Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
01/26/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Alaska Department of Fish & Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2015
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S):
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
- HEARD
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint overview of the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Spill Prevention & Response (SPAR)
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted Commissioner Hartig with providing
the PowerPoint overview of DEC.
ALICE EDWARDS, Director
Division of Air Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted Commissioner Hartig with providing
the PowerPoint overview of DEC.
MICHELLE HALE, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted Commissioner Hartig with providing
the PowerPoint overview of DEC.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint overview of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
CHARLES SWANTON, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview of
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:36 PM
CO-CHAIR DAVID TALERICO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives
Johnson, Seaton, Josephson, Tarr, Herron, Nageak, and Talerico
were present at the call to order. Representative Olson arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW(S): Department of Environmental Conservation
OVERVIEW(S):
Department of Environmental Conservation
1:02:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the first order of business is
an overview by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
1:03:43 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), first pointed out that DEC's mission is to
protect human health and the environment [slide 2], given the
environment is relied upon by every person every day. Moving to
slide 3, he said the outcomes DEC strives for include: clean
water, healthy air, good management of hazardous waste, safe
drinking water, sanitary waste disposal, regulation of food
quality for food produced and sold within the state for
consumption, trying to prevent spills, responding to the average
of 2,000 reported spills a year within the state, and ensuring
there is an opportunity for wise development within the state.
1:06:03 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG described the duties of the five divisions
within DEC [slide 4]. Duties of the Division of Administration
include the budget, information technology, human resources.
Duties of the Division of Environmental Health include food
safety, landfill regulation, industrial waste facility
management, and oversight of public drinking water systems. The
Division of Air Quality issues permits for, and monitors, any
kind of pollution that goes into the air and sets standards for
the allowable amounts of pollution to protect human health. The
Division of Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) looks at how to
prevent spills because once a spill happens the war is lost and
it is just a matter of how bad the loss. The Division of Water
has two sides. One side sets water quality standards that are
incorporated into the permits issued by the division for
wastewater discharge. The facilities side helps to fund and
oversee community drinking water systems.
1:08:24 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG reviewed DEC's operating budget by fund
source [slide 5], noting that the general fund portion of DEC's
budget is small at only about 0.95 percent of the state general
fund operating budget. So, DEC relies on federal funds, permit
receipts, as well as several special funds, including the cruise
ship passenger vessel funds and the response fund, which is a
surcharge on crude oil production that generates most of the
money that pays for SPAR. While DEC's general fund portion is
relatively small, it is key. The five divisions have different
amounts of unrestricted general fund, with some divisions
relying more heavily on that than others. Even where it is a
small amount, that small amount is sometimes necessary to
generate the federal receipts since if there is no program there
is no federal money.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG, responding to Co-Chair Talerico, confirmed
that designated general funds are similar to an enterprise type
fund: a fee is collected from a particular program that is then
turned over to the department. It gets appropriated by the
legislature, but is set up to go to a specific purpose.
1:10:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that for the ocean range program,
the hiring qualification of being an engineer is very high. He
asked whether, in the interest of promoting Alaska hire, the
department has looked at ocean experience and not necessarily
engineer experience for the hiring of ocean rangers.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that the department now has several
years of experience with this program and is looking at what
value it produces to DEC in its oversight of environmental and
health issues on these vessels. He deferred to Director Hale to
answer whether the [currently required] skill set matches what
the ocean rangers are producing in value for the department.
1:12:02 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention & Response
(SPAR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), outlined
the three programs within SPAR [slide 6]. The Prevention,
Preparedness, and Response Program is responsible for preventing
and ensuring that companies are prepared and can actually
implement a response when necessary for spills of primarily oil,
but any hazardous substances within SPAR's purview. The
Contaminated Sites Program is for when spills are not cleaned up
quickly enough and the area becomes a contaminated site. Often
contamination remains in the ground and is monitored to ensure
that the contamination is not spreading or getting worse. Much
effort is required to do long-term, ongoing monitoring. The
Response Fund Administration manages SPAR's funds and does the
division's cost recovery efforts.
MS. RYAN noted that sustainability of SPAR's fund source is the
biggest of several challenges. Another challenge is maintaining
the continued level of service. Although SPAR has not increased
its operating budget, it has increased the activities that it is
needing to accomplish. A third challenge is trying to help
responsible parties do the right thing as efficiently as they
can; parties are perhaps able to do that cheaper and more
quickly with SPAR providing them with its technical expertise.
Lastly, a critical challenge is reducing the number of spills
through prevention.
1:13:57 PM
MS. RYAN pointed out that the pictures on slide 7 are of events
that happened this month. The picture on the right is of the
event on the Baker Production Platform in Cook Inlet. The left
and bottom pictures are of a truck that rolled over while
enroute to Seward. She noted that SPAR's mission is to protect
public health, safety, and the environment through prevention,
preparedness and cleanup of oil and hazardous substances.
MS. RYAN said the types of unregulated facility spills that SPAR
responds to [slide 8], include air transportation and aviation
issues and small vessels (large vessels over 400 gross tons are
regulated by SPAR). Other types are vehicles and residential
home heating oil tank issues. Fiscal year (FY) 2014 saw an
uptick over FY 2013 in the volume of [oil] spills for both
regulated and unregulated facilities.
1:15:26 PM
MS. RYAN addressed SPAR's main challenge of sustainable funding
of its work [slide 9]. A specific fund was set up several years
ago that is based on a surcharge per barrel of oil. The
expectation was that a million barrels of oil a day would come
through the [Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)] and this would
sustain SPAR's budget. However, TAPS is down to about 500,000
barrels a day, generating only about half the revenue necessary
to cover SPAR's costs. For some time now SPAR has been relying
on previous savings to sustain its work, but that ended this
fiscal year with those savings no longer available to SPAR. A
second funding source relied upon by SPAR is the investment
earnings on its $50-million response fund for serious and large
events, but earnings are unpredictable and unreliable. A third
source is settlements. While SPAR often gets large settlements
from cleanup, especially in contaminated sites where SPAR is
working with the federal government over many years to allocate
responsibility, it takes a long time to recover those funds.
Recovery does not happen in the year the funds are expended.
1:16:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether the Walker Administration
is considering adjustments to the surcharge rate.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that the governor wants to look at
cuts before he looks at new or increased revenue, but
appreciates that the situation being talked about by Ms. Ryan is
imminent. There is a hole of $800,000 in the current FY 2015.
It is known that in FY 2016 the hole is $2.1 million, with
probably $5 million on top of that, for a total of $7 million.
After FY 2016 the hole will be around $7 million. That is the
difference between what is collected from the surcharge,
interest income, and settlements relative to SPAR's flat budget
of about $15 million. If nothing is done this year, there will
be a gap of $7 million in [FY] 2016 and 2017. Even if the
surcharge were to be increased this year, or another revenue
source found this year, it would not become effective until
summer 2016 and then it would start being collected over a year,
and it would need to be appropriated next session to become
available that coming fiscal year. So, it is already a dire
situation this year and the coming year. He offered his hope
that people will be open minded to a discussion, but said that
right now the focus is on cuts. He added, "I want people to
understand that we are setting ourselves up here … by not doing
something this year."
1:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the $50-million response
fund is Alaska's creation or is a requirement of the 1990
federal [Oil Pollution Act (OPA)].
MS. RYAN responded that the fund was established by state law
around the same time frame as the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. She
explained that after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill the legislature
determined it important for [the state] to have its own source
of funding in case it needs to take over a large event.
Responding further, Ms. Ryan confirmed that the 5 cent per
barrel surcharge is statutory, not regulatory.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON cited a resolution from the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) that states at the bottom of page 1,
"curbing diversion of funds to non-oil and hazardous substance
release related purposes, such as municipal maintenance". He
inquired whether some of the SPAR funds are diverted to things
that are not spill related.
MS. RYAN answered "no, not any longer, but there was a period of
time … about 10 years ago where it was utilized for local
emergency response committees - LEPCs - and that stopped." Over
the years, SPAR has done several things to reduce draws on the
account. Another large draw on the prevention account was the
cleaning up of state-owned contaminated sites. The division
asked for funds every year through a capital appropriation from
the prevention account to work on those sites. It has stopped
doing that and over the last two years has shifted its requests
to general fund instead. The division has eliminated all uses
of the account except for the department's own operating cost.
1:21:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked whether most of the cleanup costs for
the [2004 shipwreck of the] MV Selendang Ayu have been recovered
from either the owners or the underwriters.
MS. RYAN replied yes and noted that what is remaining is the
damage assessment penalties. It is a federal negotiation and
the company is still negotiating what it will pay.
1:21:43 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK inquired whether there is coordination between
industry and state response teams, such as for training.
MS. RYAN responded yes, a big part of response is working with
local communities in many ways, the primary tool being the
division's "sub-area plans". The state is divided into 10
areas, each area having its own response plan that is sort of
community driven. Localized knowledge must be captured in the
plans; for example, knowing about bird rookeries that need to be
protected if there is a spill. The plans are utilized with the
companies responsible for an accident. The division is always
trying to find more ways to work with communities, but
unfortunately money is not an option for SPAR at the moment.
1:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the hole in the fund, queried
whether refined fuels and imported fuels will be looked at when
plans are developed, which would be a way to broaden the base of
the funding source, or whether only the per barrel surcharge on
crude oil will be looked at. He further inquired about the
percentage of spills that are refined products versus crude oil.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that right now the surcharge is on
crude oil production in the state, which largely means North
Slope and Cook Inlet production. While refined products are a
large portion of the spills, they may not be the best way to
parse who should pay for it because SPAR does cost recovery and
the larger companies tend to pay back quickly. For smaller
companies and individuals a spill is a life-shattering event
and, understandably, they are unable to recover easily and pay
back the costs to SPAR. So, it is not possible to do cost
recovery from everybody. If only the recovered amount is used
by SPAR for contaminated sites, there would be a lot of response
that SPAR just wouldn't do. The crude oil surcharge fills the
gap, although right now it is not enough to do that. Therefore,
crude oil is paying for most of the work that SPAR does even
though it may go beyond the oil and gas industry, which the
industry understandably believes is unfair. There are different
approaches. It could be said that oil and gas development is
critical to this state. However, the state wants to have a
minimum level of preparedness, a minimum level of capacity, to
prevent and respond to spills and that level must be maintained
for this industry to operate in Alaska. Once that desired
minimum level is figured out, the amount necessary to pay for it
needs to be determined. If there is not enough going into the
response fund, then how much more should come from the oil
industry? The oil industry depends on related industries such
as marine transportation, refineries, and distributors of
refined produce, which are also sources of spills. The question
is how far out to reach from the core activities of that
industry for support. It becomes problematic when getting to
these other industries. For example, on the North Slope and in
Cook Inlet only certain meters need to be checked. But trying
to check every truck or every ship, fuel barge, or fishing
vessel that may or may not stop in an Alaska port, can result in
the cost of running the program exceeding what is generated.
Commissioner Hartig suggested that if a decision is made to
broaden the base, the focus should be on existing taxes and how
some portion could be carved out that would pay for the spill
prevention and response side of things for those industries that
are contributing that tax already, or looking at some increase
on that to offset it; which has been thought about before. He
stressed that those are his own thoughts and not necessarily the
administration's position.
1:27:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood about trying to charge
individual entities. Products refined in the state or imported
refined products would get all of those categories, would be a
simple tax collection regime, and would be broad based to
everyone using those refined products. He opined that the state
should not be taxing or raising just the crude oil, which is
paying all of it now. If products refined in state or imported
refined products were taxed, then everyone using oil products,
whether homeowners or motor fuel transporters, would be
contributing to the prevention and response fund.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said those are good points. He suggested
that if there is discussion on who pays what and what is fair,
it could be parsed out from the question of, "What do we want
from the oil and gas industry at a minimum?" To date, being
unable to decide who should pay and what is fair has resulted in
nothing being done; this is a risk given the budget situation.
1:30:18 PM
MS. RYAN resumed her presentation, saying she will address
Representative Seaton's question about spill percentages in an
upcoming slide. Turning to slide 10, she said SPAR has reduced
use of the fund by limiting its growth and by eliminating draws
on the account. She said a new change for FY 2015 [slide 11] is
a reduction in SPAR's management costs through restructuring of
the contaminated sites program and by combining the prevention,
preparedness program and the response program into one program.
These changes have reduced annual operating costs by $520,000.
Additionally, SPAR has automated its informal cost recovery
billing process. By combining the two programs [slide 12], SPAR
believes it will improve, not diminish, its services while
saving the division money.
MS. RYAN said it is frequently stated that administrative costs
are a burden on the response fund [slide 13]. She explained
there are two separate uses in the administrative world. [Under
division administrative costs] is cost recovery - SPAR's costs
to recover money spent on events - which are then put back into
the fund. So, it is not like SPAR gets a fee for service.
Recovered money is a tracking tool that allows SPAR to evaluate
the number of spills and the types of industry that are having
spills. The Division of Administrative Services in the
department also utilizes $2 million of the response fund. This
pays the leases, phones, cars, and other things SPAR needs to
operate. A portion is also allocated to all of [SPAR's] federal
grants; thus, the federal sites that [SPAR] is working on pay
indirect as well, it is not all borne by the response fund.
1:32:57 PM
MS. RYAN stressed that under its new Prevention, Preparedness,
and Response (PPR) Program [slide 14], SPAR continues to
regulate all the same companies and industries that it did
before, but is trying to be more efficient in how it is done.
MS. RYAN explained the tools used by SPAR to regulate industry
[slide 15]. One is individual contingency plans for operators.
Another is drills and inspections, a huge effort that costs both
industry and SPAR a lot. It ensures that people have practiced
response, such as putting boom in the right place and ensuring
it is placed quickly enough. Although an expensive endeavor, it
is very important because it is the only way to assure that
people can respond adequately. Consideration of best available
technology is required under statute because oil spill response
is an ever-changing field. The division regulates primary
response action contractors, also known as oil spill response
operators. Additionally, the regional response plans must
dovetail with all of these industry plans. When not doing
planning work, SPAR is doing actual response.
MS. RYAN pointed out the value of prevention by displaying
photos of aging infrastructure [slide 16], reiterating the
commissioner's statement that when a spill occurs the game has
already been lost.
1:34:56 PM
MS. RYAN drew attention to slide 17, noting that Cook Inlet
currently has more [approved] contingency plans (C-plans) being
regulated than does the North Slope.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether progress has been made on
requiring C-plans to be digitally submitted and available.
MS. RYAN answered that the regulatory package has been created
that will allow that to happen, but it has not yet been put out
for public comment. She apologized for it not yet being done,
but added that it is high on her list.
MS. RYAN returned to her presentation, noting that Shell's work
on outer continental shelf (OCS) development is anticipated to
start again this drilling season [slide 18]. The oil spill
response operator (OSRO) on the North Slope, Alaska Clean Seas,
does not have open water response capacity, which is what Shell
is required to have for the work that it is doing. Therefore,
Shell must bring a flotilla of equipment to adequately respond.
These are federal standards because it is in federal waters.
The two federal agencies that Shell is interacting with are
working closing with SPAR and are allowing SPAR to participate
in the review of their plans.
1:36:49 PM
MS. RYAN addressed Representative Seaton's earlier question
about what was spilled in 2014 [slide 19]. Explaining that some
spills involve multiple products, she reported there were 2,028
products spilled in the approximately 1,900 spills of last year.
A total of about 285,000 gallons was spilled. The predominantly
spilled product was produced water [34 percent], which is a
mixture of oil, water, salts, and other things. She turned to
slide 20, drawing attention to the top five products spilled
[listed from the most to least gallons spilled - produced water,
diesel, aviation fuel, process water, drilling muds]. Still on
slide 20, she brought attention to the top five facility types
for spills [listed the most to least gallons spilled - natural
gas production, oil production, air transportation, vessel,
mining operation]. Regarding facility type, she explained that
the reason for natural gas production being so high was because
it was produced water at a Hillcorp facility in Cook Inlet and
produced water spills tend to be bigger. She said her overall
message to the committee is that while Alaska's large industries
do not spill as frequently as the smaller non-regulated
industries, their spills tend to be bigger.
MS. RYAN, responding to Co-Chair Nageak, confirmed that the
lists on slide 20 are for statewide.
MS. RYAN noted that slide 21 shows the [top five] causes of
spills [listed from the most to least gallons spilled - seal
failure, human error, leak, line failure, overfill]. While
declining infrastructure is causing spills, she said, human
error causes the most number of spills, which gets to the
importance of SPAR's drills.
1:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what happens to the soils when
there is remediation and recovery; for example, whether the
soils are removed from Alaska or buried.
MS. RYAN replied that it depends on how contaminated the product
is. There are no hazardous facilities in Alaska approved to
take hazardous substances, so if it is heavily contaminated it
is shipped out of state, which adds to the expense greatly. If
not very contaminated it can usually go to a local landfill and
used as cover.
1:40:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON observed on slide 20 that the number of
spills for produced water was 41 and number of gallons was
96,736. He asked whether the gallons were per spill or total.
MS. RYAN clarified that [96,736 gallons] is total gallons.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON further observed on slide 20 that the 335
spills attributed to oil production facilities came to a total
of 53,188 gallons. He commented that this is not nearly as big
as some of the others.
MS. RYAN responded the numbers are a general trend and are not
necessarily showing there were any large spills in FY 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said his belief is that users should
clean up their own spills and should pay for that cleanup. He
asked where the numbers are at if the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill is
taken out of oil spills.
MS. RYAN answered that Alaska does frequently have what she
considers to be large spills, although not as large as the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill which was a very significant event in volume.
She agreed to provide the committee with a list of the top 10
spills by volume in the state for the last 10 years.
MS. RYAN moved to slide 23, noting that the Contaminated Sites
Program has several challenges. One challenge is that several
of the program's sites are very complicated with multiple
responsible parties that takes years to get settlements
arranged. Another challenge is that home heating oil tanks are
not regulated and often are not discovered until contamination
is extensive, making it difficult for people to pay for cleanup.
MS. RYAN noted the Flint Hills Refinery is regulated by the
Contaminated Sites Program [slides 24-25]. Flint Hills is the
largest contaminated site in the state when looking at the size
of the plume, and the drinking water wells of 400 homes have
been impacted. The plume is nine square miles and expanding,
impacting the community of North Pole. The current owner of the
facility is providing drinking water to any home that has
detectable sulfolane, which is more than SPAR requires based on
its cleanup level. In October 2014 the division approved an on-
site cleanup plan for the refinery itself, so the facility can
now be sold with some assurance of what it will cost to maintain
the facility and stop the migration of the contamination off-
site. However, SPAR is still in the process of determining what
to do with the off-site contamination and how to clean that up.
1:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired how a leak like the Flint
Hills sulfolane plume was able to occur without [the state]
knowing about it; for example, whether it was a lack of
regulation, or enforcement, or something else.
MS. RYAN answered that when the sulfolane was leaked it was not
known to be a product of concern. In the U.S., she explained,
chemicals are allowed to be used until proven to be harmful. As
a new product, sulfolane fell into that category because there
was no information that it was dangerous. There was some bad
activity on the refinery that caused it to migrate off-site in
large quantities. Federal regulations on chemicals are weak.
1:44:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referencing slide 23, asked whether Ms.
Ryan brought the issue of home heating oil tanks to the
committee's attention because she thinks it is something that
should be regulated or that she has ideas about. Regarding
slide 19 and the volume released by product, Representative Tarr
asked what category home heating oil spills fall into.
MS. RYAN replied that home heating oil spills will primarily be
in the diesel category. She said she is unsure whether
regulating them is the answer, but she thinks there are tools
and non-regulatory things that could be done to improve the
situation, such as providing better standards for home heating
oil tanks so that they are sited correctly and having fuel
delivery people looking for problems and alerting owners. She
said it is a big draw on SPAR's account, as well as a big
problem for the homeowners who end up in this situation and do
not have the funds to deal with it.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether the aforementioned is
something the department is going to actually engage in.
MS. RYAN responded that [SPAR] does do quite a bit of outreach,
including booths at event about how to take care of home heating
oil tanks. Various other options are being looked at; for
example, many insurance companies will not offer a rider for a
home heating oil tank in Alaska, so [SPAR] is trying to convince
some companies to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether residents in the area of Flint
Hills are still receiving bottled water and who is paying for
that water.
MS. RYAN answered that Flint Hills is providing drinking water
for any home with detected sulfolane in its drinking water. It
can be bottled water, treatment systems on the private well, or
delivery of tanked water. Flint Hills has made arrangements
with each homeowner directly without SPAR's involvement.
1:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired what constitutes a spill, saying
that according to his quick math the average spill for oil
production was about three barrels. Qualifying that any oil is
too much, he proffered that three barrels on average does not
seem like much because there is probably more than that in a
Walmart parking lot.
MS. RYAN replied that any release of a hazardous substance can
be considered a spill. The numbers of actual spills do not
represent the thousands of phone calls [SPAR] receives for minor
events [to which it does not respond]. She said she will double
check about which ones SPAR decides to put into its database as
a spill and will get back to the committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that it is always heard that an
oil pan leaking on the North Slope is considered a spill.
MS. RYAN agreed that this is heard, adding that "they are very
good at reporting all events because of the … lease arrangements
they have with DNR [Department of Natural Resources]." She
reiterated that she will get back to the committee about which
ones constitute a spill in SPAR's tracking.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG concurred that the companies on the North
Slope report everything. He said this is done voluntarily,
without DEC scrutiny, because the companies do not want to take
any risk of not reporting something that could be significant.
1:50:15 PM
ALICE EDWARDS, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that the Division of
Air Quality's programs focus on three primary things:
permitting and compliance for the industrial facilities in the
state, working on air quality issues with communities, and doing
air monitoring [slide 28]. The division has several challenges,
including the ever-changing federal rules that come into place,
the unique air quality issues of Fairbanks, and air quality in
rural Alaska.
MS. EDWARDS pointed out that air quality is a program where the
state has primacy from the federal government for a number of
Clean Air Act related programs. The Air Permits Program [slide
29] ensures that air emissions from industrial operations in the
state do not create unhealthy air. This is done through two
types of permits. The first is construction permits for new or
modified facilities, with both major and minor permits within
this category. The second is Title V (of the Clean Air Act)
operating permits. These are for major facilities and they
basically roll up all of the different federal and state
requirements related to air quality into one operating permit
for these facilities. The program conducts compliance assurance
inspections and follows up on permit deviations with the
facilities.
MS. EDWARDS noted it is often heard that the lead time is long
for development permits within the Air Permits Program. The
construction permits issued by the program are more technically
complicated and do have longer lead times. Federal requirements
for having a certain amount of air monitoring and meteorological
data, and the modeling done to demonstrate compliance with the
air quality standards, takes some upfront time before the
permits can be issued and the construction move forward. This
area takes much expertise and staff resource, both on the part
of industry and the department, in order to develop permits that
will provide for safe air when the facilities are constructed.
Recently issued permits for major facilities include those for
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) campus power plant, the
ExxonMobil Point Thomson production facility, and restart of the
Agrium fertilizer plant on the Kenai Peninsula.
MS. EDWARDS said the Air Permits Program is a fee-based program,
charging fees to the industry to pay for the permits that they
receive. The permits are reviewed on about a four-year cycle.
A permit fee review is just now being finished and in the next
several months the regulations for fees will be updated. The
division is using a process of continuous improvement by working
with its regulated facilities and others to try to improve the
division's consistency and timeliness.
1:54:09 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK related that concerns about air quality have
been expressed by communities, one in particular, near industry
up north. Some of the problems have been about communications
and there have been efforts to provide air quality measurements.
He asked whether the state gets involved with this or works with
communities in this regard.
MS. EDWARDS responded it is a little bit of both. The division
does work with communities directly on concerns, but also with
industry. Sometimes industry and an affected community will
work through issues together and the division is often involved
in those types of discussions to try addressing and alleviating
those concerns.
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK asked how long or short the time period is for
running the monitors in the different size communities.
MS. EDWARDS answered that it depends upon the situation. A lot
of the monitoring for permits is done upfront, then the permits
are meant to be developed in a way that will protect the ambient
air quality standards. She allowed that sometimes there is a
concern on the North Slope. Industry has been monitoring in the
community of Nuiqsut and has maintained a site there for a
period of time, but that site is not required by regulation.
Continuing monitors for long periods of time is an expensive
proposition. Most all of the air monitoring done on the North
Slope is done by the industry as either part of the permit
requirement, or for the industry's own needs for future
permitting, or for issues such as concern in a community.
1:56:55 PM
MS. EDWARDS turned to slide 30, noting that her division has an
ongoing process looking for ways to improve and streamline its
permitting process. A quality management system is used to
train staff, meet with stakeholders and interested parties to
discuss issues and solutions, and standardize where possible to
improve efficiency. So, a number of things are being done to
try keeping development permits moving along, but also address
the needs of both industry and the communities in which industry
operates. The division is working to develop more partnerships;
for example, the division provides expertise to federal agencies
doing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work on the North
Slope or offshore development permits. Another example of
developing partnerships is the division's coordination of a
stakeholder work group with the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), industry groups, the North Slope Borough, and the Cook
Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council to look at better ways
of doing permitting for drill rigs in particular.
1:58:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the streamlining of permits and
regulations, asked whether there is anything that "gives a pass"
for facilities that are burning natural gas instead of diesel.
MS. EDWARDS replied that the requirements for air permits are
based on the amount of emitted pollutants. Facilities that burn
natural gas tend to emit larger quantities of nitrogen oxide, so
to the extent that they trigger those permit thresholds they end
up in the same processes as those that are burning diesel.
1:59:24 PM
MS. EDWARDS moved to slide 31, stating that the Division of Air
Quality is often faced with changing federal standards.
Especially on Alaska-specific issues, the division actively
works to keep up with the standards and comment on them when
they are proposed.
MS. EDWARDS displayed slide 32, pointing out that the division
has been working with Fairbanks where the energy issue has led
to health and air quality issues. The first air quality plan is
pretty much together, but the division is continuing to work in
the community to try finding additional ways to improve air
quality. Being in a non-attainment area is very challenging
because it has a lot of requirements and can impact development.
It is therefore important to figure out a path forward and bring
the area into compliance.
MS. EDWARDS addressed slide 33, saying the division does not
want areas to have unhealthy air quality or to become non-
attainment like Fairbanks. Concerns from throughout the state
are heard about road dust, dust in general, wood smoke, and open
burning. Because these issues are so widespread, involving many
communities, the division conducts outreach and education to
provide information and tools to communities and residents about
what they can do to help reduce their air pollution. The
division actively looks for partnerships with communities,
tribes, other agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and other federal agencies to try to leverage resources
and find solutions for communities that want to work on air
quality issues.
2:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that in summer 2014 the Alaska
Arctic Policy Commission put on listening sessions. An
individual from a village near Kotzebue reported that there was
an air pollutant discharge from an industrial site on the North
Slope. The village was directly affected, the polluter was
investigated and fined, and the federal or state agency took
possession of the income from that fine. The community saw no
direct remediation or cash. He asked how Ms. Edwards would
respond to that kind of a complaint.
MS. EDWARDS offered her belief that funds from an enforcement
case at the state level typically go back to the general fund
for re-appropriation. She said [the division] does not direct
where those funds would go.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that, to the person in Kotzebue,
the aforementioned does not sufficiently answer the question.
He inquired how the recipients of this pollution are benefitted
from that fine. He clarified he is not asking Ms. Edwards to
answer the question, just that it was a question asked [at the
Kotzebue listening session].
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that there are a variety of
reasons for fining people and different factors go into the
fine. The biggest factor is to try to discourage a repeat of
that conduct and that is directly how the community benefits.
If the pollution happens again the fine will be bigger or other
things will be done until the department gets the polluter's
attention. Fining is not to generate revenue; fines go into the
general fund and are appropriated from there. If people in the
community have specific damages, they can seek redress through
civil action themselves or [the department] could look at it
from a perspective as something that would go beyond a fine that
[the department] should try to help address. Generally, [the
department's] fines are punitive in nature.
2:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that a law was passed several
years ago that transferred peat from the state at no cost to
anyone wanting to use if for fuel. He inquired whether this has
been utilized or any air permits issued for the burning of peat.
MS. EDWARDS answered that she is unaware of any, but will check.
2:04:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON observed that food safety is listed on
slide 3 as one of DEC's outcomes. He asked whether DEC is
gearing up for cannabis kitchens, edibles, labeling, and
monitoring, and whether they will be in DEC's budget request
this year.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that DEC does not know yet whether
[cannabis] food products are going to be produced and sold
within the state. He said he thinks some people in the public
have that expectation and that there are people who want to get
into that business. However, what the initiative allows, and
what the eventual statutes and regulations will allow, is to be
seen. The department regulates food products that are produced
and sold in the state and DEC does have concerns because there
are people who have allergies to certain things in food,
including [cannabis] oils that could cause a very serious
response, which is one of the reasons DEC does food safety.
Allergies may not sound like much to people who don't have them,
but to a person with something like a peanut allergy it is
deadly. The department would have to figure out the standards
for children and adults, and how to label them appropriately;
however, DEC has no budget and no position for that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is asked the question only to put
it on the record that there will be a financial impact to DEC if
edible [cannabis] products are allowed.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG confirmed there would be a financial impact.
2:07:48 PM
MICHELLE HALE, Director, Division of Water, first responded to
Representative Seaton's question about promoting Alaska hire of
ocean rangers. She explained that it takes statutory change and
one change was made several years ago. Despite working hard and
advertising a lot, the division has found it hard to retain
Alaskans who become ocean rangers because they develop the skill
set and then move on to higher paying or year-round jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the requirement to
essentially be a marine engineer is needed, or could the
qualification be for experienced mariners given there are lots
of experienced mariners but few marine engineers.
MS. HALE replied that the requirement was modified so that it is
not just marine engineers, but that has not helped.
2:09:26 PM
MS. HALE turned to slide 35, noting that her division has two
components, with the water quality component being responsible
for issuing permits and doing water quality standards. The
other component - facility programs - includes the Village Safe
Water Program, Municipal Grants & Loan Program, and Operations
Assistance Program. Challenges faced by the division include
sustaining the Village Safe Water Program, the Alaska Water and
Sewer Challenge, and continuing to build the Alaska Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Program.
MS. HALE moved to slide 36, noting that all discharges of
wastewater to water, land, or the subsurface require a discharge
permit [under AS 46.03.100]. Addressing slide 37, she explained
that the APDES Program is a delegated program from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The state received full
primacy of that program in 2012, with primacy beginning in 2008.
The division inherited a large backlog of expired permits from
EPA. In FY 2014 the division issued 19 high quality permits and
744 authorizations under general permits. The division plans to
issue at least 20 permits in FY 2015; a steady state will be 24
permits per year. The division is issuing high quality permits
that are protective of the environment. The division works
closely with its permittees, which includes domestic wastewater
treatment plants as well as industry, as it issues those
permits. The permits go through a public notice process, so the
division works very closely with the public as well.
MS. HALE, responding to Representative Josephson, reiterated
that the division plans to issue about 20 permits this fiscal
year. On behalf of Commissioner Hartig, she added that for
several years prior to the division taking on the program, the
EPA averaged six permits per year. While 19 permits in FY 2014
does not seem like a large number, she continued, these are very
complex permits and it is a huge accomplishment for her staff.
2:12:02 PM
MS. HALE displayed slide 38, noting that the division issues
water quality standards, which are adopted in regulation. The
standards are developed by the department, go through a public
notice process, and are approved by EPA. These standards are
used in the division's permits. The division is currently in
the middle of a Triennial Review. This review is currently in
public notice to let the public know what the division is
planning to work on for its water quality standards in the next
three years and asking for input on those.
MS. HALE turned to slide 39, stating that the division is
working on improving wetlands permitting. Senate Bill 27 was
passed in 2013. It directed DEC, working with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and Department of Law (DOL), to explore
assumption of the Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404 wetlands
permitting program. Funding for that program was lost last
year, but the department did accomplish quite a bit in the year
that it had funding. A detailed plan for assumption was
developed so if the department gets funding again in the future
the plan can be picked back up.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether Governor Walker is
seeking funds to resume that in FY 2016.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered not at this time. He explained
that DEC had been exploring the pros and cons of taking on the
program. The intent was always to come back to the legislature
for a decision on when and how to move forward. At this point
DEC sees it as being suspended given the current budget
situation. The department is trying to wrap up in a way that it
shows public value for the money received for that one year.
2:14:00 PM
MS. HALE continued discussing slide 39, adding that in addition
to the detailed plan for assumption, the division has its work
products very well organized and could pick this back up at some
point in the future. She said the division has done quite a bit
of work with the Army Corps of Engineers on general permits.
For example, the division worked closely with the Corps on a
placer mining general permit that was highly controversial. It
is now back out to public notice, and the Corps took a lot of
input from DEC on ways of streamlining and improving that
permit. The department is very pleased with the Corps'
willingness to work together and the DEC's ability to influence
that. She advised that the division has worked on a mitigation
strategy for Alaska and also has funding from EPA to develop a
Wetland Program Plan, which is being wrapped up this fiscal
year. The division is hoping to get additional funding to work
on an overarching wetland program plan.
MS. HALE said the division's facilities programs [slide 40],
include the Municipal Grants & Loans Program, the Village Safe
Water (VSW) Program, and the Operations Assistance Program.
Under the VSW Program, the division works with small rural
communities to develop safe drinking water and sewage systems.
Those are 100 percent grant funded - typically 75 percent
funding from the federal government with a 25 percent state
match. The projects use local construction that provides
training and jobs for local people.
2:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that there are a lot of exempt
sewage facilities, especially in Western Alaska. There was a
high-profile issue with Unalaska and the justice department and
the EPA. He inquired whether the state is okay for a while,
considering all the exempt villages.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that what is being talked about is
that there are national standards that are set for wastewater
treatment plants, including the level of treatment. Most plants
around the country have secondary treatment, which is a higher
level of treatment before discharge. That is not always
possible in locations in Alaska for a variety of reasons, so
there is a federal exemption for a number of communities around
the state. This exemption goes back decades. The EPA is
revisiting that to see whether that exemption should still apply
to some of these communities. He said he thinks that EPA fully
intends to revoke the exemption for Unalaska given its size and
wealth and what could be achieved in terms of secondary
treatment, but he has not seen any action by EPA to look at any
other community in Alaska that currently has that exemption.
MS. HALE confirmed that the commissioner is correct, saying she
has had no indication that EPA plans on revoking the exemptions
of the other communities and she talks with her counterpart at
the EPA fairly regularly about this subject.
2:17:29 PM
MS. HALE displayed a graph [slide 42] depicting the decline in
funding that has occurred in the Village Safe Water Program over
the last 11 years. Thus far it has declined by about $62
million, about a 64 percent decline. This is funding for first
time service for homes that have never had service. It is also
funding for infrastructure, such as upgrades or replacement of
existing systems that have come to the end of their useful life.
About 4,500 homes are currently unserved in rural Alaska.
Moving to slide 43, she said it is important to provide service
to those homes because there is a direct correlation between
clean water and illness, especially between clean water and
reduction of illness. A hand-washing study in Pakistan
demonstrated that through simple mechanisms, like providing soap
and coaching on hand washing, pneumonia in children under five
was reduced by 50 percent. However, there must be water in
order to wash hands. Studies have also shown that if people do
not have much water, the focus is primarily on being able to
drink water and less on things like washing hands. Children in
Southwest Alaska suffer some of the highest rates in the world
of serious pneumococcal bacterial infection. Those infections
are directly related sanitation infrastructure.
2:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the drop in federal
monies on slide 42 is due to depletion of Denali Commission
money.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded no, appropriations for Village
Safe Water primarily come from EPA grants and U.S. Department of
Agriculture rural development grants. The Denali Commission has
a separate funding stream. He said it is just general decline
in the budget, plus more competition for those dollars from
other rural areas in the U.S., such as Hawaii and along the
border of Mexico which face similar problems as rural Alaska.
2:20:05 PM
MS. HALE turned to slide 44, stating that given the large gap
between available funding and needs, and given that funding has
declined, the division kicked off the Alaska Water and Sewer
Challenge, a creative public-private partnership. The division
went out to an international solicitation to form teams to
develop in-home, household-based systems that are decentralized
and do not rely on expensive centralized programs, systems, or
infrastructure. Six teams are currently developing proposals.
Funding was received from the legislature and federal sources to
take the partnership to the point it is now. The goal is to
significantly reduce costs, but the real goal is to provide in-
home water and sewer service and provide the benefits of health
and sanitation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that last year a priority of the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium was more training for the
individuals who would be running facilities being constructed in
rural communities. She noted it is often difficult to maintain
the infrastructure and asked whether the approach will now be
for in-home, rather than village-wide, systems.
MS. HALE agreed that training is important and said the division
does training all the time and works closely with Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium. The more complex facilities and more
complex designs are hard to maintain because they require a
level of expertise that is often not present in villages.
Remote maintenance workers, employed by the State of Alaska as
well as the regional health organizations, travel around to help
the local operators maintain facilities. The division is
definitely interested in reducing those operating costs and
making the systems easier to maintain.
2:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether DEC is involved with ocean
acidification and what DEC sees as its role in that.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that the increased concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ending up in the ocean and
changing the pH, making the ocean more acidic and difficult for
shell life. This is a big concern because shell life is a base
of the food chain for many important species in Alaska. It is
difficult for the state to do a whole lot on its own because
these are global emissions and involves the whole ocean, and
whatever could be done for carbon dioxide emissions in the state
will not have a big impact of its own, it needs to be worked on
collectively. At this point there is no program per se, DEC
does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions, nor does the federal
government, in terms of ocean acidification, although the
federal government is starting to do it through power plants and
individual-type emission sources. He offered his belief that
ocean acidification, separate from climate change, is something
Alaska should focus on.
2:24:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in regard to discharge permits, recalled
discussions last year about the reporting of discharges into
streams by total load instead of concentration so there would be
transparency to the public and that the report forms would be
posted electronically on the web for review. He asked whether
there has been any been any progress on this and whether it is
going to be part of the Triennial Review or the regulations on
methodology that are out now.
MS. HALE responded that the total load - for example, how many
pounds of total suspended solids - is often used in permitting
decisions. However, standard practice nationwide is to report
results in terms of concentrations. Something the division can
do, though, is provide on-line tools to help people make those
translations. The division has not done that currently, but it
could do so. While it is not really a water quality standard,
it is something that people could bring up in the context of
Triennial Review.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested clarification that public
comment would be on the Triennial Review and not the methodology
and reporting that is out for public comment now.
MS. HALE clarified it is the Triennial Review that is out for
public comment now. The review is letting people know the areas
the division is considering working on in terms of water quality
standards over the next three years and whether the public
thinks those are important and has other suggestions.
2:27:05 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG, responding to Representative Tarr, agreed
to provide the committee with some written highlights from the
Division of Environmental Health.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:27 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.
^Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
2:36:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the next order of business is
an overview by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
2:36:32 PM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), first relayed
Commissioner Cotten's regards, explaining that the commissioner
is representing the state's interests at the International
Pacific Halibut Commission meeting in Vancouver [BC].
MR. BROOKS turned to slide 2, explaining that ADF&G's mission is
to protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic
plant resources of the state, and manage their uses and
development in the best interest of the economy and the well-
being of the people of the state, consistent with the sustained
yield principle. The mission is derived directly from Article 8
of the state constitution.
2:38:17 PM
MR. BROOKS moved to slide 3 and outlined the three core services
around which the department's functions revolve. The core
service of stock management is measured through commercial
harvest, permits issued, angler days, and user harvest and
successes. The core service of stock assessment and research
involves meeting escapement goals, meeting or exceeding
threshold harvests or catch levels, and performing wildlife
surveys and research. Critically important is the core service
of customer service and public involvement through the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game, which take public input for the
management of the resources. The department has 84 advisory
committees around the state that provide input to the boards.
The department also has public information and service counters
at many of its offices and provides the fish and game licensing
programs and educational programs for the public.
2:39:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his belief in local hire and said
it is unfortunate that many ADF&G locations around the state
have seasonal managers who come from an urban area to manage but
do not live there and so do not have the feel for the area.
MR. BROOKS replied that ADF&G has 40 locations around the state,
some of which are housed with seasonal staff. He said
Representative Herron's point is a good one that he will make
note of. Displaying slide 4, he pointed out that the map shows
only ADF&G's permanent offices, not any seasonal locations.
2:40:52 PM
MR. BROOKS turned to slide 5 and outlined ADF&G's organizational
structure. He noted that Sam Cotten, a legislator for 20 years,
is the new commissioner; Charlie Swanton, the previous director
of the Division of Sport Fish, is a new deputy commissioner;
Tony DeGange is the new Division of Habitat director; Bruce Dale
is acting director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation; and
Tom Brookover is acting director of the Division of Sport Fish.
Mr. Dale and Mr. Brookover were the previous deputy directors of
their respective divisions. Mr. Brooks noted that the divisions
of commercial fisheries, wildlife conservation, and sport fish
are the big three management divisions. Two other divisions are
subsistence and administrative services, and the Board Support
Section facilitates the meetings of the Board of Fisheries and
the Board of Game. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council are independent
agencies attached to ADF&G for budgetary purposes.
MR. BROOKS moved to slide 6, explaining that responsibilities of
the commissioner's office include management and oversight of
all the activities that the divisions are involved in. Key
roles of the commissioner's office include the commissioner
holding a seat and being a voting member of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council that regulates the fisheries taking
place in federal waters around Alaska. Deputy Commissioner
Swanton holds a seat on the Pacific Salmon Commission.
2:43:05 PM
MR. BROOKS said the Division of Commercial Fisheries [slide 7]
manages all commercial, personal use, and subsistence fisheries
in state waters; manages shellfish and groundfish species under
delegation from the federal government; and plans and permits
salmon hatcheries and mariculture operations. This division has
20 permanent offices statewide, 84 seasonal offices and field
camps, and maintains and operates 6 large research vessels. The
Division of Commercial Fisheries is a big part of the economy in
Alaska [slide 8]. Ex-vessel value is tracked as an economic
indicator and commercial harvest and mariculture production are
significant contributors [to Alaska's economy].
MR. BROOKS noted that the Division of Sport Fish [slide 9] is
responsible for managing Alaska's sport fisheries, as well as
many personal use fisheries and some subsistence fisheries. It
administers enhancement operations through the William Jack
Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery in Anchorage and the Ruth Burnett
Sport Fish Hatchery in Fairbanks. A key function is boater and
angler access whereby funds are used to improve boater access
sites around the state. It has 3 regional offices and 22 area
offices around the state. This division tracks the sales of
fishing licenses [slide 10] and the Division of Wildlife
Conservation tracks the sales of hunting and trapping licenses
[slide 12]. License sales are good indicators of the public's
involvement and are a primary funding source to the department
because all revenues from license sales goes to the fish and
game fund and matches federal dollars. License sales have been
relatively flat over the last several years, although 2014 saw a
bit of an uptick from previous years.
2:45:38 PM
MR. BROOKS discussed the Division of Wildlife Conservation
[slide 11], explaining that it collects scientifically sound
information and manages wildlife populations in Alaska. It also
maintains wildlife habitat on state lands that are capable of
sustaining robust, well-distributed wildlife populations. The
intensive management program is done to increase low or
declining ungulate populations through.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there was an expectation
when the [1994] intensive management statute was passed as to
how long it would take to reach the goals described in the
enacting legislation.
MR. BROOKS replied that populations are dynamic over time so a
goal may be reached for a time and then needs to be revisited at
a later date. He said he does not know that there is ever an
expectation that at some point those efforts are done and that
is why they are ongoing to this date.
MR. BROOKS continued his discussion of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation, pointing out that it operates three shooting
ranges: Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Hunter education and
safety programs are also conducted through those facilities.
The division is located in about 25 offices around the state.
The sales of hunting and trapping licenses [slide 12] are viewed
by the department as a good indicator that people are expecting
there are animals on the landscape that they can harvest for
their consumptive needs.
2:48:04 PM
MR. BROOKS pointed out that the three aforementioned divisions
account for about 80 percent of ADF&G's presence and funding,
but said the other three divisions are also of great importance
to the state. The Division of Subsistence [slide 13] compiles
and analyzes subsistence harvest information, conducts research
to gather information on the role of hunting and fishing by
Alaskans for customary and traditional uses, and provides that
information to the boards of fisheries and game for a
determination of the amounts necessary for subsistence. This
division has seven offices statewide. Management plans for
fisheries and game populations are developed using subsistence
data and information.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired how active the state is in
managing subsistence fisheries.
MR. BROOKS replied that subsistence fisheries are managed by the
Division of Commercial Fisheries, not the Division of
Subsistence. Subsistence fisheries management is a very key and
important role of the commercial fisheries division.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he is talking about the setting
of subsistence seasons, bag limits, and gear.
CHARLES SWANTON, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, confirmed that
the Division of Commercial Fisheries manages a whole suite of
subsistence fisheries across the state. He said the federal
subsistence board is for fisheries across the state that are for
federally qualified users, and the federal government manages
those fisheries.
MR. BROOKS, responding to Representative Tarr, clarified that
the X axis on the graph on slide 14 represents the number of
plans. For 2014 the Division of Subsistence contributed [data
and information] to over 50 plans.
2:51:58 PM
MR. BROOKS said the Division of Habitat's primary role [slide
15] is reviewing applications and issuing permits for activities
in anadromous water bodies and legislatively designated special
areas. The division is instrumental in maintaining and revising
the [state's] anadromous waters catalog in consultation with the
Division of Sport Fish. It also reviews proposed timber harvest
activities and development projects. The bottom line for this
division is providing oversight and input into development
projects and ensuring that they go forward while not harming the
habitat that fish and wildlife are so dependent upon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that Administrative Order 266
[issued by the Parnell Administration] was a catalyst for making
adjustments to special use areas. He asked whether there will
be a reversal of course to revert to the prior practice.
MR. BROOKS answered that a new habitat director started today.
He understood from talks with Commissioner Cotten that one of
the habitat director's first duties is to look at what was going
on with special area reviews and determine what it was and
wasn't. He said he knows from efforts done on special area
planning in the past that there was much public concern over
whether these plans were going to be gutted or eliminated.
Commissioner Cotten is looking at this as an opportunity to hit
the restart button and take a fresh look. No plans are being
revised or changed until review occurs by the new director.
2:54:15 PM
MR. BROOKS returned to his review of the Division of Habitat,
moving to slide 16 and reporting that the division issued over
4,000 permits per year in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Only 14 of
those permits involved non-compliance actions where the division
had to work with the permittees to correct activities. So, the
success rate is high for permitting activities in ways that will
not have a negative effect on the resources.
MR. BROOKS turned to slide 17, explaining that the role of the
Division of Administrative Services is to support all of the
other divisions. It provides accounting services, budget,
procurement, human resource management, information technology,
and administers ADF&G's licensing program.
2:55:22 PM
MR. BROOKS addressed the Boards Support Section [slide 18],
noting that its primary role is to oversee the public process
for the state's fish and wildlife regulatory system. It helps
ensure that the public is provided an opportunity to participate
in the advisory committees as well as the process of the boards.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON offered his appreciation of the dedicated
employees in the Boards Support Section who must go to public
meetings that are contentious. They have a hard job as well as
a dangerous job. For example, 26 federal and ADF&G employees
having died in service since 1959 and several years ago an
interpreter for the boards was murdered in Anchorage.
MR. BROOKS noted there is a memorial on the wall in the regional
office that includes the names of those who have given their
life in service to the state. Continuing his presentation, he
reported that the boards are very busy. In 2014 the Board of
Fisheries had 36 meeting days and considered 377 proposals. The
Board of Game met for 20 days and considered 180 proposals. The
joint boards met together for 5 meeting days and considered 41
proposals. The meeting cycle is between the first part of
October and the end of March.
2:57:11 PM
MR. BROOKS drew attention to slide 19, explaining that the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council are independent agencies within the department.
They are in ADF&G for budgetary and administrative purposes and
are not in a direct line of reporting to the ADF&G commissioner.
MR. BROOKS moved to slide 20, stating that ADF&G's budget is
nearly $215 million, of which 40 percent is general fund, 30
percent is federal funds, 11 percent is fish and game funds, and
other smaller funding sources make up the difference. He
pointed out that 80 percent of the department's funding is tied
up in the three big management divisions, and this is the case
whether looking at total funds or general funds. Those are
where ADF&G has boots on the ground - folks interacting with the
public and opening and closing fisheries and hunts.
MR. BROOKS displayed slide 21 and discussed the fiscal year 2016
budgeted positions. He said that while the department has [922]
full-time positions, it has a highly seasonal work force that
almost doubles between the months of May and September. He
noted that 75-80 percent of all the positions are in the three
big management divisions.
2:58:48 PM
MR. BROOKS reviewed ADF&G's major accomplishments of 2014 [slide
22]. Chinook salmon remain a challenge, he said, but there have
been good commercial and recreational catches for the other four
species. The commercial harvest caught 156.7 million fish at a
preliminary value of $576 million, with Bristol Bay being the
largest component of that. Pink and chum harvests in Southeast
Alaska and Prince William Sound were also quite large. The 2014
Kotzebue chum salmon harvest was the second largest on record at
677,000. In 2014 ADF&G continued its widespread intensive
management efforts to increase caribou and moose numbers in game
management units 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 25.
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK said he would like to know what is happening in
Alaska's waters, noting that when people in his area are out
subsistence fishing for species like whitefish, a lot more Pink
and chum salmon are being caught. He suggested that if the
fisheries in Kotzebue continue there may be an opportunity for
people on the North Slope to benefit from [a salmon] fishery.
MR. BROOKS said he will get back to the co-chair with an answer.
MR. BROOKS continued his discussion of 2014 accomplishments
[slide 22], reporting that ADF&G is continuing to work on
endangered species. Data is provided to the Department of Law
for legal challenges to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings.
He pointed out that ADF&G has long been working on the
reintroduction of wood bison and animals will probably be
released on the landscape in March.
3:03:14 PM
MR. BROOKS discussed ADF&G's issues and challenges [slide 23],
stating that chinook salmon remain a concern. The second issue
of "Chinook News" will soon be published. It is a newspaper
documenting the efforts of ADF&G's Chinook Salmon Initiative,
which involves 12 indicator stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the status of funding for
Chinook salmon research.
MR. BROOKS replied that ADF&G came forward with a $30-million
initiative. In each of the past two years $10 million was asked
for, but was funded at $7.5 million. A carve-out of $2.5
million for Susitna drainage fisheries was broadened to all
species, not just Chinook. The Susitna is one the indicator
stocks. Thus, the department has $15 million on the books
rather than $30 million. There is no request for additional
funding. Managers have been told that that is what will be
operated with given the current fiscal climate. The department
is working on a scaled-back effort, such as fewer than 12
indicator stocks and focusing work on adults instead of
juveniles as juvenile work is more expensive. The department is
optimistic it will have good work and data from the effort, but
it will not be quite at the level that it started out at.
3:04:53 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council Resolution Support for amending 470 Fund.pdf |
HRES 1/26/2015 1:00:00 PM |
Prince William Sound Citizens Advisory Council Resolution in Support of Amending 470 Fund |
| 1.26.15 ADFG House Resources Overview Presentation.pdf |
HRES 1/26/2015 1:00:00 PM |
Department of Fish and Game Overview Presentation |
| House Resources Department Overview 01.26.15.pdf |
HRES 1/26/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|