, but she thought that the
mitigation uses private lands for preservation purposes and
didn't know how much active mitigation banking was taking place
on federal lands.
4:06:00 PM
She said the DNR and the state can help by offering options to
wetlands compensatory mitigation. Things like the 2008 federal
rule listing the advantages of having non-profit and government
agencies act as third party mitigation sponsors is in the
state's favor, because profit isn't driving the necessity for
running these programs. Thirty-one other states are already
involved in mitigation, 25 states run mitigation banks and 12
states run ILF programs.
She said that DEC has been taking advantage of grant
opportunities and that EPA's wetland program development grant
funding, although small, won't be enough to cover all of the
efforts necessary for the state to seek approval to run an ILF
program, but it's helpful. Qualified recipients can receive
grant money to develop a comprehensive monitoring and assessment
program, improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation,
or refine the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic
resources, very important principles to DNR, DEC and ADF&G. They
feel they have a good sense of how this is impacting the larger
scale resource development, but they want to know how it will
impact the little guys.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he knows that two of his constituents
aren't going to subdivide anymore, because it's not worth the
headaches. He wanted the state to be the sole holder of all the
mitigation banks and look at the feasibility of absorbing the
current ones and to be involved in the payment program, too. If
the federal government insists that it stays the way it was
10,000 years ago, so be it, but the state should be the one
holding the land.
4:09:45 PM
MS. LONGAN responded that none of the Lower 48 programs are
state-owned. Where the state was involved in the Lower 48 other
privately-owned ILF or mitigation banks were very likely
involved.
SENATOR COGHILL said that there was less than 2 percent private
property in Alaska and he guessed the Native lands would have
trust issues. When it comes to federal land, would that be put
into private holdings and if they don't do that why can't the
state keep the title under a wetland agreement?
MS. LONGAN felt confident that the state could raise that
interest to the ACE that has been collaborating so far to help
achieve those goals.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the Corps had taken lands into
mitigation outside of a watershed, because everything is
"greenfield" in Alaska and staying within a single watershed
area is going to be very difficult. Their own study might show
that there has to be some flexibility.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked the status of the state's mapping efforts
and the cost.
MS. LONGAN answered that to get approval to run an ILF program,
the state would need two years of mapping information available,
but if they continue on the path they are on, they could have a
prospectus submitted to the Corps of Engineers within six to
eight months.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if that timeline is achievable in the
current budget environment.
4:14:41 PM
MS. LONGAN answered that the funding that OPMP has had up to now
has made the efforts to date possible. OPMP receives program
receipt money and funds from outside sectors. They are doing
well with this funding, but have not secured funding for the
next fiscal year. The project applicants are the ones who have a
predominant concern in terms of the increasing mitigation costs.
She encouraged them to read the 1994 Wetland Initiative Report.
4:15:47 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said that he and Senator Bishop had been working
together on looking for a way to encourage the state to be the
recipient of lands in mitigation. However, the state should know
what the federal government does with its lands before it asks
to do things and asked the timeframe of understanding what the
federal management is going to be doing.
MS. LONGAN answered she would get that information to him very
quickly.
4:17:18 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked the cost for the Southeast Region, both
public and private, if it's available.
MS. LONGAN answered that she would get those estimates for him.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked Ms. Longan for her presentation
SB 70-GAS PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY;PARKS;REFUGES
4:18:45 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 70 to be up for consideration. She
invited Mr. Ellis and Mr. Perrin to the table.
4:19:34 PM
BEN ELLIS, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Juneau, Alaska, explained
that SB 70 will allow a gasline to go through four Alaska state
parks. He explained that when recreational land has been pulled
out of the general state land the multipurpose use has been
replaced by a specific use, in this case it would be recreation.
Because of the difference between Title 38 lands (general state
land administered by the Division of Mining, Land and Water) and
Title 41 land (state park lands) he does not have the ability to
do any type of long-term lease on Title 41 land. The concept of
title 41 is to lease for short periods of time of four or five
years to allow a concession or something similar to occupy an
area; Title 41 lands are not designed for long-term leasing that
the right-of-way for a pipeline would need. This bill addresses
that by allowing the four units mentioned to be used in a right-
of-way situation while still being managed for park intent.
4:21:48 PM
DON PERRIN, Acting Coordinator, State Pipeline Coordinator's
Office, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said the intent
of this bill is to allow for a pipeline corridor through Denali
State Park and three other identified state recreational areas
that are all under Title 41.
He said the State Pipeline Coordinator issued a 38.35 right-of-
way (ROW) lease to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC) in 2011. Presently it is a dis-contiguous lease because
of these Title 41 lands. This bill would allow them to apply the
Right-of-Way Leasing Act and have a contiguous 38.35 lease
through state lands.
He said the primary objective of the bill authorizes the lease
under the Right-of-Way Leasing Act. It requires that the
corridor be managed as park land and recreation areas until
leased under 38.35 and then returned to park land and
recreational areas upon termination of the lease. It also
provides supplemental requirements to reserve traditional means
of public access and minimizes the impact of the pipeline on
specific values of the park and recreation areas. This means
that the State Pipeline Coordinator's Office would work with the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to formulate and
establish stipulations and requirements of the lease that are
intended to protect the park values of those areas. It also
clarifies that it is in the DNR commissioner's power to delegate
condemnation authority to a lessee that does not apply within
these park area boundaries. In other words, they cannot condemn
this land for a pipeline.
Finally, Mr. Perrin explained that SB 70 would require that the
gas pipeline lease be issued before January 1, 2020.
MR. ELLIS explained that the bill is needed so there can be a
right-of-way lease through the four state park units: Denali
State Park and the recreational areas of Willow Creek, Nancy
Lake, and Captain Cook State Park.
4:25:29 PM
MR. PERRIN said one might ask why this bill does not include the
state game refuges. They believe that the 38.35 Right-of-Way
Leasing Act does apply in those areas and therefore they were
not included in the bill. Permitting for geotechnical and other
field work that will support the final application is being
conducted in those areas, as well. So, after discussion with the
Department of Law, they didn't feel they needed to include the
state game refuges. In regards to the two gasline projects, the
ASAP and AKLNG, the corridor that would be created through this
bill is basically what would be granted to AGDC upon review of
their amended application.
4:27:36 PM
History:
In 2012 the Corps of Engineers finalized their EIS and the ROW
was granted. It follows the DOTPF ROW along the Denali Highway,
but because it was through Title 41 lands, the department
determined the ROW Leasing Act didn't apply there.
In 2013, the AKLNG project came into being and the engineers for
both projects began working together in terms of the
geotechnical work needed for the ROW. This means core holes are
being drilled to assess the underlying soils to come up with the
best ROW. While it is a little early for AKLNG to finalize a
ROW, they believe this corridor will suffice for both projects
and any gasline project. Both projects are currently conducting
field work along that corridor to gather information that would
support an application at some point.
4:28:57 PM
MR. ELLIS said they had an organizational meeting with field
workers and this Wednesday the first work will begin.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how confident he is that this is the
line the "Big Three" are building.
MR. PERRIN answered that their confidence level is based on the
field work that is currently occurring. They won't know what the
final alignment is until FERC has completed its process for
AKLNG.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it's better to pass this now or to
wait.
MR. PERRIN answered if they could pass it now, it is enough land
to accommodate either project.
CHAIR GIESSEL said asked how much wiggle room there is if the
line moves.
MR. PERRIN answered there is a significant amount of wiggle
room, although the ASAP project could end up with something
other than the line.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how large the easement is.
4:31:44 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Vice President, Engineering and Program
Management, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC),
Anchorage, Alaska, invited Mike Thompson to answer it.
MIKE THOMPSON, Environmental Regulatory and Lands Manager,
Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) Project, Anchorage, Alaska,
answered that they are looking at 120 foot easement for both
construction and operations and a 300 foot buffer on both sides;
so a total of 750 feet. Any quarter section that touches that
buffer within 300 feet of that buffer was incorporated into the
corridor they are discussing right now. A quarter section is
about 1320 feet by 1320 feet. This is a fairly significant
buffer and ASAP's engineering team said it would meet their
needs.
SENATOR COSTELLO reminded them of the Creamer's Field issue and
asked what assurances the legislature has that the descriptions
are correct.
4:37:06 PM
MR. ELLIS answered that this is the description that they feel
assured with, but there may be modifications to it.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked Mr. Richards if these are accurate
descriptions of these properties.
4:38:20 PM
MR. RICHARDS said the land descriptions in Section 1 actually
came from AGDC. The reason they are comfortable with this is
because it provides a sufficient amount of area to make
modifications as they work with their partners, AKLNG, on a
common alignment.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how 750 feet compares to the
TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS) buffer and if there would be
public access through this corridor.
MR. ELLIS answered that they would envision working with the
least impact to the area and manage that through stipulations,
and it would still be open for people to cross.
4:41:17 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that language on page 4, line 9,
would reserve uses for typical use as opposed to leaving it up
to ROW law.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked what changes Mr. Ellis was anticipating
and how they related to HB 139.
MR. ELLIS replied that his earlier comment was more in a small
sense of movement. In other words, the ROW line they see now
will not be the final ROW line, but he was confident it will be
within the 750 foot ROW easement that this would grant.
He said they began reviewing HB 139 on Friday and couldn't do a
comparison at this time, but it will need to be done.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if he thought it would have de minimis
consequences for this project.
MR. ELLIS answered that one of the largest differences he could
see offhand is that HB 139 includes refuges within the
description. He would have to defer to the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game or the Department of Law as to whether it needs to
be in there.
MR. PERRIN added that HB 139 is still being reviewed, but it is
exclusive to AGDC and the ASAP project and not a pipeline in
general.
CHAIR GIESSEL said this bill would be held over and that
information should be available for the next hearing. They are
pretty concerned that parts won't be left out again.
4:46:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there were any impacts to hunting
or the ability to use firearms.
MR. ELLIS answered that would definitely be a negative impact on
hunting and using firearms near the corridor.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he saw any businesses being taken
by eminent domain with passage of this bill.
MR. ELLIS answered no, but that is a question for the Department
of Law.
4:48:00 PM
JOHN HUTCHINSON, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), Juneau, Alaska, said the final question about eminent
domain is one for someone involved with the pipeline projects.
There are several private inholdings within the state parks and
the question is if that alignment go through a private holding.
The bill requires the state to exercise eminent domain but it is
not actually authorized in several of the parks; the state is
required to purchase land rather than take it through eminent
domain. It's unlikely that there will be any takings within the
parks using eminent domain.
He also clarified that the corridor identified in this bill is
not actually the final ROW; it is a corridor of land through
which leasing would be authorized. The legislature would be
giving back to DNR the power to authorize at least somewhere
within this corridor the final construction corridor that Mr.
Thompson was talking about, which would be some small segment
within the legal description.
He said the Talerico bill takes a different approach in
authorizing leasing throughout the park; there is no set
corridor.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked which approach was preferable from a
legal standpoint.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that was a policy question. The
legislature is authorized to open this land for leasing and the
governor's bill takes a more minimalist approach in identifying
a corridor within which a lease is authorized to be issued. The
downside to that is that there is some uncertainty about where
the pipeline will finally cross. The upside is that the entire
park is not being opened to ROW leasing.
SENATOR COSTELLO said this sets a general guideline for the
area, but would this legislation have to be replaced or changed
at some point. Is it just a building block for the pipeline at
which some point they will know the specific route?
MR. HUTCHINSON answered no; the legislature would not have to
come back. This sets an area through which leasing is authorized
for 10 years until January 1, 2020. The only reason the
legislature would have to look at it again is if the pipeline is
in a dramatically different place.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if there is any practical difference
between saying we know this is the area that could change and
the Talerico blanket approach.
MR. HUTCHINSON answered that is a complicated question. One
advantage in the governor's approach is if there was a
challenge, the legislature had already looked at this particular
corridor, which would limit review of that decision by the
courts. A much broader bill would require lots of specific
circumstances leaving it more open to challenge.
4:54:19 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked Mr. Ellis to define what some of the
stakeholders are in this process from his division's standpoint.
MR. ELLIS answered that he had no discussions with stakeholders
on this process so far, but during the EIS of a previous
rendition meetings were held in Talkeetna, Trapper Creek and
other places where individuals made comments. He is in the
process of getting those comments. Alaska State Parks would
consider stakeholders to be various user groups in the area,
businesses and the MatSu Advisory Board.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked him to research whether firearms will be
allowed on the ROW. It is open to traditional uses except in
very specific cases like during construction.
4:57:16 PM
MR. ELLIS responded that his comment was about the construction
stage.
MR. PERRIN added that through the remainder of the current ROW
that exists (the 38.35 on state lands) the hunting analogy is
the same. Folks access and hunt along those non-park lands and
so the analogy would be the same in the park as outside the
park. It will need to be clarified.
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that under 49 CFR 192 requires
maintaining the ROW. So, actually there is improved access in
many situations.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the improved access is going
through wetland areas, would it be converted into an area that
can be walked or driven over.
MR. ELLIS answered that it is premature to say, but the intent
would be to use the "rails for trails" model where old railroad
beds were turned into hiking or ATV trails. And some level of
restoration must be looked at.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she would hold SB 70 for further review.
5:00:29 PM
Finding no further business to come before the committee, Chair
Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Committee meeting at 5:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SRES Wetland Mitigation March 9 2015.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB0070A.PDF |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| Fiscal Note-SB0070-1-2-030615-DNR-N.PDF |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Hearing Request.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Sectional Analysis .pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Supporting Document- (LAS 30116 AGDC Geotech State Parks Permit final signed 2015).pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Gov Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70 Briefing Paper .pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70-Supporting Document-MapCaptainCookSRA_11x17_150224.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70-Supporting Document-Map-Denali_11x17_150225r.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70-Supporting Document-Map-Nancy_Lake_SRA_11x17_150224.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB 70-Supporting Document-Map-WillowCreek_11x17_150224.pdf |
SRES 3/9/2015 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |