Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/28/1994 08:15 AM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 28, 1994                                        
                            8:15 a.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Representative Bill Williams, Chairman                                       
  Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman                                    
  Representative Con Bunde                                                     
  Representative Pat Carney                                                    
  Representative John Davies                                                   
  Representative David Finkelstein                                             
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Jeannette James                                               
  Representative Eldon Mulder                                                  
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
  Representative Al Vezey                                                      
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  *HB 286   "An Act relating to certain activities within                      
            rivers, lakes, and streams that are important for                  
            spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous                      
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE                                        
  HB 436    "An Act prohibiting the Department of                              
            Environmental Conservation from adopting or                        
            enforcing a regulation that establishes an ambient                 
            air quality standard or emission standard that is                  
            more stringent than a corresponding federal                        
            standard; and providing for an effective date."                    
            HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE                                        
  * (First Public Hearing)                                                     
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 434                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1182                                                  
  Phone:  465-2186                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime Sponsor HB 286                                    
  FRANK RUE, Director                                                          
  Division of Habitat and Restoration                                          
  Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                           
  P.O. Box 25526                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99802-5526                                                  
  Phone:  465-4105                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  TED SMITH                                                                    
  P.O. Box 1026                                                                
  Willow, Alaska   99688                                                       
  Phone:  495-6637                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  DAVE CRUZ                                                                    
  P.O. Box 2027                                                                
  Wasilla, Alaska   99645                                                      
  Phone:  746-3144                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  PAUL HEADLEE, Water Resources Specialist                                     
  Tanana Chiefs Conference                                                     
  122 1st Avenue                                                               
  Fairbanks, Alaska   99701                                                    
  Phone:  452-8251                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  DORN HAWXHURST, Representative                                               
  Cordova District Fishermen United                                            
  P.O. Box 939                                                                 
  Cordova, Alaska   99574                                                      
  Phone:  424-3447                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  DALE BONDURANT                                                               
  HC1 Box 1197                                                                 
  Soldotna, Alaska   99669                                                     
  Phone:  262-1691                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  BEN ELLIS, Executive Director                                                
  Kenai River Sport Fishing                                                    
  Chairman, Habitat Protection Advisory Council                                
  P.O. Box 1228                                                                
  Soldotna, Alaska   99669                                                     
  Phone:  262-8588                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  GREG BELL                                                                    
  2048 Esquire Drive                                                           
  Anchorage, Alaska   99517                                                    
  Phone:  563-3436                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  KATE TROLL, Executive Director                                               
  Southeast Alaska Seiners Association                                         
  Executive Committee Member, United Fishermen of Alaska                       
  9226 Long Run                                                                
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  789-5117                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  JOHN GEORGE, Representative                                                  
  Alaska Outdoor Council                                                       
  9515 Moraine Way                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  789-0172                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  CARL LONDON                                                                  
  6231 Old Seward Highway                                                      
  Anchorage, Alaska   99518                                                    
  Phone:  276-0560                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  PAUL MCLAUGHLIN                                                              
  4916 Castle Court                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska   99508                                                    
  Phone:  333-5485                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  JERRY MCCUNE                                                                 
  United Fisherman of Alaska                                                   
  211 Fourth Street, #211                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  586-2820                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  TROY REINHART, Executive Director                                            
  Alaska Forest Association                                                    
  111 Stedman, #200                                                            
  Ketchikan, Alaska   99901                                                    
  Phone:  225-6114                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  JOE WEHRMAN                                                                  
  Konkor Forest Products                                                       
  3527 Vassar Drive                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska   99508                                                    
  Phone:  276-6852                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 286                                        
  JEFF PARKER, Representative                                                  
  Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee                                   
  1207 Hyder                                                                   
  Anchorage, Alaska   99507                                                    
  Phone:  274-5418                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 286                                          
  JOSEPH EASAW, JR., Aide                                                      
  Representative Al Vezey                                                      
  State Capitol, Room 102                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1182                                                  
  Phone:  465-3719                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement on HB 436                    
  MICHAEL MENGE, Director                                                      
  Division of Environmental Quality                                            
  Department of Environmental Conservation                                     
  410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1795                                                  
  Phone:  465-5260                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:   Opposed HB 436                                         
  LEN VERRELLI, Program Manager                                                
  Air Quality Management Section                                               
  Department of Environmental Conservation                                     
  410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1795                                                  
  Phone:  465-5100                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 436                                          
  STAN STEPHENS, President                                                     
  Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council                      
  P.O. Box 1297                                                                
  Valdez, Alaska   99686                                                       
  Phone:  835-4731                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 436                                          
  MEAD TREADWELL, Deputy Commissioner                                          
  Department of Environmental Conservation                                     
  410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105                                               
  Juneau, Alaska   99801-1795                                                  
  Phone:  465-5050                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 436                                          
  RICK LAUBER, Representative                                                  
  Pacific Seafood Processors Association                                       
  321 Highland Drive                                                           
  Juneau, Alaska   99801                                                       
  Phone:  586-6366                                                             
  POSITION STATEMENT:  No position on HB 436                                   
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  HB 286                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CARNEY                                         
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  04/20/93      1355    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/20/93      1355    (H)   FISHERIES,RESOURCES,JUDICIARY,                   
  03/21/94      2915    (H)   FSH REFERRAL WAIVED                              
  03/21/94      2916    (H)   REFERRED TO RESOURCES                            
  03/28/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  BILL:  HB 436                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: STRICTNESS OF AIR QUALITY REGS                                  
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY,Sitton                                   
  JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                     
  02/04/94      2255    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/04/94      2255    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES                         
  02/07/94      2291    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  SITTON                            
  02/24/94      2519    (H)   STA RPT  2DP  3NR                                
  02/24/94      2519    (H)   DP:  VEZEY, OLBERG                               
  02/24/94      2519    (H)   NR:  KOTT, SANDERS, G.DAVIS                      
  02/24/94      2519    (H)   -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DEC) 2/24/94                  
  02/24/94      2519    (H)   REFERRED TO RESOURCES                            
  02/24/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  02/24/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/05/94              (H)   MINUTE(ECO)                                      
  03/28/94              (H)   RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-43, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Resources Committee was called to order by                         
  Chairman Bill Williams at 8:21 a.m.  Members present at the                  
  call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,                  
  Carney, Davies, Finkelstein and Green.  Members absent were                  
  Representatives James and Mulder.                                            
  CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.                  
  He stated the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,                   
  Cordova, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna and                        
  HB 286 - Activities In Anadromous Fish Streams                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 286                      
  addresses two issues:  1) it authorizes the commissioner of                  
  the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to exempt                     
  certain portions of anadromous fish streams that are used                    
  for crossings; and 2) it provides a lesser penalty for                       
  violations of current statute (AS 16.05.870 -16.05.895) that                 
  were unintentionally committed, such as a piece of equipment                 
  falling through ice, as long as the violation did not act                    
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said according to Article VIII,                        
  Section 1 of Alaska's Constitution, the state's policy is to                 
  "encourage...the development of its resources by making them                 
  available for maximum use consistent with the public                         
  interest."  This legislation attempts to correct an inequity                 
  in current statute.  An anadromous stream cannot be crossed                  
  if there is even a possibility of fish production.  He                       
  stated this would seem to favor one resource, fish, over                     
  another such as timber, even when it can be shown that                       
  spawning grounds will not be harmed nor fish stocks reduced                  
  as a result of an attempted stream crossing with a piece of                  
  equipment or a vehicle.                                                      
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated while it is important to                        
  protect anadromous streams from damage by recreational                       
  vehicles or equipment used for logging, flexibility must be                  
  permitted for the department to allow for unintentional                      
  violations and to exempt certain portions of streams, where                  
  there is no possibility fish stocks will be harmed.                          
  (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES                 
  JAMES and MULDER had joined the committee at 8:25 a.m.)                      
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked for an explanation of                 
  the difference between the program which ADF&G currently                     
  uses and what HB 286 provides.  He wondered if under HB 286,                 
  a permit will not be required.                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY responded a major difference is the                    
  penalty for a violation is reduced and HB 286 makes it                       
  possible for the commissioner to create certain crossings.                   
  He felt HB 286 takes a little control away from the                          
  commissioner.  He said ADF&G issues permits but only during                  
  a window of opportunity when the department knows there are                  
  no eggs in a stream.  He wondered how much damage one piece                  
  of machinery causes when crossing one stream.                                
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he is attempting to                          
  understand the difference between Section 1 in HB 286 and                    
  existing law.  He stated current law says the department has                 
  the power to provide general permits, etc.  He wondered what                 
  power Section 1 gives to the department they do not already                  
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said he cannot answer the question.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked if the reduction of penalty                 
  applies to all violations or just inadvertent violations.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY replied the reduction applies to all                   
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated if HB 286 passes making it                      
  easier to cross streams legally, why is there a need to also                 
  reduce the penalties.                                                        
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY responded HB 286 requires the                          
  department to prove it is a willful crossing.                                
  REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought Representative Carney had said                 
  even in the case of a willful crossing, the penalty will be                  
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said that is correct.                                  
  Number 130                                                                   
  (ADF&G), stated the packet in committee member's folders                     
  contains a one page analysis of what HB 286 does and does                    
  not do, a one page excerpt of a review which ADF&G did about                 
  the department's permitting program, a one page permit                       
  summary enabling committee members to see how many permits                   
  are issued, timing, etc., and examples of general permits                    
  from each region.  He showed committee members the                           
  anadromous stream atlas and a catalog of anadromous streams.                 
  He stressed that under statute, the department has to, by                    
  regulation, go through a public process identifying those                    
  streams which have anadromous fish in them which then go                     
  into the atlas and catalog, resulting in people being aware                  
  of where the statute does and does not apply.                                
  MR. RUE said under present law, there are two ways a person                  
  can cross an anadromous stream.  An individual permit can be                 
  applied for at one of ADF&G's offices and ADF&G then issues                  
  the person an individual permit to cross a stream for                        
  whatever particular project the permit is for.  He said the                  
  department issued 1,198 Title 16 permits last year, it took                  
  the department an average of 18 days to issue the permits,                   
  and only three permits were denied.  He pointed out those                    
  facts emphasize that the department is trying to work with                   
  people, allowing them to cross the streams, while also                       
  maintaining fish in the streams.                                             
  MR. RUE, referring to the review, said people are generally                  
  pleased with the permit process as long as the department                    
  follows three principles:  1) ADF&G knows what is going on                   
  in the streams; 2) ADF&G understands the permittee's                         
  objectives and is clear that the department is trying to                     
  accommodate their interest in going across a stream; and 3)                  
  ADF&G is flexible.  He said when ADF&G does those three                      
  things, they are usually successful.                                         
  Number 187                                                                   
  MR. RUE explained there are general permits around the state                 
  which are areas where ADF&G can authorize a crossing for                     
  anyone in the public without application.  He stated ADF&G                   
  advertises those crossings to make people aware of them.                     
  ADF&G does occasionally condition those permits if there is                  
  a sensitive area involved such as a weight limit.  He said                   
  HB 286 will basically end the department's general                           
  permitting process.  Instead, ADF&G will have to exempt an                   
  area totally from regulation.  He felt the bill is an all or                 
  nothing decision.  He added that once an area is exempted,                   
  the department cannot apply conditions such as weight                        
  limits, not cutting the banks, or if the banks are cut,                      
  restoring them, etc.  Mr. Rue said HB 286 will also change                   
  the standard of proof and the penalties for different                        
  MR. RUE said under HB 286, ADF&G will exempt an area from                    
  regulation by petition--an individual can petition ADF&G to                  
  remove a part of a stream to make it a ford.  He stated when                 
  ADF&G writes regulations for the catalog every year, the                     
  general public is asked if there are streams or segments of                  
  streams which ought to be removed from the catalog.  Every                   
  year, the department does find a few streams not significant                 
  for fish and they are removed from the catalog.                              
  Number 226                                                                   
  MR. RUE felt HB 286 will make it difficult for ADF&G to put                  
  in crossings or fords because the department will not be                     
  able to condition them.  He said it will become more                         
  expensive because everything will be done by regulation, as                  
  opposed to having an administrative general permit.  Appeals                 
  will be handled by hearing officers costing anywhere from                    
  $5,000 to $15,000.  People who are unhappy about ADF&G                       
  denying a petition can appeal it.  Likewise, people unhappy                  
  that ADF&G agreed to a petition can appeal it.  He explained                 
  there will be a small increase in costs in the requirement                   
  for additional training for enforcing the different                          
  statutory penalty provisions.                                                
  MR. RUE stressed ADF&G does not object to the idea of trying                 
  to get fords.  He said ADF&G prefers the current process of                  
  establishing fords by general permit where appropriate                       
  conditions can be applied.  ADF&G does accept the fact that                  
  if one is going to cross or build a structure, some impact                   
  will be created but they are just trying to keep that impact                 
  at a minimum if possible and still achieve the objectives of                 
  the individual.                                                              
  Number 271                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN agreed that ADF&G has made great                    
  strides in cooperating with industry while protecting fish                   
  and wildlife.  He expressed concern that if legislation such                 
  as HB 286 is not passed, how will ADF&G avoid a situation                    
  like what happened to Mr. Bell, an individual who got the                    
  permit, did what the permit said, fell through the ice and                   
  then got fined $2,000.                                                       
  MR. RUE stressed ADF&G does not cite someone who                             
  accidentally falls through the ice while following the                       
  department's permit.  He said Mr. Bell waited until the end                  
  of a three year timber sale to get a permit.  The department                 
  got him a permit in four days, but he was getting toward the                 
  end of the window to get across on the ice.  He went across                  
  the ice, broke through, kept going, and even though he had                   
  been told many times not to drive through the area on the                    
  gravel, he went ahead and did that on bad advice from                        
  another agency, contrary to what he had been told by ADF&G.                  
  Mr. Rue stated after that, ADF&G then worked with Mr. Bell                   
  to try and get him across in  another area using landing                     
  mats to decrease the pressure.                                               
  MR. RUE pointed out there is an emergency provision in                       
  present statute which allows people to proceed with a                        
  project if there is an emergency involved and inform ADF&G                   
  about it later.  ADF&G also issues verbal permits on the                     
  telephone if there is a problem.  He said if the department                  
  is frivolous about citing people, that is why there are                      
  courts and the courts will determine the department is                       
  Number 316                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified if a person is acting in good                 
  faith in what ADF&G has permitted him to do and has an                       
  inadvertent problem, the person will not be cited.                           
  MR. RUE said the person will not be cited by ADF&G.  He                      
  added Fish and Wildlife Protection could try and get the                     
  attorney general's office to take a case without asking                      
  REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE observed that this is another                       
  example which gives strength to moving protection back into                  
  the department.                                                              
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY felt it was significant that Mr. Bell                  
  was required to get an attorney, go to court and was given                   
  probation, yet the error in judgment which Mr. Bell made was                 
  to turn around and go back through the stream.  He wondered                  
  what other options Mr. Bell had.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked if a person has a                       
  permit to cross a stream, is doing so according to the rules                 
  and falls through, what are that person's options.                           
  MR. RUE stated he should rescue his life and equipment and                   
  then contact ADF&G about what he should do next.                             
  Number 350                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if in Section 1, language could                   
  be added saying it is a defense if the violation was                         
  innocent and the person responded in a reasonable way to get                 
  his equipment out of the stream.  If a person finds                          
  themselves in a stream, how do they get out with existing                    
  law and what is the penalty.                                                 
  MR. RUE responded if a person has a permit from ADF&G to go                  
  through a stream, the person is complying with the permit                    
  and an accident happens, it is not a citable offense.  He                    
  said ADF&G does not have many violations each year.                          
  Number 403                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the existing penalties                 
  are for violations.                                                          
  MR. RUE replied currently, the maximum penalty a person can                  
  receive is a Class A misdemeanor which is different for                      
  individuals and corporations.  He said the penalty for a                     
  corporation is up to $200,000 and for an individual it is up                 
  to $5,000 or one year in jail.  He emphasized the court has                  
  never imposed that level of penalty.                                         
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN recalled Mr. Rue had said of the                  
  1,200 permits given out, approximately three were denied.                    
  MR. RUE said that is correct.                                                
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked of the others, how many of                  
  them received modification.                                                  
  MR. RUE replied ADF&G's favorite kind of permit is one the                   
  department approves as designed or proposed.  He said ADF&G                  
  does condition permits, most often during construction                       
  seasons.  He explained there is usually a six weeks or two                   
  month window when the juvenile fish have left the gravel,                    
  before the adults return and begin to spawn and people can                   
  get into the stream and construct things not causing major                   
  problems.  He said not every contractor knows all of the                     
  details of any particular system or what its sensitivities                   
  are, so ADF&G tries to work with the person on those types                   
  of things.                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked of those 1,200 permits in                   
  an average year, how many result in going to court for                       
  MR. RUE replied maybe three.                                                 
  Number 464                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked how many of the permits are                 
  MR. RUE said he is not sure but thought the small permits                    
  are not a big percentage.                                                    
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if he wanted a permit, what                      
  process would he follow.                                                     
  MR. RUE responded it would depend on where he lives.  A                      
  person living in the Fairbanks area would go to the                          
  Fairbanks ADF&G office and get a Title 16 application form.                  
  If a person lives in the coastal zone, that person will also                 
  complete a coastal project questionnaire which has the Title                 
  16 form attached.                                                            
  REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if a person has a piece of                       
  property, would that person be able to call an ADF&G office                  
  and get verbal approval to make a crossing for a temporary                   
  MR. RUE said it would depend on the situation.  If the                       
  situation was an emergency, ADF&G will give a verbal                         
  approval.  He stressed ADF&G prefers not to give verbal                      
  permits, especially if the department has time to look at                    
  the actual plan.                                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said in considering the permit                          
  application for crossing streams, is the amount of usage                     
  which the crossing might have ever considered in determining                 
  the possibility of a permanent crossing.                                     
  MR. RUE said the department does.  For example, in                           
  Fairbanks, ADF&G works with the Department of Transportation                 
  (DOT) and people in the Nome area to identify those places                   
  people generally use and a general permit is issued.  He                     
  gave other examples.                                                         
  Number 543                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt a permanent crossing is the wisest                 
  decision because if there is danger to fish, a permanent                     
  structure will be less damaging than if individuals get                      
  permits to cross time after time.                                            
  MR. RUE agreed, but said many times the department faces the                 
  problem of financing.  ADF&G likes to work with local                        
  governments to determine capital projects to build permanent                 
  structures and/or DOT where there is enough crossing going                   
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked Mr. Rue to comment on how many                   
  potential salmon eggs will be damaged by a 40 foot ford.                     
  MR. RUE replied it would depend on how much spawning was                     
  occurring in the area.  He said if intense spawning has been                 
  occurring, thousands and thousands of eggs will be killed,                   
  possibly up to 100,000 eggs.                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked how many salmon eggs it takes to                 
  produce one salmon.                                                          
  MR. RUE responded it depends on the species but he estimated                 
  100 to 1,000.                                                                
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what the penalty is if a person                  
  crosses a salmon stream with a four wheeler or a farm                        
  tractor without a permit.                                                    
  MR. RUE stated the penalty can be up to a full Class A                       
  misdemeanor which is $5,000 and up to one year in jail.  He                  
  stressed he has never seen that type of penalty imposed.                     
  Number 620                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Rue to explain the fiscal note.                  
  MR. RUE stated it is difficult to estimate, but ADF&G is                     
  assuming they will have five petitions and three appeals                     
  annually to remove sections of stream from regulation.  The                  
  department's experience with hearing officers, which will be                 
  required to deal with the petitions, will cost from $5,000                   
  to $15,000 each.  He said most of the costs will come from                   
  any appeals of petitions which ADF&G denies or approves                      
  which someone is unhappy with.  He noted there will also be                  
  some increase costs in training.                                             
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he did not understand where the                       
  increases will come from.                                                    
  MR. RUE stated the process to create a ford is now one of                    
  exempting a chunk of stream formally, by regulation from the                 
  statute.  With HB 286, a section of stream is no longer                      
  subject to statute and because of that, ADF&G will need to                   
  use the Administrative Procedures Act to establish that                      
  regulation.  That decision can be appealed through the                       
  Administrative Procedures Act which means a hearing officer                  
  must be used costing between $5,000 to $15,000 each,                         
  depending on how significant the appeal is.  It is a very                    
  formal way to exempt sections of streams for fords as                        
  opposed to the present process of general permits.  It is a                  
  regulatory exemption.                                                        
  TAPE 94-43, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referring to the Bell case, asked if                    
  Mr. Bell would have come to ADF&G after falling through the                  
  ice and bringing his vehicle back, what would have been his                  
  chances of getting a permit to continue to cross where he                    
  was, assuming the ice was not going to refreeze.                             
  MR. RUE responded ADF&G told him they would be willing to                    
  work with him to either move upstream or downstream where                    
  the ice was firm or use something like landing mats which                    
  spreads the pressure from the vehicle.  He said there was a                  
  case in Haines where a logging company had to cross the                      
  Chilkat River when the coho were spawning, as the company                    
  would have had to leave their equipment on the other side                    
  for an entire year if they were going to use the ice.  ADF&G                 
  determined that was not reasonable.  In exchange, the                        
  company gave ADF&G two days of backhoe time to work on                       
  rearing ponds near the Haines airport.                                       
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked how deep the water was where Mr.                 
  Bell fell through.                                                           
  MR. RUE said he would have to look at the records to answer                  
  the question.                                                                
  REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY wondered if there were salmon eggs                     
  present when Mr. Bell fell through.                                          
  MR. RUE replied he would have to check with the staff who                    
  dealt with that issue.                                                       
  Number 045                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted there are many different accounts                 
  of the Greg Bell case and asked how many such cases does                     
  ADF&G have where people are trying to comply with their                      
  permit but for some reason, usually nature, result in a                      
  MR. RUE stated there are very few situations where there is                  
  a violation.  Usually ADF&G issues a notice of violation and                 
  asks that the problem be fixed.  As mentioned earlier, an                    
  accident is not a citable offense.  He estimated there are                   
  less than five citations a year which go to court.                           
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the violations are                            
  MR. RUE replied usually the general public complains to                      
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified it is possible there are more                 
  violations which the department is unaware of.                               
  MR. RUE said that is correct.                                                
  TED SMITH, WILLOW, testified via teleconference and stated                   
  there are two points which need to be mentioned.  He said                    
  ADF&G does not use the permit system very often and stressed                 
  HB 286 would not be before the committee if the permit                       
  system had worked correctly.  Mr. Bell went through the                      
  individual permit process, but a more rational approach                      
  would have been for ADF&G and the Department of Natural                      
  Resources (DNR) to work together and get a general permit in                 
  advance.  He said this particular location is on a slough                    
  and had been used for prior logging.  He felt it was                         
  irrational to believe that every inch of every anadromous                    
  water is equally valuable.                                                   
  MR. SMITH stated HB 286 will provide an element of intent.                   
  He said AS 16.05.900 presently says a person who violates AS                 
  16.05.870 - 16.05.895 is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.                    
  This bill will provide an element of intent and provide for                  
  a lesser citation in situations where there is no willful                    
  violation of the law.                                                        
  Number 157                                                                   
  DAVE CRUZ, WASILLA, testified via teleconference and stated                  
  his logging company has had similar problems of ice breaking                 
  and being caught in precarious conditions with equipment.                    
  He pointed out that one pound per square inch exerted by a                   
  bulldozer, if it is just graveling across a ford, is less                    
  than that of a person walking along the edge of a river.  He                 
  felt Mr. Rue's assessment of the damage of heavy equipment                   
  is incorrect.  He said many of these crossings date back to                  
  the gold rush days and added there are not many roads but                    
  there are many trails.  He stated these crossings serve as a                 
  highway in the winter and there is a need to keep them open                  
  for the benefit of the public.  He felt changes are needed.                  
  CONFERENCE (TCC), testified via teleconference and stated                    
  TCC needs clarification why upland resource utilization,                     
  which is not very well defined, will be exempt from                          
  subsections (b) -(d).  He said these subsections are the                     
  heart and soul of the statute and that heart and soul is                     
  (indiscernible) in anadromous streams (indiscernible)                        
  salmon.  He pointed out that subsections (b) - (d) include a                 
  notification process, as well as a plan for specifications                   
  for the activity.                                                            
  MR. HEADLEE felt this process works very well currently. If                  
  the department determines that plans are insufficient, the                   
  applicant is notified and can either submit additional plans                 
  or request a hearing.  TCC is not asking that any activity                   
  be restricted but rather, just allow the activity to go                      
  through the necessary process and be looked at objectively,                  
  so irreparable mistakes are not made.  He felt the state                     
  cannot afford any mistakes at a time when it is trying to                    
  rebuild a very depressed chum salmon stock.  He said TCC is                  
  opposed to HB 286.                                                           
  Number 223                                                                   
  UNITED (CDFU) testified via teleconference and expressed                     
  opposition to HB 286 on behalf of CDFU.  CDFU is opposed to                  
  activities which adversely affect spawning, rearing, or                      
  migration of anadromous fish.  She said this proposed                        
  legislation dilutes existing law and makes it easier for                     
  individuals and government agencies to interfere with                        
  rivers, lakes and streams.  The proposed legislation seems                   
  to penalize only those who willfully violate the law instead                 
  of the current law, which penalizes those who cause harm to                  
  these areas whether intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or                 
  otherwise.  She stated HB 286 makes ignorance an acceptable                  
  MS. HAWXHURST stated in regard to Section 1, the                             
  commissioner already does have the power to provide permits                  
  and this permitting process adequately serves the public.                    
  She felt there is no reason for any additional blanket                       
  exemptions.  She stressed existing law is not an example of                  
  resource favoritism--it is an example of responsible                         
  resource management.  She urged members to reject HB 286 and                 
  leave the existing law alone.                                                
  Number 247                                                                   
  DALE BONDURANT, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and                   
  expressed opposition to HB 286.  He felt the intent of the                   
  bill  is to lower the responsibility and liability for                       
  damages to the state's fishery habitat.  He stated either                    
  ADF&G must be given a strong tool to protect the habitat or                  
  it should be admitted that the state has no more concern                     
  shown in other states, where there are declines and in some                  
  instances, a complete loss of fish protection.  In regard to                 
  multiple use of the state's resources, he thought there is a                 
  need to expand the control of potential damage practices and                 
  more strictly scrutinizing any exemptions of that control.                   
  In addition to the concern about how many salmon eggs which                  
  can be potentially damaged, he felt turbidity is an                          
  important factor in the protection of the raising of salmon.                 
  MR. BONDURANT stated anyone can say they did not believe any                 
  damage could be done and use it as an excuse.  He felt                       
  people need to be responsible for their mistakes, whether                    
  they are intently or accidental.  He thought protection of                   
  fish and habitat remain the full responsibility of ADF&G.                    
  He strongly supports ADF&G's position on HB 286.                             
  Number 290                                                                   
  via teleconference and stated his comments are also                          
  supported by the Alaska Sport Fishing Association.  He                       
  expressed opposition of HB 286.  He said while it seems                      
  Representative Carney's intent is to streamline the state's                  
  regulatory process without putting anadromous fish habitat                   
  at risk, he believes that passage of HB 286 will lead to the                 
  harm of critical fish habitat.  HB 286 will reduce the                       
  protection of anadromous fish and will allow anyone who                      
  wants to ford an anadromous spring without restrictions, to                  
  submit a petition to do so, regardless of how important the                  
  area is for the protection of anadromous fish.  He said the                  
  department can deny petitions but department costs will                      
  likely increase substantially because administrative actions                 
  (indiscernible) that will be possible under this change.                     
  MR. ELLIS felt the petition amendment is unnecessary because                 
  the department issues hundreds of permits to cross                           
  anadromous streams, including fords, annually.  He stated in                 
  1993, more than 99 percent of all persons who applied for                    
  permits received their permit within an average of 17 days.                  
  The department has also issued a number of general permits                   
  to the public for (indiscernible) for a large number of                      
  streams and portions of state game refuges and critical                      
  habitat areas using recreational vehicles and highway                        
  vehicles.  He pointed out there is an existing process                       
  whereby citizens can petition the commissioner to remove a                   
  water body from the anadromous water catalog.  The                           
  department receives petitions from the public and if the                     
  water body or a portion is determined not to be important                    
  for anadromous fish, the department removes it from the                      
  catalog.  ADF&G annually removes a number of these water                     
  bodies.  He stressed there is no real problem in attaining a                 
  permit to cross a specific anadromous water body.                            
  MR. ELLIS stated the reduction of penalties and the                          
  increased burden of prosecution will make the Anadromous                     
  Fish Act less of a deterrent to violators, who under the                     
  current law, can face a potential $5,000 fine and up to one                  
  year in jail for working in an anadromous stream without an                  
  ADF&G approval.  He said though the possible intent of this                  
  change may be to provide more assurances that the rights of                  
  a violator be protected, the net effect will likely be to                    
  increase the costs of investigations, decrease the deterrent                 
  effect of the law, and even further reduce the small number                  
  of cases prosecuted.                                                         
  Number 338                                                                   
  GREG BELL, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                       
  pointed out in regard to his case, a permit had already been                 
  issued on the Susitna Crossing to the Division of Forestry.                  
  He said it was his first process and he had told ADF&G at                    
  the time, he (indiscernible) in the Title 16 permitting                      
  process.  He noted he had been in business for 15 years and                  
  had never had a violation.  He got a permit and then                         
  determined another permit was required.  He said Mr. Rue had                 
  indicated that he had waited until the last minute to get                    
  his permit.  He explained the snow was seven feet deep for                   
  two years and that is why he could not get into the sale.                    
  Nature is a big factor and that is why there is a need to                    
  have as big of a window as possible.                                         
  MR. BELL stated the permitting process is cumbersome.  He                    
  said when he went to court, he received a bigger fine than                   
  drug dealers or driving while intoxicated offenders receive.                 
  He explained a month after he fell through the ice there was                 
  no water in that spot.  He said he did receive an open water                 
  crossing permit.  When that permit became valid, the water                   
  had risen eight feet.  He went out with ADF&G the next day                   
  along with a fish biologist and they looked at the area                      
  upstream and downstream.  There was a place to cross but one                 
  of the persons said no, so they left.  He stressed the                       
  process is not easy and added that most people do not have                   
  as much energy as he does in determining how to change the                   
  Number 390                                                                   
  MR. BELL said he had asked a fish biologist what damage a                    
  fish stream crossing does to the fish stock and that                         
  biologist replied very little, if any.  He felt what                         
  happened to him was unjust and that is why this legislation                  
  is before the committee.  He stated HB 286 gives more                        
  control to the commissioner.  He thought ADF&G has something                 
  against the timber industry.                                                 
  Number 410                                                                   
  FISHERMEN OF ALASKA, said she is one of few people still                     
  around who was involved in the negotiations of the state                     
  Forest Practices Act which passed the legislature in 1991.                   
  In that process, the fishing industry recognized there were                  
  other uses of the forest and there would be a loss of                        
  habitat but also there was a need to make accommodations for                 
  the economic interests of the timber industry.  That was                     
  accomplished in various ways and it was a process which                      
  recognized the give and take, and cooperation of both                        
  MS. TROLL stated in going through that process, those                        
  involved looked at what was established and how ADF&G                        
  currently reviews their anadromous catalog and how they                      
  exempt streams from that process.  The key point accepted                    
  throughout the process was that Title 16, as it relates to                   
  stream crossings, works.  She expressed opposition to HB 286                 
  because it begins to erode that process and begins to back                   
  away all the give and take agreements which were recognized.                 
  The bill also says the process is broken and earlier                         
  testimony says just the opposite.  The process is working.                   
  MS. TROLL told committee members they not only need to                       
  recognize that the permit process is working, but to also                    
  recognize there is a need for the process of the entire                      
  Forest Practices Act and the agreement to continue to work.                  
  She expressed opposition to HB 286 also based on the fact                    
  that Title 16 is used to defend the state's position on                      
  PACFISH and other federal rules coming into play.  She felt                  
  it was prudent and incumbent upon the legislature to                         
  maintain those laws which are working for the state as a                     
  defense against other federal initiatives.  She felt it is                   
  important to be consistent.                                                  
  MS. TROLL pointed out in many other arenas of the                            
  legislature currently, there is a desire to get tougher on                   
  violations and crime including the fishing industry.  She                    
  felt it is unfair to make exceptions for another industry--                  
  an industry which could potentially harm another economic                    
  interest.  She stated HB 286 addresses a law which is not                    
  broken and to act on it, will undermine all the good put                     
  forward in protecting Title 16 and making it work                            
  reasonably, and standing behind the Forest Practices Act in                  
  protecting the state's rights to manage for the balance of                   
  the state's resources.  She urged committee members to                       
  reject HB 286.                                                               
  Number 532                                                                   
  expressed opposition to HB 286.   He said although AOC                       
  fights for access to areas for hunting and fishing, crossing                 
  anadromous streams with four wheel drive vehicles or                         
  bulldozers adversely impacts AOC's interests.  He stated                     
  testimony has verified that permits are issued on a regular                  
  basis, in a timely manner.  There has been no indication                     
  that the permits are complicated or expensive to get.  He                    
  noted other testimony indicated the fines can be relatively                  
  substantial.  He felt there is a need for substantial                        
  penalties to apply in the most egregious cases.                              
  MR. GEORGE said the system does work--it allows substantial                  
  penalties where they are appropriate and allows minor or no                  
  penalties where appropriate and people get permits.  He                      
  asked what better system is there.                                           
  Number 575                                                                   
  CARL LONDON, ANCHORAGE, testified teleconference and stated                  
  the public owns fish yet there is no value put on the fish.                  
  He felt the state should begin putting a value on the fish                   
  harvested and let the harvester pay for the fish taken away                  
  from the public.  He said the timber industry has to pay for                 
  its harvest, so the fishermen should pay likewise.  In                       
  regard to the government having less revenue from the oil                    
  tax which will require a cut in the state's budget, he                       
  suggested the state should cut agencies' budgets that                        
  proliferate with unnecessary regulations such as                             
  (indiscernible).  He suggested cutting their budgets and                     
  letting them reorganize under another agency, requiring them                 
  to become more responsive to the constitutional rights of                    
  the individual.                                                              
  MR. LONDON stated the average of 17 days to get a permit                     
  means 17 working days, which is almost a month.  He said the                 
  constitutional right of resources being equal is                             
  (indiscernible) of the fishing industry at this time and                     
  totally ignores the rights of access to crossings and to                     
  resources such as timber or mineral rights.  He encouraged                   
  scrutiny of ADF&G which has gone amok with a power grab                      
  (indiscernible) the individuals who support that system.                     
  Number 631                                                                   
  PAUL MCLAUGHLIN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and                 
  expressed support of HB 286.  He said the bill will give                     
  more leniency for business people.  He stated it has become                  
  more and more difficult to remain in business over the                       
  years, especially small businesses, because of rules and                     
  regulations.  He noted there are several examples of people                  
  crossing the stream, referred to in the Bell case, over a                    
  number of years and ADF&G did not do anything about it.  He                  
  pointed out there are hunters, fishers and homesteaders who                  
  probably cross these streams 100 times more than business                    
  people do for a small timber sale.  He felt people trying to                 
  do business in Alaska should be given a fair shake.  He                      
  wondered if anyone had evaluated how much damage is done by                  
  a track of a vehicle crossing a stream eight feet wide as                    
  compared to a stream several miles long.                                     
  TAPE 94-44, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  stated UFA opposes HB 286 and does not feel anything is                      
  wrong with Title 16 as written.  UFA does not agree with the                 
  opinion that the state should accept some temporary loss of                  
  fish habitat for the benefit of other users.  He said there                  
  has to be other compromises for putting equipment in streams                 
  as determined by the commissioner of ADF&G.  He gave                         
  personal testimony of using the permitting process himself.                  
  He stated the salmon eggs in streams are the fisher's bank                   
  in the future and are the state's bank for the future.  He                   
  stressed it is difficult to put a value on salmon eggs.  The                 
  value of those eggs is the future of that stream to be able                  
  to produce salmon.  In the Prince William Sound area, there                  
  are 926 numbered streams and working together, those streams                 
  produce 25 million fish.  He said there is room for growth                   
  in all industries.  He felt Title 16 is fine as is.                          
  Number 040                                                                   
  (AFA), stated AFA supports HB 286 to authorize the                           
  commissioner to designate stream crossings.  He pointed out                  
  the first line of the bill says the commissioner "may by                     
  regulation" which does not mean he will.  AFA looks at HB
  286 from the standpoint of wanting to protect fish as well                   
  as the forest products industry.  He said AFA views HB 286                   
  as an opportunity for the commissioner to designate areas                    
  which will minimize the impacts on fish or cause no impacts                  
  on fish, while allowing for crossings in general areas                       
  excluded for fording.  AFA also believes HB 286 will help in                 
  enforcement actions because people will know crossings were                  
  done through regulation.  He stated the bill will not take                   
  away ADF&G's power to issue general or specific permits nor                  
  will the bill stop ADF&G from putting conditions on those                    
  permits through the regulation process.                                      
  Number 058                                                                   
  MR. REINHART said AFA believes HB 286 is a streamline of the                 
  present process which will continue to protect fish and                      
  continue to make Title 16 work.  He stated in regard to the                  
  criminal penalty section, there is some question as to how                   
  much leniency or discretion the department has once a                        
  violation occurs.  AFA believes that question can be cleared                 
  up through negligence and wrongdoing.  He said currently                     
  there is an administrative agency going forward with                         
  criminal prosecution and there needs to be some sort of                      
  standard rather than just an incident occurring before a                     
  person will go through a Class A or Class B misdemeanor.                     
  MR. REINHART stated AFA feels HB 286 can protect fish and                    
  will facilitate the ability of people like Mr. Bell to                       
  harvest timber sales in a timely fashion and an                              
  environmentally sound manner, doing so for the benefit of                    
  their communities and their employees.                                       
  Number 078                                                                   
  testified via teleconference and expressed support of HB
  286.  He said HB 286 will allow ADF&G to focus their efforts                 
  on protecting streams where significant numbers of fish                      
  actively spawn, rather than worry over every inch of an                      
  anadromous stream, which might possibly be used by a single                  
  fish.  Regulations resulting from HB 286 should effectively                  
  eliminate the need for hearings for individual exemptions                    
  which Mr. Rue alluded to, thereby making the fiscal note                     
  unnecessary.  He noted much has been said about the 1,200                    
  permits every year and pointed out that in total, the                        
  permits only represent a total of less than ten acres being                  
  subjected to any risk of habitat disturbance.  He stated                     
  Konkor Forest Products believes that more damage is done to                  
  fish habitat by fishermen wading, than what is allowed in                    
  the permitting process.                                                      
  MR. WEHRMAN stated anybody in the state can propose a stream                 
  to be in the anadromous stream catalog yet it is very                        
  difficult to get the stream out of the catalog once it is in                 
  there.  He pointed out there is no requirement for ADF&G to                  
  let landowners or land managers know that they are adding                    
  streams to the catalog.  He suggested that in AS                             
  16.05.870(e), page 1, line 5, the word "may" be changed to                   
  "shall".  He stressed if the word remains "may", everyone                    
  can be assured there will not be any changes resulting from                  
  HB 286.  He has been told by ADF&G employees that the                        
  department's long-term goal is to completely prohibit both                   
  fords and culverts as legal methods of crossing any stream,                  
  whether anadromous or not.  He pointed out that goal will                    
  make small development areas infeasible statewide.                           
  MR. WEHRMAN said the present law is a zero tolerance.  He                    
  stressed Alaska needs to get back to allowing rational                       
  resource development and HB 286 is one step in that                          
  Number 115                                                                   
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference and                         
  expressed opposition to HB 286 because it reduces penalties,                 
  makes convictions more difficult, (indiscernible) value of                   
  the Anadromous Fish Act.  He said from the economic                          
  perspective, the present law is good law.  The present law                   
  tries to assure (indiscernible) resource development,                        
  whether it is commercial fishing, recreation, or timber                      
  harvest--all are allowed to operate in a manner which is                     
  compatible with each other and assures that each of those                    
  resource uses continues as an economic venture.                              
  MR. PARKER said to weaken the present law puts one resource                  
  development ahead of others.  He felt the characterization                   
  that the present law puts fish ahead of timber is a                          
  mischaracterization.  He expressed hope that the legislature                 
  is sensitive to what HB 286 will do from an outside or non-                  
  Alaskan perspective.  Alaska is frequently criticized                        
  unjustly for not caring about the protection of its fish and                 
  wildlife resources.  The present statute is a good example                   
  of the state legislature caring about protection of fish and                 
  wildlife resources.  To weaken it, appeals and reenforces                    
  outside interests to criticize this state unjustly.  He gave                 
  an example.                                                                  
  MR. PARKER stated the issue is not about the harvest of one                  
  resource over another, it is about the mutual harvest of                     
  both types of resources--fish and timber.  The issue is not                  
  about favoring one resource over the other, it is allowing                   
  both to continue.  The issue is not a question of keeping                    
  access open, because the permit system does that and it                      
  works.  It is not a question about philosophy.  He stressed                  
  the legislature should be careful about requiring the                        
  substantial violation being a willful violation.  That is                    
  not required in speeding, drunk driving, or of legislators                   
  themselves in their compliance with financial disclosure or                  
  campaign financing.  He felt it is much better to mitigate                   
  the circumstances of any particular violation--that is, its                  
  willfulness in the context of sentencing rather than in the                  
  context of the classification of the crime itself.                           
  Number 172                                                                   
  MR. PARKER said there has been testimony about how other                     
  resource users, such as fishermen, should pay for their                      
  resource use.  He agrees with that concept.  However, the                    
  implication that recreational fishermen do not pay is                        
  inaccurate.  He pointed out that recreational fishermen not                  
  only pay for their license fees but also pay through the                     
  (indiscernible) federal excise taxes which pay every cent                    
  going into the sport fishing division.  That division is the                 
  only agency within the state government not funded by                        
  general revenue, but solely by user fees.                                    
  Number 185                                                                   
  MR. PARKER stated with respect to constitutional rights to                   
  use natural resources, there needs to be a clarification of                  
  a prior statement made.  Constitutional rights of common use                 
  relate to fish, wildlife, and water, not timber or other                     
  natural resources.  He said the timber industry expressing                   
  concern about the extent of the impact on the fisheries is                   
  highly analogous to the timber industry saying they would                    
  express concern or be opposed to fishermen expressing                        
  concern over reforestation requirements.  He pointed out                     
  what protecting fish habitat does is essentially                             
  reforestation of a fishery.  One never hears the timber                      
  industry opposing reforestation or (indiscernible) because                   
  that is very reasonable, sensible, natural resource                          
  management.  That is the same thing as what is before the                    
  committee except this is concerning fish.                                    
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 286 will be held in committee                 
  for further consideration.                                                   
  Number 223                                                                   
  HB 436 - Strictness of Air Quality Regs.                                     
  JOSEPH EASAW, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, stated HB 436                   
  is designed to preclude the Department of Environmental                      
  Conservation (DEC) from adopting by regulation, any ambient                  
  air quality or emission standard that is more stringent than                 
  the federal standards in the Clean Air Act.  This bill will                  
  limit that authority to the legislature which can adopt by                   
  statute any standard deemed in the state's best interest.                    
  Number 235                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered how this bill will work                  
  if there is a new industry with a new pollutant being put                    
  out and there is a health hazard.  He said there are areas                   
  presently where DEC has the authority to regulate that                       
  activity, something not addressed at the federal level.  He                  
  asked if that authority is being taken away in HB 436.                       
  Number 249                                                                   
  MR. EASAW responded that authority is not being taken away.                  
  He said HB 436 limits the authority of DEC to not set forth                  
  any regulation which is more stringent than those of the                     
  federal regulations.  The bill does allow DEC to set                         
  regulations where no federal regulations are addressed.                      
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if subsections (b) (3) and                  
  Section 2 address that issue.                                                
  MR. EASAW said that is correct.                                              
  Number 265                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out the legislature went through                   
  HB 167 last year and there was a lot of discussion and                       
  debate on the bill, with many compromises made to arrive at                  
  an agreement.  He wondered how HB 436 will affect HB 167.                    
  MR. EASAW stated he does not dispute the time which DEC may                  
  have put into HB 167 and the compromises made.  He said the                  
  intent of HB 436 does not negate any of the work done on HB
  167.  The bill simply says DEC cannot set forth regulation                   
  standards which are greater than the federal regulations.                    
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified HB 436 will not affect anything                  
  in HB 167.                                                                   
  MR. EASAW stated HB 436 does not necessarily impact the work                 
  of HB 167.  Section 5 of HB 436 adds a definition of                         
  regulated air contaminant and does say any regulation                        
  adopted under AS 46.14.010(b)(2), meaning those regulations                  
  adopted which were greater than the federal standards could                  
  be affected.                                                                 
  REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what is the reason for HB
  MR. EASAW responded there are two prominent reasons.  First,                 
  there is a feeling that anything that is in the state's best                 
  interest which is beyond the guidelines of the federal                       
  regulations should be left to the legislature.  Second, when                 
  guidelines are set forth which are greater than those of the                 
  federal regulations, years of permitting processing is                       
  required for certain industries and the economy is affected.                 
  Number 322                                                                   
  DEC, stated HB 436 is not good for Alaska's business                         
  community or the state's citizens.  DEC feels under                          
  appropriate conditions and circumstances it does make sense                  
  for DEC to proceed beyond where the federal government sets                  
  a standard.  He noted the situations which develop in the                    
  state are principally in the area of ambient air standards,                  
  where DEC is looking at an air shed and the ability to step                  
  into that air shed and restrict emission values                              
  (indiscernible) than the federal government would authorize                  
  where it makes sense to do so.  He agreed that could be                      
  accomplished through the legislative process but noted how                   
  slow that process can be.  He pointed out, with the                          
  flexibility DEC currently has, DEC can accomplish this with                  
  one-on-one negotiations with the permittee or those seeking                  
  permits and do it fairly quickly.                                            
  MR. MENGE stated another key component is the two year                       
  process it has taken to get to the current point.  He said                   
  although HB 167 is just one component within a very large                    
  statutory package, it is a balanced equation.  DEC worked                    
  for two years to strike a balance, which represents                          
  protection for the environment plus allows an environment in                 
  which business can also work.  He stressed there was                         
  unanimous support across all the environmental and business                  
  communities for HB 167.  Therefore, DEC does not feel it is                  
  a good time to step in and tinker with that equation                         
  especially since DEC is currently in the process of writing                  
  the regulations for the statute.                                             
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted the last sentence of the sponsor                  
  statement says, "This bill will limit that authority to the                  
  legislature which can adopt by statute any standard deemed                   
  in the state's best interest."  She thought the Air Quality                  
  Act passed last year contained provisions making the rules                   
  more restrictive than the federal standards, which she does                  
  not believe HB 436 affects.  She stated HB 436 affects the                   
  authority of the regulators to regulate past what is                         
  contained in HB 167 and/or other federal regulations not                     
  necessarily addressed in that bill.  HB 436 takes the                        
  ability to make those determinations and puts it in the lap                  
  of the legislature, as opposed to the regulators.  She asked                 
  why that is not a good idea.                                                 
  SECTION, DEC, responded there are two points to look at                      
  regarding the authority to regulate.  One is a situation                     
  like Unicol which has an ammonia standard currently which                    
  they did not have before.  The federal government does not                   
  have an ammonia standard.  Therefore, through a four year                    
  intense process, a regulation was established, resulting in                  
  an agreement between the community and the industry to                       
  establish that standard.  He said in the new statute, if DEC                 
  decides to do something like that again, it will come before                 
  the legislature, a committee is formed of the peers of that                  
  particular pollutant and a resolution is found.                              
  MR. VERRELLI stated the other point is what DEC does at a                    
  request of the permittee.  He mentioned the Healy Clean Coal                 
  Project, as an example.  He said the only reason that permit                 
  was able to be issued by DEC is that the source came to DEC,                 
  saying they wanted more stringent emission standards,                        
  enabling them to keep emissions lower and get the National                   
  Park Service to agree the project will not impact Denali                     
  National Park.  He stressed HB 436 will require going                        
  through a more stringent permit process.                                     
  Number 444                                                                   
  CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL (RCAC), testified via                             
  teleconference and stated HB 436 will prohibit DEC from                      
  adopting or enforcing a regulation which establishes an                      
  ambient air quality or emission standard more stringent than                 
  federal standards.  With the considerable time devoted by                    
  numerous Alaskans over the past two years on HB 167, RCAC                    
  was extremely surprised to see HB 436 proposed.  RCAC was                    
  even more surprised to see HB 436 scheduled for a hearing.                   
  He stated the effort devoted to HB 167 was a multi-year                      
  endeavor by representatives of many diverse interests in the                 
  state.  The result of this effort is Alaska's current air                    
  quality statutes, regulations and public policies.  These                    
  results also represent a compromise among those different                    
  perspectives.  He noted those who represented the public                     
  interest dedicated a significant amount of time and                          
  resources to develop the compromise.  Those same people                      
  largely accepted the compromise, despite that industry                       
  clearly fared better than the public.                                        
  Number 464                                                                   
  MR. STEPHENS stressed it is extremely disheartening after                    
  this process and good faith effort to see HB 436.  In the                    
  past, DEC has not been overbearing in adopting regulations                   
  more stringent than federal law requires.  For example, in                   
  the air pollution area, DEC has adopted only two additional                  
  ambient air quality standards which were for ammonia and                     
  reduced sulphur compos and both were for special industrial                  
  pollution problems in Alaska.  DEC has adopted smoke                         
  capacity rules particularly important for vessel traffic in                  
  Juneau, Seward, and Valdez.  DEC has a program to control                    
  ice fog, hardly a concern to the Environmental Protection                    
  Agency (EPA) or the rest of the country.  DEC has adopted                    
  special rules applicable to the port of Anchorage allowing                   
  liquid loading racks and delivery tanks to come to the                       
  Government Hill neighborhood.  Mr. Stephens said few will                    
  argue those regulations are necessary to protect public                      
  health and welfare and natural resources, even though they                   
  were not forced by federal law and are more stringent than                   
  federal law.                                                                 
  Number 484                                                                   
  MR. STEPHENS stated it is also not clear that HB 436 will                    
  accomplish anything.  Specifically, the state will give up                   
  considerable flexibility if this legislation passes.  For                    
  example, the Golden Valley Electric Association recently                     
  agreed to alter air emissions to make room for the Healy                     
  Coal facility emissions (indiscernible) Denali Park.  He                     
  said in the port of Valdez, the EPA is setting emission                      
  standards for organic vapor emissions due to tanker                          
  operations at Alyeska's Valdez Marine Terminal.  Valdez is                   
  the largest single source of organic vapor emissions.                        
  Number 504                                                                   
  MR. STEPHENS stressed state involvement and flexibility is                   
  not in the best interest of the public or industry.  RCAC                    
  strongly opposes HB 436.  The ability to set air quality                     
  emission standards to protect the health of Alaskans is an                   
  important state's rights issue which should not be casually                  
  given away.                                                                  
  Number 515                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked why the state should have                         
  regulations which are more stringent than federal standards.                 
  She added that she does not consider permitting the same as                  
  establishing regulations.                                                    
  MR. VERRELLI responded it is.  When an emission standard is                  
  put in a permit, it becomes law for that particular permit                   
  and that particular source.                                                  
  Number 525                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if that permit requirement and                    
  regulation is at the request of the permittee, will HB 436                   
  disallow DEC from doing that.                                                
  MR. VERRELLI replied yes.                                                    
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the time frame is for                        
  establishing regulations relating to ambient air quality                     
  MR. VERRELLI estimated it takes approximately one year to go                 
  through the entire process.                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES wondered since HB 436 will still allow                  
  the legislature to make rules and regulations more strict                    
  than existing federal regulations, if it would be wise in                    
  instances where there should be more strict regulations for                  
  DEC to bring that situation to the legislature to make that                  
  MR. MENGE stated timing is a very crucial issue.  DEC                        
  oftentimes enters into an air permit situation where there                   
  is a fairly polarized community with a variety of industrial                 
  interests.  DEC negotiates the numbers which all of the                      
  constituents can live with, by incorporating them into the                   
  permit and then running the permit through the permit                        
  approval process.  That then becomes a part of the public                    
  record and public acceptance, thus affecting the overall                     
  permit.  If DEC was to bring that process before the                         
  legislature, it will be more difficult to arrive at an                       
  agreement.  He said the process tends to attract additional                  
  concerns and policy issues, so the narrow focus, in a                        
  specific geographic area, with a very narrow constituency,                   
  oftentimes provides an opportunity to resolve a problem                      
  before it begins to grow out of proportion.  He felt it is a                 
  question of timing.                                                          
  Number 585                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that when someone applies for                 
  a permit where state and federal laws apply, because the                     
  public wants something even bigger, DEC, in issuing the                      
  permit, should be able to do what the public asks.  She                      
  asked where does the public's right come into play in                        
  getting something which is more than what state and federal                  
  laws require.                                                                
  MR. MENGE responded if the permittee is within the air                       
  increment of a region, the public is entitled to that.  He                   
  said the public interest is represented through the permit                   
  process.  He noted the Healy project is a good example.                      
  There is one emitting source well within permit limitations                  
  and a second emitting source is coming in there.  The                        
  affected community was unprepared and unwilling to accept an                 
  increase above the ambience standard.  The public had a                      
  vested interest and became fairly vocal through the permit                   
  process.  The permittee recognized a difficult situation, so                 
  it made sense for the permittee to request a lower standard,                 
  which had to be done in conjunction with the existing                        
  source.  Therefore, there were three groups along with the                   
  state, together determining what the appropriate limitations                 
  for all the permits should be, which allowed both to proceed                 
  forward while still allowing the public to accept the                        
  decisions made since they were a part of the process.                        
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it appears the legislative                       
  process is being circumvented.                                               
  MR. MENGE responded the public does not have a voice beyond                  
  the existing air limitations standards.  The public's  voice                 
  comes into play when a permit is being written and the                       
  permittee is requesting to pull back.  Once the permit is                    
  reviewed and sent out for public comment, the public has an                  
  opportunity to comment.  He said if the standard is to be                    
  strictly adhered to and the law does not allow going beyond                  
  a certain limitation, then the permittee is not going to be                  
  able to submit their permit because there will not be room                   
  for the permittee within that air shed.  The permittee will                  
  have to stand back and wait until the older industrial                       
  entity goes away or a process is developed allowing them to                  
  fit into the remaining air increment.                                        
  MR. VERRELLI stated all regulations proposed by the                          
  department and the permits go to a legislative committee, so                 
  that interest does come to the legislature.  There is a                      
  committee that reviews these permits and regulations while                   
  DEC is developing them.                                                      
  MEAD TREADWELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEC, stated the                         
  legislature has given the department authority to protect                    
  public health.  The legislature has not looked at that                       
  authority in terms of what the federal government has                        
  determined what public health is.  Rather, the legislature                   
  says DEC has the capability to look at Alaska's needs, to                    
  protect Alaskans.  Therefore, there is a state's rights                      
  issue as well.  He said DEC was also given strong binders                    
  last year in the compromise reached through HB 167.  The                     
  compromise requires if DEC does something different than the                 
  federal requirements, DEC must commission a peer review                      
  panel and go through an extensive risk assessment process                    
  which is somewhat expensive.  He felt there already is a                     
  strong bind on DEC if the department decides to move forward                 
  and do something the federal government is not doing.                        
  MR. TREADWELL said many times, DEC can see down the road and                 
  determine the federal government is going some place which                   
  DEC does not want to go.  If DEC has a regulatory process in                 
  place, the federal government is likely to defer to DEC's                    
  process in some cases, rather than adopt their own.  He                      
  pointed out that is what is happening in relation to Valdez.                 
  The federal government is setting air standards for organic                  
  contaminants for marine terminals around the country--                       
  terminals one hundredth the size of the Valdez terminal.  He                 
  added the technology the federal government is requiring is                  
  one Alyeska may not be able to meet.  DEC can meet the needs                 
  of Alaskans by having a standard in place ahead of the                       
  federal government, which is stronger than what the federal                  
  government has presently.  He felt in the end, DEC will be                   
  deferred to and a different, more flexible standard than the                 
  federal standard will be put in place.  He said industry is                  
  working with DEC on this issue.                                              
  TAPE 94-44, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  MR. TREADWELL stated DEC has been told if they do not have                   
  certain things adopted in the National Toxic                                 
  (indiscernible), they will have to defer to a tougher                        
  federal standard.  Therefore, DEC went ahead and adopted                     
  some things.  At the time DEC adopted them, they would have                  
  been illegal had HB 436 been applied to the water.  He                       
  stressed the flexibility has been very helpful.                              
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the situation in Valdez should                 
  have been dealt with by the legislature this year.                           
  MR. TREADWELL said that process is one where scientists were                 
  paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by each side, doing                    
  extensive studies making a very difficult determination of                   
  scientific health risk.  If the process was tied to a                        
  legislative session, the 120 day rule and delayed for                        
  another year, there may have been further losses of state                    
  flexibility versus the federal government.  He felt the                      
  legislature probably does not want to get into that level of                 
  detail.  He pointed out that the legislature has passed laws                 
  authorizing a public process to go forward to review health                  
  risks and he added that public process works very well.  He                  
  said the legislature has authority to tell DEC to get out of                 
  that business in Valdez and make a determination.  He felt                   
  to do it with a law which says the legislature always wants                  
  to be doing that will be very difficult.  He gave examples.                  
  He stressed DEC has not abused the flexibility.  DEC asked                   
  the sponsor of HB 436 if there were any particular examples                  
  where DEC may have made mistakes and the sponsor could not                   
  give any examples.                                                           
  Number 055                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified the Lieutenant Governor                       
  signed the air quality bill last week.                                       
  MR. VERRELLI stated it was the state implementation plan,                    
  which is not the Title 5 process coming from HB 167.                         
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that plan would be affected if                 
  HB 436 became law.                                                           
  MR. VERRELLI said the one thing which falls under the                        
  transportation control regulation package is the                             
  nonattainment areas of Anchorage and Fairbanks.  If there is                 
  construction in that area, HB 436 will affect the plan                       
  because DEC will have to set limits lower than federal                       
  standards since it is a nonattainment area for carbon                        
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified there are three pollutants                    
  very closely watched in nonattainment areas and asked what                   
  the risk is.                                                                 
  MR. VERRELLI responded there have been seasonal changes in                   
  Anchorage and a haze has built up over the Seward Highway.                   
  He said that haze is (indiscernible) chemical smog.  The                     
  smog usually occurs twice a year and gives an indication                     
  that the state is on the threshold because DEC does not                      
  control hydrocarbons, which is part of the ozone package.                    
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the state is working under                  
  the agreement from last year, would the state be more or                     
  less likely to not come under federal regulation with HB
  MR. VERRELLI said that is a difficult question to answer                     
  because of the different considerations.  He stated as an                    
  overall policy, the federal government likes to see a state                  
  taking the initiative to protect its citizens and is always                  
  supportive because sometimes federal laws are lagging.  He                   
  noted the wood stove standards are a good example.                           
  Number 110                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HB 436 will have any adverse                   
  impact on getting available federal funding.                                 
  MR. TREADWELL responded the Clean and Mitigate Air Quality                   
  funds are federal highway funds which have to be committed                   
  to mitigation of air quality problems.  When DOT spends that                 
  money, they have to spend it in conjunction with a plan to                   
  improve air quality.  DEC is in a bureaucratic never-never                   
  land currently with oxyfuels.  The law says oxyfuels should                  
  be used yet they are not being used.  DEC may have to defend                 
  that decision in court.                                                      
  MR. TREADWELL said just because DEC cannot be as stringent                   
  as the federal government does not mean DEC has to be as                     
  stupid as the federal government.  Many times the federal                    
  government gives DEC dumb things to do.  DEC oftentimes goes                 
  to the federal government and asks them to let the                           
  department manage for the desired result, rather than                        
  managing the way the federal government tells them to.  He                   
  continued to discuss the issue.  He cannot say the state                     
  will be limited from using federal funds.  DEC has thought                   
  about using those funds in conjunction with local                            
  governments.  However, asking DEC to work on a standard more                 
  stringent than the federal government will require a long                    
  and unnecessary delay for DEC if the HB 436 process is used.                 
  Number 159                                                                   
  ASSOCIATION (PSPA), stated PSPA has not taken a position on                  
  HB 436.  He said PSPA participated, as an industry, on the                   
  task force which worked on HB 167.  He pointed out that all                  
  major industries were invited to participate on that task                    
  force and most of them did.  Out of that work came HB 167                    
  which passed largely intact.  He said the concept in HB 436                  
  was discussed extensively by the committee but the majority                  
  of the committee felt this type of legislation was not                       
  needed.  The task force felt there were times when there                     
  should be more strict regulations.                                           
  Number 200                                                                   
  MR. LAUBER noted the task force realized that before DEC                     
  could impose more stringent regulations, there would be a                    
  review by industry, public, etc.  HB 167 resulted from many                  
  compromises.  He cautioned committee members that before                     
  they make any significant adjustments, they have the same                    
  type of process and review which was used to put HB 167                      
  Number 221                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the sponsor if he had been asked by                  
  industry to sponsor HB 436.                                                  
  REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the impetus of the bill came                     
  from a recommendation from the Governor's Task Force on                      
  Regulatory Reform.  He said the general statement that state                 
  regulations should not exceed federal standards is very                      
  generic and broad based.  He explained given the time                        
  restraints, this was the only area he had time to address                    
  because the subject matter of the clean air bill was still                   
  fresh in people's minds.  He said there was no push by any                   
  individual nor was there any specific problem which                          
  instigated HB 436, but rather a general concern of many                      
  people in very broad terms.                                                  
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated since the House Resources Committee                 
  is the last committee to hear HB 436, it will be held for                    
  further consideration.                                                       
  CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on                       
  Wednesday, March 30 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 515.                             
  There being no further business to come before the House                     
  Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting                 
  at 11:00 a.m.                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects