Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/30/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 77-LAND DISPOSALS/EXCHANGES; WATER RIGHTS
1:55:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 77, "An Act relating to the Alaska Land Act,
including certain authorizations, contracts, leases, permits, or
other disposals of state land, resources, property, or
interests; relating to authorization for the use of state land
by general permit; relating to exchange of state land; relating
to procedures for certain administrative appeals and requests
for reconsideration to the commissioner of natural resources;
relating to the Alaska Water Use Act; and providing for an
effective date."
1:55:24 PM
DAN SULLIVAN, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), introduced HB 77 on behalf of the governor by way of a
PowerPoint presentation entitled "Statewide Permitting Reform."
He acknowledged that there has been a lot of focus on oil and
gas and a gas line, but HB 77 illustrates that [permitting
reform] is an important issue in terms of the state's future.
Work has been occurring on permitting reform for the past few
years, and it is an area that has received very strong
bipartisan support that he hopes to continue [slide 2].
Permitting reform is also a big issue nationally that is also a
bipartisan effort to modernize and gain efficiencies with
permitting. He then highlighted an Economist article entitled
"Over-regulated America" that concludes "America needs a smarter
approach to regulation that will mitigate a real danger that
regulation may crush the life out of America's economy."
Furthermore, there was a Newsweek article in which former
President Clinton laid out what he viewed as the top ways in
which to get the economy moving, and number one was regulatory
reform and [granting waivers on environmental rules] to hasten
start times of construction projects. Alaska is trying to lead
in the area of permitting reform, which is a multi-year process.
With regard to competitiveness for the U.S., he pointed out the
Behre Dolbear Group, an investment bank in Canada, performs an
annual survey of mineral sector investment [slide 3]. In terms
of regulatory permitting, last year the U.S. ranked last and
this year tied for last with Papua New Guinea. He then pointed
out that federal rules negatively impact states and result in a
7- to 10-year waiting period before mine development can begin
In other industrialized countries, the time to reach mine
development is a lot less, particularly in Australia where the
timeframe is three to four years. The Kensington Mine as an
example of lengthy waiting periods, and might not be producing
had there not been the Supreme Court decision. In contrast,
construction of the 1,500-mile Alcan Highway, which has been
characterized as a big moment in history, took only nine months.
Places with high environmental standards, such as Alaska, can
have lengthy [permitting] delays that result in investment going
to places that have much less stringent standards, such as
Russia [slide 4]. Commissioner Sullivan maintained the
commitment to high environmental standards, but opined that
permitting reform helps maintain global environmental protection
because it keeps projects in locations with high environmental
standards, which is important.
2:02:28 PM
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN mentioned the strategies the department is
undertaking with regard to Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
throughput decline [slide 5] with regard to strategic and
critical minerals. Permitting reform, he emphasized, cuts
across a number of different issues, including jobs, economic
growth, and responsible resource development. Therefore,
permitting reform is part of a broader strategy in which the
department recognizes the need to enhance coordination among the
state agencies [slide 6]. To that end, DNR has sought input
from various communities and groups regarding ways to make the
permitting system more efficient, timely, and certain. The
department has also worked on trying to improve coordination
between the state and federal government. Federal permitting
impacts almost every project in Alaska, whether it is on state
or federal land, a prime example being Point Thomson which is
located on state land. The department has also tried to get in
front of issues that it believes will be important to the state
in order to be prepared when they arise, an example being the
Shale Oil Task Force. He then related that the next couple of
slides highlight the strong bipartisan legislative progress
support the department has experienced. The legislative support
has been in the form of statutory changes as well as budget
increments [slide 7]. For example there was a significant
increment to Division of Mining, Land and Water for personnel,
revamping and modernizing the permitting system, which has had a
positive effect. Commissioner Sullivan then directed attention
to slide 8 regarding backlogged permits. Although there is a
host of reasons for the backlog, having 2,600 backlogged permits
is not good for jobs, economic growth, or the private sector.
Therefore, with this committee and the legislature's assistance
DNR has been very focused on decreasing the backlog to zero
within three years. Since the beginning of fiscal year (FY)
2012, the backlog has been reduced by 38 percent for which he
complimented the efforts of Mr. Goodrum and Mr. Menefee. While
the backlog reduction and modernization efforts are occurring,
the department continues to receive a lot of new permits.
Commissioner Sullivan said he believes the backlog reduction
effort is on track.
2:08:33 PM
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN reminded the committee that last year the
governor introduced House Bill 361, which the legislature passed
with strong bipartisan support [slide 9]. The department
realizes that there is no panacea, and therefore it has focused
on statutory changes that create efficiencies. Although some of
those changes are not that large, taken together there becomes a
system that is more rational and brings the timeliness and
certainty. Addressing the backlog is a combination of ideas,
some of which have come through the ranks. The department has
also reached out to entities involved in the permitting process
and system and some of the changes were the result of
constituent suggestions to legislators.
2:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what constitutes a backlog.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN deferred to the team, but added that the
department has attempted to define that.
2:12:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to slide 6 and the Shale Oil
Task Force, requested an update on the progress the agency is
making [in terms of anticipating and planning for permitting the
next phases of resource development].
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN agreed to provide such an update.
2:12:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE passed the gavel to Co-Chair Saddler.
2:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether the same standard is used
year-to-year.
COMMISISONER SULLIVAN believed so, but deferred to Mr. Goodrum.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that it looks like the division
has gotten off to a really good start by addressing over 1,000
of the backlogged permits. He imagined that it would only
continue to get better.
2:13:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to the anecdotal comments regarding
Alaska's permitting regime that Commissioner Sullivan has heard
during his travels advocating Alaska as a resource state.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN responded that often there are positive
comments, particularly with regard to the North Slope as having
a great resource potential and a basin that has potential with
various types of oil fields. There are also comments with
regard to costs, which relate to tax issues, competitiveness,
remoteness, and permitting and litigation delays. A lot of
focus has been on Shell's drilling problems; however, from DNR's
perspective there have been real problems with the federal
government delaying permitting for the drilling of exploration
wells in that area of Alaska. Broadly, there is a sense that
there is a lot of delay in Alaska, which is why the department
wants to address [permitting reform].
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted the House just passed HR 5, which calls
the federal government to coordinate with the state and state
agencies as they consider Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) work.
2:16:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referring to the slides specifying the
operating budget increases, directed attention to the FY12
appropriation for approximately $2.7 million in operating funds
to the Division of Mining, Land and Water to create efficiency,
timeliness, and certainty in the permitting process and in FY13
an additional $950,000 to cover increased personnel costs and
fill vacant positions focused on permitting. She then recalled
that in the mid 1990s the legislature went through $250 million
worth of budget cutting that is cuts of $50 million from the
budget each year. The aforementioned was largely accomplished
by eliminating staff of some of the departments. Some at the
time felt those cuts were penny wise and pound foolish because
it would limit DNR's and DEC's ability in terms of being
efficient with the permitting process. Therefore, she
questioned whether the legislature now has to make up for those
budget cuts. She further questioned how the legislature can do
a better job to achieve a stable level of funding.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN said he does not have the historical
context to comment on the past. However, some of the backlog
and permitting efficiency issues are related to personnel issues
and some are related to modernizing the systems and making them
more efficient. Therefore, it was a combination of things and
the current desire is to continue to address permitting reform.
2:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged the bill has a zero fiscal note
and asked whether the legislature will entertain any operating
budget increases for additional permitting staff.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN believed the answer is no, but offered to
get back to the committee on that.
2:20:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER clarified that budget cuts in the mid-
1990s were not so much a budget reduction as the creation of
off-budget accounting so that they were treated as (indisc.)
receipt supported services. He further clarified that it was
more of a matter of changing it from general fund appropriations
to other categories of appropriations.
2:21:37 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water
(DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in response to
Representative Johnson's earlier question, explained what
constitutes the "backlog" are those [permit] applications that
are deemed complete and considered an authorization that need to
be adjudicated that are at the point of issuance, whether it be
approved or denied. In further response to Representative
Tuck's earlier question, Mr. Goodrum confirmed that the division
is considering "apples to apples" in the chart [on slide 8]. As
the Unified Permit Project continues, he opined that there will
be far greater granularity and transparency into the system.
Therefore, the division will be able to talk in different
metrics and specify the amount of time that it takes an
authorization at a specific time of year and determine when it
will be adjudicated and communicate that with the applicant.
The system the division is moving to with the Unified Permit
Projects will provide greater visibility into the division's
process. In response to Co-Chair Saddler, Mr. Goodrum confirmed
that he is using the term "granularity" to mean precision and
detail.
2:23:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked he believes DNR is doing a good
job, but said he wants to get a benchmark for the backlog to
ensure that not just the easy permits are being addressed.
MR. GOODRUM agreed that not all permits are equal as some have
greater significance to the state and various industries, which
is weighted when the application is considered. The division
works to expedite those projects of great significance and is
not just addressing the easy permits.
2:25:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that it would be nice to know how
many new permits were applied for in 2012, particularly since it
does not seem that the division will ever reach zero permits.
He then expressed interest in having data that specifies the
number of years a permit application has been in the system
before being closed.
2:26:08 PM
MR. GOODRUM, responding to Co-Chair Saddler, informed the
committee that he served 20 years of active duty service as a
marine infantry officer/reconnaissance officer. During that
time, he pursued a post graduate education and earned a Masters
in operations research, which is about how to look at systems of
systems and improve efficiencies, and his work in this area for
the U.S. Marine Corps is what brought him to Alaska. He told
the committee that Mr. Menefee has been a public servant of the
state with DNR for over 20 years, and that as the chief
operations officer Mr. Menefee has a broad knowledge of the
statutes that impact many of the authorizations.
2:27:13 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land and
Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), informed
the committee that he began his career as a park ranger and
worked his way up through the department. He said he has been
in his current position about eight years. He then directed the
committee's attention to the briefing document entitled "HB 77:
Land Disposals/Exchanges; Water Rights Briefing Paper" dated
January 30, 2013. He explained the division already has the
authority to perform general permits, but there is no explicit
statutory language that specifies general permitting is allowed.
Because the division will be doing more general permits, HB 77
will explicitly clarify in statute that the division can perform
general permits. Currently, there is an application for state
land use, the division then puts it out for public notice, and
then makes a decision whether it is appropriate or not. With a
general permit, there is the knowledge that there will be a
certain amount of applications for a certain activity and the
division prescribes the parameters in which those applications
should fit in order to obtain a permit. The notion is that the
aforementioned will reduce costs and time for the applicant
because, after a full public notice and review is completed of
setting up a general permit, the subsequent authorizations from
the general permit do not go through the full decision and
public notice process.
2:29:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired how to constrain a general permit
so that it will be most applicable to particular regions or land
types.
MR. MENEFEE responded there has to be the ability to define the
[parameters] and most often, general permits will be specific to
a region/area or activity. However, there may be some general
permits for which the parameters can be defined well enough to
apply statewide. For example, the division has a general permit
for non-timber forest product sales, which is the result of a
full-blown process regarding how the harvest has to occur,
including quantities and harvest methodologies, and those
statewide general permits can be applied for and purchased
online. An example of a regional general permit is the boat
storage in Cook Inlet that went through a process that resulted
in specific parameters that if met by the applicant results in
the awarding of a permit.
2:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the inability of the
legislature to implement statutes of statewide applicability,
asked whether there are any identified legal problems with
passing the authority for those general permits that could be
restricted and not be statewide.
MR. MENEFEE said the Department of Law is available to answer
any specific legal questions. He reiterated that the division
already has this authority; it is just not explicitly stated for
general permits. In the past, the division has issued statewide
and regional general permits that were vetted by the Department
of Law and accomplished without any legal ramifications.
2:33:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether there are precedents for this type
of general permit in other agencies besides state agencies.
MR. MENEFEE replied yes, and cited the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide general permits. Other federal agencies
process general permits for various authorizations under
regulatory schemes, and the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) issues general permits. General permits are
also used in Western states as a way to help get more done while
doing so in an effective manner.
2:34:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that the non-timber forest product
sales and boats [general permits] seem noncontroversial. She
asked what other types of activities, including resource
development activities, would fall under a general permit.
MR. MENEFEE said that general permits could be used for
commercial filming on state land, personal use cabin permits,
float home renewals, commercial recreation permits, and
installation of heat pumps for renewable energy. In further
response, Mr. Menefee confirmed that general permits could be
used for resource extraction activities. Although there is no
prohibition for using a general permit for resource extraction,
the challenge is accurately prescribing the parameters of the
activity in which the operator has to fit such that it is common
to whoever applies. He noted that the public has the
opportunity to participate and appeal a decision prior to
issuing a general permit.
2:36:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked then whether is it possible to
statutorily give the division authority to establish best
practices for mines. He posed a scenario in which there is an
open pit mine in the state for which the division establishes
six criteria. In such a case, would the DNR permit already be
granted under a general permit for a mine that says it will
follow those criteria, he asked.
MR. MENEFEE opined that it would be very difficult to cover
everything that would be necessary. He pointed out that the
suggestions he put forth are very limited in scope, which is how
general permits can work. Regarding resource extraction, there
may be a certain aspect [that would fit into a general permit].
However, it is hard to envision that a general permit could be
developed to encompass everything necessary for a large mine.
Mr. Menefee said he does not believe that is the intention with
the general permit. Again, this authority already exists under
AS 38.05.0202(a)(1) and HB 77 merely specifies [the action] as a
general permit in order to clarify to the public that this
authority exists.
2:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned what a general permit is
currently titled.
MR. MENEFEE clarified that currently there are general permits,
but they are not referred to that in statute. He offered to
read the committee the statute from which the division believes
it has the authority to issue general permits. Most of the
challenges against the division are related to procedure, and
therefore the division can eliminate a legal risk if it can
provide absolute clarity that general permits are allowed. The
aforementioned is what is targeted with HB 77.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that it would be helpful for Mr.
Menefee to point out, when he reaches that section in HB 77,
where the language specifying general permits is being added in
statute.
2:39:52 PM
MR. MENEFEE, moving on to point 2 of the briefing paper,
explained that currently DMLW has the authority to exchange
lands. That authority is specified in Titles 29 and 38. When
DMLW does exchanges for state land, they are disposals of
interest. Currently, Title 38 land exchange language makes it
difficult to fulfill all the requirements in statute to perform
a land exchange. As municipal entitlements are completed, there
will be more complicated land exchanges. There is a mixed
ownership pattern, and therefore development projects or
municipalities may need to consolidate land or exchange land.
Under the proposed change in HB 77, Title 38 exchange statutes
would be modified such that the exchange would go through a
normal AS 38.05.035(e) decision process, which is a disposal of
interest decision process. The process utilizes public and
agency review and a formal decision that is in the state's best
interest is being made. The aforementioned is already utilized
for many disposals of state land and DMLW does not view
exchanges of state land as any different. Therefore, the
division wants to ensure that it can perform its duties
efficiently and the same way that other decisions are made.
However, currently there is a higher burden on the exchanges
that make it difficult to complete; for example, the False Creek
land exchange took 25 years to complete. The change proposed in
HB 77 would reduce the time and cost to the applicant.
2:42:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to why the False Creek land
exchange took so long to complete and whether that would be
fixed by HB 77.
MR. MENEFEE explained that in general there was a situation in
which appraisals were performed, but they would become stale due
to the requirements of the process. Therefore, a re-appraisal
and further negotiations would occur, which took more time. The
idea came from his discussions with the land exchange staff,
which revealed that very few exchanges have occurred since
enactment of the [existing] statute. The suggestion was that
performing land exchanges with a disposal of interest decision
would speed the process.
2:43:59 PM
MR. MENEFEE, returning to his briefing paper, related that point
3 addresses reducing the risk of litigation, which could have
some adverse ramifications. Currently, part of the statute
addresses the types of payments, all upfront or over time per a
contract, that can be utilized with land sales. Existing law
only speaks to land sold by auction, although land is sold in
situations other than by auction. The desire for all land sales
is to be able to enter into a contract to pay over time. If
there was a challenge and the challenger prevailed, there would
be the risk of losing millions of dollars in land sales each
year. Therefore, the division wants to able to continue the
practice of entering into contracts that allow payment over time
and the individual eventually obtains their patent.
2:45:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, referring to Section 7 of HB 77, asked
why "or property" is being added when the overarching section,
Title 2, is the sale of land.
MR. MENEFEE responded that a development on the land - for
example, a house - is an issue that sometimes occurs.
Therefore, the development has to be sold as well as the land.
2:46:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER related his understanding that DMLW has a
practice of accepting full payment at closing. In a bid
situation, the division would take a 5 percent deposit and
accept cash at closing or offering term payments. The idea, he
surmised, is to make it very clear that term payments may be
made in all instances in which the division disposes of land or
property.
MR. MENEFEE confirmed that to be correct.
2:47:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked whether the mandate language of
"shall" potentially prohibits the division from offering cash at
closing payments. He suggested consideration of changing the
language to read as follows: "the remainder of the purchase
price to be paid at the time of closing or in monthly ...."
MR. MENEFEE deferred to the Department of Law (DOL), although he
said he believes the division still has the ability to put all
the money down right away.
2:49:45 PM
ASHLEY BROWN, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas & Mining
Section, Natural Resources Section, Department of Law, said she
would get back to the committee with an answer.
2:50:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referring to [Section 22, page 15, line
11], pointed out that the reference to "the mineral estate" does
not appear to have been in the previous statute that is being
eliminated with these changes. She requested Mr. Menefee to
speak to that.
MR. MENEFEE explained that in cases where someone owns both the
surface and mineral estate and is willing to give it to the
state, the value of it would have to be determined in order to
achieve an exchange.
2:51:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to whether the state could
exchange mineral rights away.
MR. MENEFEE answered that although it is unlikely, technically
the state could do so. In further response, he said the state
would always like to maintain the opportunity for people to
stake mining claims, particularly where it will have no adverse
effect. Typically, the state aggressively tries to protect that
right because it is the dominant estate. Still, there may be
some situation where it may be advantageous to do so.
2:52:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related her understanding that the state
owns the mineral rights/subsurface rights. Therefore, she
questioned who as a private landholder, save the Alaska Native
corporations, would be a private landholder who holds their
mineral rights.
MR. MENEFEE responded that there are quite a few individuals who
do own their own mineral rights, but he could not name them. He
specified that private individuals do hold mineral estates to
their properties, which often are from the federal government.
For instance, someone could have staked a federal mining claim
and that individual could apply and obtain a federal patent to
that mineral claim as the individual owns the mineral estate.
2:53:52 PM
MR. MENEFEE, returning to his briefing paper, directed attention
to point 4, which proposes extending a lease for up to two years
in two specific instances. Per statute, a long-term lessee
allows a preference right to purchase the land, which merely
means that there is an option to sell the land to the long-term
lessee. The aforementioned can be applied for up to the end of
their lease. Therefore, at the end of a lease, the state could
face having to authorize structures that are already improved
for the period while the state decides whether to sell it or
not. The division wants a two-year window in which to perform
that activity, adjudication, or decision. There are also
situations in which a lessee finds the need to expand their
business. If the lessee has substantially changed what they are
doing, [DMLW] has to review it. The aforementioned two-year
extension would keep the business legal with a lease while the
division adjudicates the request.
2:55:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to what a preference right is.
MR. MENEFEE explained that a preference right means that without
having to go to competition, the lessee can apply for something.
Normally, disposal of state land is done competitively.
However, in a case in which a lessee has a long-term lease, the
lessee could apply for a preference right under AS 38.05.102.
Although the statue does not specify the lessee will obtain it,
it allows for the lessee to request it noncompetitively and the
[division] can adjudicate whether it is in the state's best
interest to sell that land to the lessee.
2:57:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised that being able to grant that preference
right could be considered an incentive for making investments
and to further the settlement of the land.
MR. MENEFEE replied yes, adding that for long-term leases the
division does not dictate how much the lessee invests. Still,
it could be considered an incentive because the lessee would not
lose their investment since they would have the option to
purchase it.
2:57:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified his understanding that the
proposed extension in point 4 is only for leases not permits.
MR. MENEFEE confirmed that to be the case.
2:57:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether there is a definition for
long-term lease.
MR. MENEFEE offered to get that information to the committee.
2:58:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised that the two-year window is not
just for a preference right for the lessee to purchase the land,
but also to extend the lease.
MR. MENEFEE posed a scenario in which there is a 40-year lease
and explained that to extend the lease [DMLW] must still go
through a decision process. However, last year the legislature
approved a renewal statute that allowed one-time,
noncompetitive, equal-term extensions. In this case, if the
lessee is in good standing, the lessee could obtain another 40-
year lease. Although the aforementioned change encouraged more
development, it did not take into account whether the lessee had
substantially changed their operations. A substantial change in
operations would result in the need for DMLW to perform a new
and full adjudication of that lease. Meanwhile, there would be
unauthorized development on the land. In further response, Mr.
Menefee confirmed that once an individual has a lease and has
made investments in the land, it makes sense to continue it.
3:00:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether point 3 would apply to
waterfront leases as well.
MR. MENEFEE said yes, specifying that they are referred to as
upland leases and tideland leases.
[HB 77 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB80 Amendment 1.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 2.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 3.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 4.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 5.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 6.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Amendment 7.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB36 Clean Water Act Overview.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 DMVA Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 DoD Environmental Region 10 Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Fiscal Note DEC.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB36 Version A.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 36 |
| HB 77 Briefing Paper 1 29 13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 HRES Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Permitting Reform Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB 77 Sectional Analysis 1.30.13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077-1-2-011813-DNR-N.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB0077-2-2-011813-DFG-N.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB77 Water briefing points.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB77 HRES - Overview by Comm. Sullivan.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 77 |
| HB80 Franklin Dock Ent. Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Village of Kake Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 DEC Response to CCTHITA 2.6.13.pdf |
HRES 1/30/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |