Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/19/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB360 | |
| HB365 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 360-INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT & COMMISSION
2:15:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 360, "An Act enacting the Interstate Mining
Compact and relating to the compact; relating to the Interstate
Mining Commission; and providing for an effective date."
2:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB
360 on behalf of the House State Affairs Standing Committee,
sponsor. He said the mining industry has been historically the
cornerstone of Alaska's economy and is getting even more
significant. Currently, Alaska has seven operating mines and
employs more than 200 people in good, high paying jobs. The
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is a multi-state
governmental organization representing the natural resource and
environmental protection interests of its various member states.
The compact's purpose is to advance the protection and
restoration of land, water, and other resources affected by
mining. The IMCC is the collective voice of the mining states
in Washington, DC. He said HB 360 would authorize Alaska to
participate in IMCC as a full voting member. Currently, Alaska
is only an associate member and cannot vote.
2:17:46 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he will provide his
perspective on HB 360 and the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission. He pointed out that Alaska's mining activity has
been significantly increasing over the last 10 years with seven
mines now operating and significantly contributing to the
economies of the state and local areas. All are working well
from an environmental perspective, in large part due to a strong
state permitting and regulatory process. Along with the
increased mining activity has been increased public discussion
about mining and its impacts, and some have questioned the
strength of Alaska's permitting process. While [DNR] believes
it is a strong process, it also believes the process can be
improved and strengthened. Per the governor's initiative, [DNR]
is scrubbing its permitting processes from top to bottom.
2:19:09 PM
MR. FOGELS said one key thing DNR is working on in trying to
improve its permitting process for mining and other resource
sectors is improving its relationship with the federal agencies
and the federal government. This is because the federal
processes are typically the timeline drivers for each of these
resource development projects, and that is why the Interstate
Mining Compact Commission is so important to the State of
Alaska. He said the Interstate Mining Compact Commission brings
together the mining and environmental regulatory programs from
25 member states and the IMCC is a very robust mechanism for
information exchange. Additionally, the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission brings with it the full force of 25 states
when it talks with congressmen and testifies at hearings in
Washington, DC. In addition to being a very powerful voice in
Congress, the IMCC has discussions with federal permitting
agencies at the headquarters level in Washington, DC.
2:21:35 PM
MR. FOGELS provided an example of how the IMCC has helped the
interests of the states and Alaska in particular. Recently the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started an initiative
where it is looking at possibly taking over bonding for hard
rock mining in the nation. All the mining states are
tremendously worried about this initiative because the bonding
piece is the very end of a long permitting process and if EPA
takes over that bonding piece it threatens to take over the
entire permitting process by the other states. He said the IMCC
has done a spectacular job of bringing all states together to
dialog with EPA, to debate, to provide information, and to
educate the EPA on what is actually involved in developing a
bond for a significant hard rock mine.
MR. FOGELS noted he is currently the governor's designee to the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission and in this role he has
seen the benefits Alaska has gained from this organization as an
associate member. He said HB 360 is a good piece of legislation
and Alaska would be very well served by becoming a full member
of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission.
2:22:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why Alaska has not joined the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission before.
MR. FOGELS replied Alaska has been an associate member for about
six years and he thinks the reason Alaska has not joined the
IMCC to date is that it is not an easy process because the state
must pass legislation. There is also a fiscal consideration to
becoming a full member because the dues go up. He understood
the fiscal note is $60,000 with $40,000 of that for dues. He
explained that a complicated dues formula is spread out amongst
all the states - half is spread out evenly between the states
and half is pro-rated depending on the value of mineral
production in each state. He added that in recent years the
level of engagement with the federal agencies has really gone up
as Alaska tries to get resource development projects permitted
within the state. Alaska must work smarter with the federal
agencies, which has elevated the importance of the IMCC to
Alaska.
2:24:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, noting that five other states are
associate members, inquired what the benefits are and what the
difference is between being an associate member and a full
member.
MR. FOGELS responded the single biggest benefit is that Alaska
would be a voting member. Right now Alaska participates in all
the meetings, a tremendous value with the information exchange,
but it does not participate as a voting member sitting on some
of the committees. He added he thinks it important for Alaska
to pay its dues to this organization because the more full
members the more powerful IMCC's voice in Washington, DC.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what things a member of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission would actually vote on.
MR. FOGELS answered he could provide details in this regard but
deferred to IMCC executive director Gregory Conrad to provide
the information.
2:25:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI drew attention to the IMCC's Interstate
Mining Compact background paper which states on page 1 that by
adopting the compact the member states obligate themselves to
undertake and maintain certain types of programs. He inquired
what those programs would be.
MR. FOGELS replied predominantly those are regulatory programs
for the mining industry. When the compact was first enacted in
the 1960s and 1970s the state of environmental regulation for
mining was nowhere near what it is today. The original intent
of the compact was to get the states together to develop strong
mine regulatory and permitting programs. At this point, Alaska
has already built its environmental regulatory program for the
mining industry, so has already met that part of the obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether Alaska would be obligated
to adopt more stringent regulations if the IMCC were to adopt
regulations more stringent than the state's.
MR. FOGELS responded the state would not be obligated to that at
all. He said he thinks there is a provision specifically in the
compact language that nothing in the compact can supersede a
state's laws or regulations.
2:27:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the IMCC is just commenting or
is it negotiating with the federal government in regard to the
EPA bonding issue. If the IMCC is negotiating, he asked whether
Alaska be more bound by that agreement with the federal
government as a voting member than as a non-voting member.
MR. FOGELS answered he does not believe Alaska would. The role
IMCC has played in the bonding initiative has been to bring the
states together and call the EPA to meetings with all the states
by teleconference and in person, and the commission submits
comments on behalf of all the states to the federal agencies.
So, the negotiation that goes on is with the states and the
federal agency. It is sort of an advisory role so nothing is
binding. The idea is to talk sense into a federal agency that
is working some initiative that may be adverse to the states'
interests. Whatever that federal agency ends up doing is what
will be binding on all the state in the end.
2:29:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised the Interstate Mining Compact is
different than other compacts where restrictions in the compact
apply to all member states, so Alaska would not be bound by the
Interstate Mining Compact.
MR. FOGELS concurred, saying the IMCC is an advisory,
facilitating, and lobbying body for the states' regulatory
programs. It does not pass any rules or requirements beyond
what is in the current compact language. He understood the only
real requirement is that Alaska has a regulatory program in
place.
2:30:14 PM
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Herron, offered his
belief that Alaska would be the first western state to join the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, although North Dakota or
South Dakota might be full members. The other western states
are associate members at this time. In further response, he
said his perspective on the reason for this slow participation
is that when the IMCC originated in the 1960s and 1970s it was
primarily East Coast coal-related states, so the IMCC had a very
strong coal focus over the years. Recently he has seen a shift
to some of the non-coal issues, which has been very valuable.
More of the western states are now starting to pay attention and
realize that the IMCC is going to be a valuable tool and
organization to join. At least two or three other western
states are actively pursuing full membership at this time.
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Munoz, explained that
the commission's advocacy is for issues and regulatory programs
of the states and not for specific projects.
2:32:59 PM
GREGORY CONRAD, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC), offered testimony in support of HB 360. He
noted Alaska has been an associate member of the IMCC since
2006, during which time the state has learned about the benefits
and services provided by IMCC. On the basis of this experience
the state has chosen to move forward with HB 360 to become a
full IMCC member. He explained that upon becoming a full member
through the enactment of HB 360, Alaska would have a formal vote
in guiding the direction of the compact. Alaska would also be
in a position to chair the compact's various standing committees
and help lead the compact in directions favorable to both Alaska
and the other member states. Alaska would continue to enjoy the
other benefits to which it has been exposed over the past six
years, including access to all IMCC communications, meetings,
programs, and initiatives.
MR. CONRAD said Alaska's participation as a full member would
also be understood by those who work with the compact on a
regular basis, including Congress and federal agencies. The
presence of IMCC in Washington, DC, allows it to monitor federal
agency and congressional initiatives that might impact states'
rights as well as development constraints on mineral issues.
Alaska's participation in the IMCC would open avenues for the
state to be heard in unique and valuable ways not otherwise
available to it and to be supported with the clout that comes
from 24 states speaking together as one voice. Since the IMCC
focuses solely on mining and related environmental protection
issues with the federal government, it is able to delve deeper
into the mining-related concerns that matter most to Alaska.
2:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI again drew attention to the IMCC's
Interstate Mining Compact background paper which states [on page
1] that by adopting the compact the member states obligate
themselves to undertake and maintain certain types of programs.
He asked whether Mr. Conrad has reviewed Alaska's laws to see
whether the state currently has those programs in place.
MR. CONRAD replied the key aspect of this is that the IMCC is
not a regulatory body, so the organization does not as a matter
of course require regulation by the states. The IMCC advocates
and encourages states to develop regulatory and other programs
in the area of mineral resource development and protection that
would demonstrate leadership by the states in these areas. He
said his understanding is that Alaska's laws and regulations are
in very good stead.
2:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that of the 19 current member
states and 5 associate members, 3 of the top 10 mining states
are absent - the western states of Arizona, California, and
Montana. Additionally, Colorado and New Mexico are only
associate members. He inquired why other states have not yet
joined given how long the IMCC has been around.
MR. CONRAD concurred with Mr. Fogels' statement that when the
IMCC began in the 1960s and 1970s it was primarily focused on
coal-related issues. National legislation, the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act [of 1977], was critical for the
states because it had a state lead concept. The coal states
were the initial states that joined and formed the compact and
advocated for many of the key legislative proposals in
Washington, DC. Over time the IMCC has expanded its scope and
focus beyond coal issues. The current focus in Washington, DC,
is as much on non-coal and hard rock issues as on coal issues.
Over the last 10-15 years the western states have seen the value
of being part of an organization that is focused solely on
mining issues for the states. Therefore, more western states
are becoming involved in IMCC, beginning with New Mexico and
recent associate member, Colorado. He said he has been in
negotiations and discussions with Arizona, Colorado, and
Montana. He met with Nevada's mineral resources committee two
weeks ago and Nevada is seriously considering coming in as a
member state. It is a process for becoming involved. The newer
associate member states have gained an understanding of the work
of the compact and are now moving toward full membership. The
IMCC is working on development of legislation in New Mexico,
Colorado, and Utah and it is a matter of finding the appropriate
opportunity to introduce bills that are currently in draft form.
2:40:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether IMCC is just now starting
to get new members since the original group of coal states.
MR. CONRAD responded the newest members joining are almost all
western members with hard rock influence, which has been the
impetus for their interest. The newest member states are the
ones similarly situated to Alaska regarding issues, concerns,
and regulatory focus.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified she is asking whether any new
states have already entered IMCC or are new states just starting
to enter the organization. She inquired whether the 19 [full
member] states are the original coal states and whether the
associate members are thinking about joining because the IMCC
has expanded [its focus].
MR. CONRAD answered it has been a process by which states have
become exposed to and become involved in the IMCC. The
originating legislation required four states for the compact to
be in place and effective. Kentucky was the first state to join
in 1966, followed by Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
West Virginia, and South Carolina. North and South Carolina do
not have coal development, so a number of states have been
involved that do not have coal. This newest impetus for
becoming involved began in 2000 with New Mexico and on through
2007 with Colorado. Now, Nevada and Montana are looking at the
IMCC.
2:43:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted Alaska is considering several coal
deposits for strip mining and is considering several open pit
prospects as well as several underground prospects for hard rock
mining. He asked whether Mr. Conrad is referring to open pit or
underground mining when referring to hard rock mining. He
further asked whether Alaska's interests would align with those
of the other 19 voting states.
MR. CONRAD believed they do align. He said the IMCC has a very
broad range of interests from the states in all types of mining.
So, when he says "hard rock", perhaps "non-coal" may be more
embracing, as well as the different methods of mining -
underground, surface, open pit. The work of the compact is
generally driven by the national issues that are before the
federal agencies or Congress; for example, the bonding issue
mentioned by Mr. Fogels, which pervades all types of mining and
minerals. Another area IMCC is working on is mine safety and
health legislation, which embraces both coal and non-coal and
different types of mines and mining. The IMCC has been involved
with the issue of coal waste and coal combustion waste and other
kinds of mine waste. Depending upon where the issue is being
driven from, the IMCC covers a plethora of different types of
mining. As a result, there is interest from all of the member
states in development of these particular issues, whether before
Congress or agencies. The states find themselves generally very
well aligned when it comes to developing IMCC's position on any
particular legislative or regulatory issue and the IMCC operates
generally by consensus.
2:47:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that Montana has enacted a prohibition
on the use of cyanide. He inquired whether that issue has come
up and how it was handled or not handled at the compact level.
MR. CONRAD replied that is a good example given there has been
concern about the use of cyanide at mining operations over the
years and in the recent past. In the context of the compact, a
state will bring an issue to the table to share information in
terms of how it is impacting that state from the regulatory
perspective; or, if there is a particular rule of a national
scope, it will give all the states an opportunity to weigh in on
that issue. States are usually not positioning themselves with
respect to what is happening in the respective states other than
being aware of that and offering advice and counsel to a
particular state that may be dealing with a particular challenge
associated with that issue. Unless it is at a national level in
terms of a federal rule making, the compact would generally not
be taking a position on what is going on in a particular state,
it is left to the state itself.
2:50:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting Article VIII of the compact, Entry
into Force and Withdrawal, asked whether any state has had the
need to withdraw.
MR. CONRAD responded the only state to withdraw was New Mexico
in 1983, but it rejoined in 2000.
2:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recollected that a mine in the Juneau area
experienced many years of difficulty and delays with the US.
Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit. She asked how the IMCC
would help to communicate to the federal agencies that there
could be problems with the permitting in a particular situation.
MR. CONRAD answered that the issue of requirements for 404
permits has been brought before the IMCC by several states
struggling with it, including Alaska. The benefit is sharing
the type of challenges being faced so the state can benefit from
the advice of the other states in how those states have been
dealing with the corps. To the extent that the corps has
recently moved forward with a rule making on nationwide permits
for coal mines, the IMCC would be able to develop a position on
that rule making and communicate that through formal written
comments, testimony at public hearings, and potentially raising
it as part of congressional oversight hearings.
2:52:57 PM
MR. FOGELS, in response to Representative Herron, said the
administration supports HB 360.
2:53:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 360.
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers,
stated that his nonprofit trade association, which represents
the major mines and developmental projects in the state of
Alaska, supports HB 360. He said his organization believes
Alaska has one of the most rigorous permitting processes in the
world for mining because Alaska's process is rigorous, science
based, transparent, and predictable. However, what might be
rigorous one day might not be the next and the only way to stay
on top of the game is by finding ways to continuously improve.
One of the ways to do that is by sharing information with peers
and in this case those peers are other mining producing states.
As a full member of the IMCC, Alaska would be able to exchange
information regarding best regulatory and reclamation practices
with states that have lots of experience from mining coal for
many years, which is important to Alaska as it looks to develop
new coal deposits in the state.
MR. SATRE maintained that in regard to metal mining this is the
chance for Alaska to take the lead amongst western states to
show the West how mining is done responsibly in Alaska and how
everybody in the West should be doing it. This would lay the
foundation for a properly regulated mining economy throughout
the West. Rather than asking why other states are not part of
the IMCC the question should be, "How can Alaska take a
leadership role in this?" The state can be a policy leader by
being a full member of the IMCC.
2:55:32 PM
MR. SATRE said a main reason his organization supports full
membership in the IMCC is echoed on the IMCC web site.
Paraphrasing from the site he related that the IMCC was founded
on the premise that the mining industry is one of the most basic
and important to the nation. At the same time it is essential
that an appropriate balance be struck between the need for
minerals and the protection of the environment, but the IMCC
recognizes that individual states have the power to establish
and maintain programs of land and other resource development
restoration regulations appropriate to cope with the effects of
mining. The IMCC would not shift the responsibility of these
programs. On the other hand, the member states believe a united
position in dealing with the federal government affords a
decided advantage. The commission feels strongly that the
collective voice of many is important in its efforts to preserve
and advocate states' rights. Mr. Satre added that if the State
of Alaska is going to continue to seek primacy on permitting and
regulatory issues, the IMCC is the most appropriate forum to do
it from the mining industry's standpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports HB 360 and asked whether
Mr. Satre has heard of anybody opposing Alaska joining the IMCC.
MR. SATRE answered that he personally has not.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
2:57:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he is favorably disposed to HB 360, but
noted he has not heard comment from anyone in his district or
from individual mines about HB 360. He requested the bill be
held until he can hear from them.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 360 and said he plans to move the
bill out of committee on 3/21/12.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0360A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB 360 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB360-DNR-MLW-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| IMCC Background Information.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg. Research Interstate Compacts In AK Statute.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0365A.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Amendment A.1.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| Dvex Presentation by UAS 1.23.12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species I.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSG Capitol Ideas feature article on Aquatic Invasive Species II.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB365 UFA Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-SWM-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DEC-WQ-03-15-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DFG-SFD-03-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DHSS-EPI-3-16-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365-DNR-AG-03-17-12.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB365 Comment - Wurtz.PDF |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB360 IMCC Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 360 |
| HB365 Support - Anch Park Foundation.pdf |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365 Conceptual Amend - Seaton.docx |
HRES 3/19/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 365 |