Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/29/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB43 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2019
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; relating to a person's eligibility to
hold a registered guide-outfitter license, master guide-
outfitter license, class-A assistant guide license, assistant
guide license, or transporter license; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act requiring the designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water to occur in statute; relating to
management of outstanding national resource water by the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 43
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BIG GAME BOARD; OUTFITTER LICENSE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WILSON
02/04/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/19 (S) RES, FIN
02/20/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/19 (S) Heard & Held
02/20/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/19 (S) Moved SB 43 Out of Committee
02/27/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/19 (S) RES RPT 4DP 1NR 1AM
03/01/19 (S) DP: BIRCH, KIEHL, COGHILL, GIESSEL
03/01/19 (S) NR: BISHOP
03/01/19 (S) AM: REINBOLD
03/13/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/09/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/19 (S) Moved CSSB 43(FIN) Out of Committee
04/09/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/10/19 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR NEW TITLE
04/10/19 (S) DP: VON IMHOF, MICCICHE, WILSON
04/10/19 (S) NR: STEDMAN, SHOWER, WIELECHOWSKI,
BISHOP
04/17/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/17/19 (S) VERSION: CSSB 43(FIN)
04/22/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
04/17/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DAVID WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced CSSB 43(FIN).
HENRY TIFFANY IV, Chair, Registered Guide-Outfitter
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 43(FIN).
SARA CHAMBERS, Director
Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 43(FIN).
KRIS CURTIS, CPA, CISA, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSSB 43(FIN),
reviewed the division's 2018 audit report of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
KURT WHITEHEAD, Master Guide-Outfitter
Klawock, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSSB 43(FIN),
testified in support of extending the Big Game Commercial
Services Board.
WAYNE KUBAT, Master Guide-Outfitter, Vice President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 43(FIN).
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director
Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSSB 43(FIN),
testified in opposition to a five-year extension of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board and suggested a two-year extension.
NATHAN TURNER, Trapper, Registered Guide-Outfitter
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of CSSB 43(FIN),
testified in support of a six-year extension of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board and in support of the proposed master
guide-outfitter qualifications.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide-Outfitter
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 43(FIN).
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, introduced HB 138.
EARL CRAPPS, Section Manager
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 138.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Kopp, sponsor,
answered questions regarding HB 138.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
KIMBERLY STRONG, Tribal Council President
Chilkat Indian Village
Klukwan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
JONES HOTCH Jr., Vice President
Chilkat Indian Village
Klukwan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
SHANNON DONAHUE
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
JILL JACOB
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
KIP KERMOIAN
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
BETSEY BURDETT
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
JAN CONITZ
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
DOUG WOODBY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 138.
JESSICA PLACHTA, Executive Director
Lynn Canal Conservation (LCC)
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
LOUIE FLORA, Director
Government Affairs
The Alaska Center
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
GUY ARCHIBALD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
SARAH DAVIDSON, Program Manager
Inside Passage Waters
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
HEATHER EVOY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
PHILLIP MOSER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 138.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:47 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Hopkins, Lincoln, and Tarr were present at the call to
order. Representatives Rauscher, Rasmussen, Spohnholz, and
Talerico arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 43-EXTEND BIG GAME BOARD; OUTFITTER LICENSE
1:01:27 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the first order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 43(FIN), "An Act extending the termination
date of the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to a
person's eligibility to hold a registered guide-outfitter
license, master guide- outfitter license, class-A assistant
guide license, assistant guide license, or transporter license;
and providing for an effective date."
1:01:49 PM
SENATOR DAVID WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, stated
CSSB 43(FIN) would extend the termination of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board until 6/30/24, which is one year less
than the six years recommended by the Division of Legislative
Audit. He explained that the board consists of two licensed
registered guide-outfitters, two licensed transporters, two
private landholders, two public members, and one member from the
Board of Game.
SENATOR WILSON related that an audit of the board conducted by
the Division of Legislative Audit made three recommendations to
improve the board: 1) the Division of Corporations, Business
and Professional Licensing director should improve the
management oversight to procedures to ensure that documentation
is obtained, reviewed, and retained to support licensure; 2) the
division's chief investigator should increase oversight to
improve the timeliness of investigations; and 3) the Office of
the Governor, Boards and Commissions director should work with
the board to identify potential applications in a timely manner.
In regard to the timeliness of investigations, he pointed out
that multiple agencies are involved and only 37 cases are open
as of today, with of those 13 being Alaska Wildlife Trooper
cases over which [the division] has no control for the
timeliness. He stated it was recognized that more supervisory
rapport is needed for more quality control.
SENATOR WILSON said the division has responded to the audit's
recommendations by working to add supervisors in addition to the
examiner, as well as working to improve training procedures.
There is a new chief investigator, he continued, and two new
senior investigators have been added to provide more quality
assurance. He stated the division has heard the message from
Legislative Audit and is working to hold investigations
accountable for the paperwork.
1:04:46 PM
SENATOR WILSON provided a sectional analysis of CSSB 43(FIN).
He said: Section 1, page 1, lines 6-8, would amend AS
08.03.010(c)(9) to extend the Big Game Commercial Services Board
for five years, through June 30, 2024. Section 2, page 1, line
9, through page 2, line 16, would amend AS 08.54.605(a) to allow
the board to immediately suspend a license for violations that
already disqualify a person from receiving or renewing that
license. Section 3, page 2, line 17, through page 3, line 7,
would amend AS 08.54.610(b) to increase the minimum
qualifications for a master guide-outfitter license, including a
requirement to have a clean record for 15 years. Section 4,
page 3, lines 8-17, would add new subsections to AS 08.54.710,
which allow the board to revoke a master guide-outfitter license
if a person's privileges are revoked or if the person is
convicted of a violation. A person whose master guide-outfitter
license is revoked under this provision can still be issued a
registered guide-outfitter license if qualified. Section 5,
page 3, line 18, would add an immediate effective date.
SENATOR WILSON stressed the board plays an important role in
managing the activities of commercial game hunters in the
interest of Alaska's wildlife resources. He reminded members
that the bill addresses whether the board should continue its
work and does not address the function of the board.
1:06:40 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted Section 1 is clearly the extension. She
observed Section 2 would add the word "hold" to that section of
statute. She asked whether she is correct in understanding that
Section 2 isn't about the initial receiving or renewing of a
license, but is about putting a restriction on someone who
already holds a license if the person has the problems
identified in [paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 2].
SENATOR WILSON replied yes.
1:07:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether the bill addresses "real
life" situations in which the board was unable to act or the
audit found the board did not act appropriately, or whether the
bill addresses situations that are speculative in nature.
SENATOR WILSON replied that during a hearing before the Senate
Finance Committee it was learned that [a license holder] can
continue to provide guiding services for over two and one-half
years after being found guilty of a violation while going
through the appeals process after a guilty verdict. Thus, he
said, the board requested the authority to put a person's
license on hold during adjudication of the appeals process.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that there were
real life examples that caused the board to ask for additional
tools to "hold" a license and this provision would do that.
SENATOR WILSON responded yes, there have been several examples.
1:09:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS brought attention to page 2, line 29,
through page 3, line 1, of the bill, which state:
(3) submits a list to the department of at least 45
[25] clients for whom the person has personally
provided guiding or outfitting services and the person
receives a favorable evaluation from 30 [10] of the
clients selected from the list by the department;
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested clarification as to what
constitutes a "favorable evaluation."
SENATOR WILSON deferred to [Mr. Henry Tiffany] for an answer.
1:09:58 PM
HENRY TIFFANY IV, Chair, Registered Guide-Outfitter, Big Game
Commercial Services Board (BGCSB), Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED), deferred to Ms. Sara
Chambers since it is the division that reviews the license
applications. He advised that the board extensively deliberated
on the proposed changes within the bill and is in unanimous
support of the proposed increase in the number of favorable
recommendations. He further advised that the proposed increase
in favorable recommendations would be a more standard number.
He also noted that the proposed language in paragraph (4) of 15
years is also standard in other professions.
1:12:20 PM
SARA CHAMBERS, Director, Division of Corporations, Business, and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED), explained that the vetting process
for a registered guide who is applying for a master guide-
outfitter license, includes providing a list of clients who are
then contacted by the division for information pertinent to the
applicant's proficiency in the field that would relate to the
scope of what a guide-outfitter is allowed to do. She said
registered and master guides are in charge of people's lives and
thus must be in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations for hunting as well as land use, and the division
asks clients to review their experience with that guide. She
stated the board had an opportunity to review CSSB 43(FIN) and
supports [the changes proposed in paragraph (3)].
1:14:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to a time period over which
those 45 clients would have had to work with that guide.
MS. CHAMBERS answered she is unsure of whether there is a window
of time. She said she and Mr. Tiffany go back and forth because
she has the administrative part and he has the qualitative part.
She said her understanding through working on this bill is that
the timeframe would be during the life of the applicant's
registered guide-outfitter license, so it would be a client who
had contracted with the guide. She explained that the structure
of guiding goes from an assistant guide to class-A assistant
guide to a registered guide to a master guide-outfitter. The
dividing line between the two assistants and the two contracting
guides, she continued, is that [the contracting guide] is the
boss and actually signs the contract with the client. So, she
added, it would need to be within the life of the applicant's
registered guide activity, but she is unsure if there is a
window of time unless otherwise stated in the bill.
1:15:49 PM
MR. TIFFANY clarified that for a client to qualify as a name
submitted for a master guide-outfitter application, the
registered guide (at that point) doesn't necessarily have to
have been a contracting guide for that individual client. He
explained that there are many guides within Alaska, and some
don't ever contract hunts; they work for other registered or
master guides, but they may still choose to obtain a master
guide license and it isn't wanted to hinder that. If the
applicant has physically guided a client in the field, he
continued, then that client's name would be applicable for the
applicant to put on his/her application towards a master guide
license. He offered his belief that there isn't any stipulation
that it needs to be within a certain time limit of a couple of
years because the number of clients divided by the number of
years proposed comes to three clients a year, and most of the
guides that either contract or guide clients for someone else
have about three or more clients per year.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that there is
no window for the timeframe of those 45 people to give their
evaluations; it could be any time in the last 40 years if that
person has been a registered guide, but three clients per year
is a logical number.
MR. TIFFANY confirmed there is no limitation. If it took the
applicant 40 years to collect the right number of names, then so
be it, he said, or if it took fewer years that is alright also.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the division contacts all
45 clients. He further asked whether that is standard for the
division providing other types of occupational licenses.
1:18:50 PM
MS. CHAMBERS replied the division solicits that information for
a variety of license types and depends upon how the [related]
statute is written. She said the division has quite a few
license types that require some sort of evaluation. For
example, she continued, for healthcare or mechanical professions
evaluations are solicited from supervisors or others who have
worked closely with the applicant in a similar capacity. So,
she added, it is unusual because it is somewhat subjective, but
it is pertinent and relative to that type of work.
1:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that the proposed increases in the
number of clients that must be submitted [from 25 to 45] and
number of favorable evaluations [from 10 to 30] is a huge jump
given the small number of clients per year and the 20-40 year
span of time in the applicant's career. She submitted that
given the length of time, some of those clients are no longer
alive and many are foreign nationals, and therefore it would be
a huge increase in the burden for both the applicant and the
division to contact all those clients and receive 30 favorable
evaluations. She further submitted that this would narrow
things so much that hardly anyone would qualify.
SENATOR WILSON responded that the master guide-outfitter title
is a prestigious and high standard for guides, and the title
carries additional privileges for guides as well as additional
responsibilities to clients. He said it needs to be ensured
that these folks are the top ethical guides who will follow the
guidelines and regulations and therefore setting the bar higher
for obtaining the master guide-outfitter license was wanted.
1:22:22 PM
MS. CHAMBERS agreed and explained that master guide is somewhat
of an honorary title because the registered guide can perform
the same guide/outfitting duties as a master guide. She related
that when reviewing this the division asked the same questions
of whether it seemed reasonable and deferred to the board. She
continued:
It is not prohibiting anyone from gaining a higher
level of economic opportunity because the master and
the registered guides can do the same things. But the
master guide does have that value added, as Senator
Wilson said, that it is a title recognizing that you
are at the very top of your game. It doesn't get, in
the United States, any more exclusive in the guiding
industry than that. But it is not a tier where we
might look at trade issues and restriction of trade by
saying this is really hard to get and it might serve
only an elite few, which is preventing everyone here
from being able to earn the same living. They're on
the same par, at least as far as their economic
opportunities are concerned.
1:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that the previous requirement was 10
out of 25 clients over a 12- to 15-year period and that the bill
would increase the look back period from which clients could be
submitted and would triple the number of positive responses.
She questioned whether the fiscal note of $35,000 [Identifier
SB043CS(FIN)-DCCED-CBPL-04-09-19] would be sufficient to fund
the investigation of an additional 20 positive evaluations on
every application. She further questioned whether the guides
who are potentially qualified to apply for this feel that they
can produce those names and have current contact with clients.
Representative Hannan said she wants to ensure that this big
leap in numbers is being done for the right reasons and not just
because there were some people with lower licenses who were bad
actors, which would be a separate issue. She agreed [master
guides] are the best of the best and therefore should not get
poor evaluations. She asked whether the board, the industry,
and the department think the proposed thresholds are manageable.
MS. CHAMBERS answered that the department does not anticipate a
problem with the increase in its administrative workload. She
deferred to Mr. Tiffany to speak to the board's discussion,
which included master guides, in the vetting of those numbers.
1:26:13 PM
MR. TIFFANY concurred that a master guide license is, more than
anything, an honorary title. He said it does not allow, from an
economic standpoint, an individual to necessarily do anything
more than a registered guide can do, except that master guides
can advertise themselves and carry themselves with that title.
In its discussions the board understood this, he related. He
explained that a total of 45 names submitted with 30 favorable
recommendations over a 15-year period is very feasible because
an applicant must have been a registered guide for at least 15
years and that would be guiding 3 clients a year. He added that
many guides take 10-15 clients in one year. He stated the board
doesn't think it is onerous or a burden on applicants who want
to obtain the title because they have proven under these
proposed changes that they have been exemplary in the profession
for a long time with no violations. He pointed out that the
board was in unanimous agreement on that and doesn't feel it is
terribly burdensome. He related that one of the board members
is currently a registered guide and getting close under the
current regulations to being eligible to apply for his master
guide license. He said this board member fully understands that
this would prolong the time it takes him to apply for a master
guide license and yet this board member voted in full support of
these changes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she is fine with the answer.
1:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that under current
law, AS 08.54.720(a), a licensed master guide does not lose
his/her title as a master guide if he/she commits an offense.
SENATOR WILSON confirmed Representative Tuck's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated his support for [CSSB 43(FIN)]
because it would provide conditions under which a master guide
title can be lost. He observed that Section 4, subsection (l),
would provide that a master guide-outfitter who lost his/her
license could still be issued a registered guide-outfitter
license and, he surmised, would have to wait 15 years before
he/she could get back the title of master.
SENATOR WILSON replied yes.
1:30:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether the evaluations could
be completed via a written or online survey instead of an
interview.
MS. CHAMBERS responded she will check with staff, but is pretty
sure the clients are contacted in writing. She said it would
make her a little anxious to believe that someone's license
depends upon verbal note taking, so she is certain there is a
written record of that, but she doesn't know specifically what
that looks like.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that a letter
is sent out to which clients respond in writing, rather than the
clients being called and interviewed.
MS. CHAMBERS answered yes; clients respond in writing.
1:32:26 PM
KRIS CURTIS, CPA, CISA, Legislative Auditor, Division of
Legislative Audit, Alaska State Legislature, directed attention
to the document in the committee packet entitled, "A Sunset
Review of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, Big Game Commercial Services Board (board)," dated
9/14/18, Audit Control Number 08-20114-19. She explained that
the purpose of a sunset audit is to determine whether a board or
commission is serving the public's interest in whether it should
be extended. She stated the audit found that this board is
serving the public's interest by conducting meetings in
accordance with applicable laws, by amending regulations to
improve the occupations under its purview, and by supporting
changes made by the Department of Law to improve the timeliness
of the disciplinary process. Additionally, she said, the audit
found that this board had eliminated the deficit of over $1
million that was reported in the 2015 sunset audit. She noted
the audit also concluded that the board licenses were not
consistently supported by adequate documentation, a high number
of investigations had unjustified periods of inactivity, and
three board positions were vacant for an extended period. She
said the audit recommended a six-year extension for this board.
MS. CURTIS turned to page 8 of the audit, Exhibit 2, Licensing
Activity, and reported that as of May 2018 there were a total of
1,219 active licenses, a 20 percent reduction when compared to
the 2015 sunset audit. She related that, according to the board
chair, this decrease is due in part to guides retiring and a
decreased interest in the profession. Additionally, she said,
the chair reported that there were fewer transporters because
many changed operating as air taxis to avoid the transporter's
reporting requirements and fees - there were 151 licensed
transporters as of April 2015 compared to 90 as of May 2018, a
40 percent reduction in the number of transporters.
MS. CURTIS moved to page 10 of the audit, Exhibit 3, Schedule of
Revenues and Expenditures, and said the board had a surplus of
[$132,224] at the end at fiscal year 2018 (FY 18). She noted
this is significant given the board's deficit of [$1,120,051] at
the end of FY 15.
1:34:28 PM
MS. CURTIS stated the audit contains three recommendations for
improvement. She said Recommendation No. l, page 14 of the
audit, is that the director of the Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) should improve
management oversight procedures to ensure required documentation
is obtained, reviewed, and retained to support licensure. She
noted the audit tested 25 new licenses and found errors in 14 of
them. She drew attention to the errors listed on page 14 and
pointed out that the more serious errors were missing background
checks and a lack of adequate investigatory review. She related
that, according to the DCBPL management, turnover in the staff
that supported the board contributed to the errors. She added
the audit also noted a lack of supervisory review.
MS. CURTIS said Recommendation No. 2, page 15 of the audit, is
that DCBPL's chief investigator should increase oversight to
[improve] the timeliness of investigations. She noted the audit
tested 22 investigations that had been open for over 180 days
during the audit period and found periods of unjustified
inactivity for 20 of the 22. She related that, according to the
chief investigator, periods of inactivity were due in part to
inadequate resources to investigate the high caseload and
supervisors not adequately monitoring the cases.
MS. CURTIS said Recommendation No. 3, page 16 of the audit, is
that the Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions director
should work with the board to identify potential applicants in a
timely manner. She noted that from July 2015 through May 2018,
two board positions were vacant for six months due to a lack of
interested applicants, and the board position occupied by a
member of the Board of Game was vacant for eight months because
the Office of the Governor was not notified of the vacancy. She
related that, according to Boards and Commissions staff, the
transporter and private landholder board positions are difficult
to fill due to a lack of qualified candidates.
MS. CURTIS drew attention to the agency responses found on page
25 of the audit. She related that the DCCED commissioner agrees
with Recommendations No. 1 and 2 and has taken action to resolve
both recommendations. Addressing page 27 of the audit, she
further related that the Office of the Governor has responded to
Recommendation No. 3 and agreed to fill vacancies in a timely
manner. She stated that page 29 provides the BGCSB chair's
response to Recommendation No. 3 in which the chair agreed to
work with the Office of the Governor to fill vacancies in a
timely manner and stated that all the board positions were
filled at that time.
1:37:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested the date of the previous audit.
MS. CURTIS replied May 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether this current audit found
the same issues that were identified in 2015.
MS. CURTIS turned to page 13 and pointed out the four prior
recommendations from the 2015 audit. She stated [auditors] felt
that most of the 2015 recommendations were addressed, especially
the $1 million deficit [third recommendation]. She said the
first recommendation had to do with support to the board, and
while [auditors] felt the support did improve they identified a
new problem with the license documentation, so that is
considered a reiteration of a prior recommendation. She advised
that the problems with prior applications [identified in the
fourth recommendation] were dealt with. But, she continued, the
problem of timeliness of investigations [second recommendation]
has not been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked who conducts the investigations.
MS. CURTIS responded that DCBPL conducts the investigations.
The board stays out of the investigative process as it performs
a semi-judicial role in ruling on an investigation's results
once the ruling is brought to the board.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that many
investigation positions from various departments are moving to
the Department of Law (DOL). He asked how this would affect
efforts to resolve the backload that is had.
MS. CURTIS answered:
I don't think we know right now the impact of that.
There has been an Administrative Order [No. 306, dated
2/13/19] to consolidate the investigative process
within the Department of Law. It is my understanding
this board is included in that process. I know that
there has been some discussion to have an audit on
that process, looking at the consolidation, how that
impacts timeliness, efficiency, and I believe there's
work right now to draft an audit request.
1:39:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about the idea of taking all the
investigators from all of the agencies and consolidating them in
the Department of Law. She asked whether the audit that is
being requested is of the process of the new consolidated
investigations prior to them being done, or if it will be given
some time and then be audited for whether it is a more efficient
way to do it.
MS. CURTIS replied that she suggested "at least three years."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that it wouldn't
be known for three years. She expressed her concern that a
prior recommendation from a previous audit is still an ongoing
issue. She continued:
If this board in five more years has an audit that
again raises that there is a problem with the
investigation, but this time we've sort of
structurally shifted and ... we won't know whether
that backlog is created by it being an ongoing
problem, these are complex things to investigate, or
whether it was because we've shifted how we've
investigated them. ... It's not that I'm encouraging
them to be held harmless, but it seems to be an area
of concern for an industry that is profitable but
complex, and seasonal in nature, migratory in
practice, and then we are trying to make sure that
investigations of things that may span legal
boundaries, because again many of the clients who
might be called as a witness in an investigation of
bad actors in the field could be foreign nationals.
So I could certainly see why these are complex
investigations to carry forward and I'm wondering
whether the department has had the opportunity to
share all of those concerns in a global and specific
way as these dialogues about consolidating
investigators to the Department of Law have happened.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that those details would be worked out in
FY 2020. She said the taskforce to implement the Administrative
Order for consolidating all the investigations under the
Department of Law would begin in early 2020 and that questions
would be asked of this particular board, the other 43 licensing
entities managed by [the Division of Legislative Audit], as well
as all the rest around the state. She stated she expects a
discussion to work out safeguards and tracking mechanisms. She
said the administrative order is a plan that will be thorough,
and it is possible that [the Division of Legislative Audit's]
investigators may become Department of Law employees. They will
retain the same knowledge, background, and experience that
benefit from oversight through the Department of Law, she
advised. There are a variety of ways that this could look, but
this is just the beginning of the process, she added.
1:43:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN addressed Ms. Curtis and urged [the
aforementioned problem] be footnoted now because auditors are
probably the best at footnoting something and remembering where
it is and coming back to it. She continued:
This has been in two audits, yet I don't know if you
have any specificity of where the problems and the
timeline to produce those investigations have been
that can be shared with the Department of Law so it
doesn't have to be relearned by a new lawyer trying to
figure out how to investigate a licensure issue that
is in [an] unusual industry. ... Each of our
investigative jurisdictions [is] unique, but I think
this one is not only unique it's quirky. ... I would
just urge that we make sure we've footnoted that so
when we return to this in five years we don't go, "A
third audit where the investigation backlog is
overwhelming," and think that we've somehow been
flawed in it because I think it is one of those places
where it's going to be a weird thing for the
Department of Law. ... The legal violations they're
going to have straight up dialed in ... if they've
been working on fish and game issues and violations.
But I think that the guide industry, it's that
intersect of a lot of different elements of commerce
that are really unique, and I want to make sure we
remember that when we hold someone to task five years
from now about not doing it right.
1:44:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how the board accumulated a $1.1
million deficit in fiscal year 2015.
MS. CURTIS replied that in general terms it may have involved
not raising fees timely, as well as incorrectly allocating
indirect costs over the years. She deferred to Ms. Chambers to
answer further.
MS. CHAMBERS advised that circa 2012 DCCED discovered inadequate
checks and balances in its accounting systems and DCBPL was
allowed to provide incorrect information externally to its
boards and to the public. It was accounted for correctly in the
old state accounting system, she continued, but all the numbers
and reports given to and utilized by the boards were not tied to
the accounting system. When this was discovered, she explained,
DCBPL worked with its administrative services to rectify that
and an exhaustive search through all data was done to find out
where each licensing program actually stood. She said some were
actually doing better than what they were being told and some
were not, and the Big Game Commercial Services Board was in the
"very, very not" category. Much to its credit, she continued,
the board at that time committed to doing whatever it took to
get things done. She explained that the division spent a few
years working hand-in-hand with the board assessing how often
fees were being increased appropriately and whether there were
fees that were not being captured to cover the administrative
workload that the statute requires. Particularly in the time
period between those two audits, she noted, work was done to
calibrate those fees and now they are in a reasonable surplus.
She advised that this program and all the division's licensing
programs are being checked every year with the division's fee
analysis tool. The division is in close contact with the board,
she added, because the board doesn't want to go through that
again and neither does the division.
1:48:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised the increased user fees since
2015 are paying for the new positions talked about by the bill
sponsor to address the backlog of complaints and concerns.
MS. CHAMBERS confirmed that licensing fees pay for all of the
division's costs and noted that those positions are shared with
the other programs as well. She pointed out that the 2018 audit
covered a span of three years, so the information is now four
years old. Since the beginning of the audit, she said, the
division has put in a variety of improvements, safeguards, and
additional resources to address the issues that were raised in
the audit.
MS. CHAMBERS continued and stressed that the audit findings are
against the division and not against the board itself, which is
a body of volunteers appointed to govern. The licensing and
investigative issues are the responsibility of the division, she
pointed out. She said that, to date, the division has:
narrowed down double-checks with the new senior investigators
for all the division's programs; reduced the licensing workload
for this program; closed 22 cases so now only 39 cases are open;
and double-checked every 60 days or so that there is adequate
documentation in the division's case file. She noted the audit
did not find that investigations were performed poorly or that
the board wasn't doing its job. She advised the audit found
that division staff did not document lapses when things were
over with the troopers or with the Office of Special
Prosecutions. The division has taken that very seriously, she
added, because it is a poor reflection on the division when the
audit isn't clean.
1:51:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the audit's concerns are about
investigations as well as oversight and monitoring of the cases.
He noted that currently DCBPL supervises the cases. He read
aloud from AS [08.01.050(a)(19)], administrative duties of
department, which states, "provide inspection, enforcement, and
investigative services to the boards and for the occupations
listed in AS 08.01.010 regarding all licenses issued by or
through the department". He said the statutes are very specific
on who investigates and who oversees those investigations and
opined that the governor's Administrative Order is really an
Executive Order because it changes statutes. Given this order
to put all investigations under the Department of Law, he asked
who is now responsible for the oversight, supervision, and
monitoring of those investigations.
MS. CHAMBERS responded that the task force would work out these
questions prior to executing the Administrative Order. She said
she has taken note of Representative Tuck's statements.
1:54:01 PM
[CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony.]
1:54:37 PM
KURT WHITEHEAD, Master Guide-Outfitter, testified he has been a
guide in Alaska since 1995 and has worked for good outfitters
and bad outfitters. He stressed the importance of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board. He explained that an applicant
applying for a registered guide license is tested before a panel
of master guides and/or registered guides and oral testing
reveals the applicant's competence. He urged the committee to
reauthorize the board because it provides oversight and the
necessary oral testing. Without the board, he said, there would
be no more oral testing and an applicant would only take a
multiple-choice test.
1:57:08 PM
WAYNE KUBAT, Master Guide-Outfitter, Vice President, Alaska
Professional Hunters Association (APHA), testified that the APHA
represents Alaska's important and historic guide industry and
has been in existence for nearly 50 years. He said the APHA
supports state's rights and is working to maintain Alaska's
right to manage game species in accordance with state law. He
stated he is very familiar with CSSHB 43(FIN) and that there is
misleading information circulating about the Big Game Commercial
Services Board (BGCSB). He said the guide industry pays its own
way and is net positive for the state. He pointed out that
guided non-resident effort is less than 3 percent of the total
big game hunting effort, and in 2015 accounted for $55.2 million
new dollars and with multipliers accounted for $87.2 million in
total economic activity, with a lot of it occurring in rural
areas. He advised that guide numbers are decreasing, not
increasing, which was mentioned in the audit.
MR. KUBAT addressed the issue of complaints about the board not
taking action in certain cases. He related that at the meetings
he has attended the board's binder shows the actions it has
taken, and while it may not be all cases, the board is putting a
dent in them. He said the guide industry needs a voice that
knows the truth and can represent guides fairly, and the Big
Game Commercial Services Board is that voice. He further stated
that the board is an important piece of the puzzle toward
maintaining the long-term health and viability of the guide
industry. He urged the passage of CSSB 43(FIN).
1:59:35 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska
(RHAK), testified he is representing RHAK's 2,000 members in
asking the committee to reject the [proposed] five-year
extension of the Big Game Commercial Services Board and to
instead extend it for only two years. He noted the board has
been audited every three years since its reinstatement in 2005
and every audit has outlined the same problem regarding the
ability to investigate cases in a timely manner along with an
ongoing backlog of cases, which doesn't provide confidence that
things will change. He opined that a shorter extension period
would give the board incentive to resolve its issues.
MR. RICHARDS stated the other body amended the bill, in part, in
response to RHAK's complaints about guides continuing to hold a
guide license after numerous violations. The amended bill, he
continued, would change parts of the Title 8 statutes to make it
somewhat easier for the board to revoke or suspend a guide
license and RHAK agrees with those changes. He said there might
be parts of the Title 8 statute the committee is unaware of. He
maintained the guide industry has been very successful over the
decades in monopolizing anything to do with making money from
hunters and that this is how "outfitter" got tacked onto guide
and now a guide is known as guide-outfitter. He again urged the
committee to amend the bill to a two-year extension.
2:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed that RHAK's 4/25/19 letter in the
committee packet states that nothing has changed in terms of the
caseload and that the process has not been streamlined. He
inquired whether RHAK has suggestions on how to streamline the
process. He recalled Ms. Curtis stating there are problems with
being able to investigate and adequately monitor the cases.
MR. RICHARDS answered that only one investigator is attached to
this board and one investigator alone cannot handle all the
cases. He said the board does not have money to hire another
investigator and opined that the way the board resolved its debt
issue is problematic because it moved to consent agreements
rather than taking guides to administrative court hearings that
are costly. So now, he continued, guides with violations are
basically given a slap on the wrist, a minimal probationary
period, and are allowed to continue to hold their guide license.
It is a Catch-22 here, he advised, in that trying to resolve the
investigative issues and the caseloads has resulted in something
that is allowing guides to continue guiding with violations.
2:04:37 PM
NATHAN TURNER, Trapper, Registered Guide-Outfitter, testified he
works primarily as a trapper, has been a hunting guide for 22
years, a registered guide for 19 of those years, and is serving
his ninth year on the Board of Game. He stated he is speaking
today as a hunting guide. He said he supports extending the Big
Game Commercial Services for a full six years and that he also
supports the [bill's proposed changes] to master guide-outfitter
qualifications.
MR. TURNER said the board has clearly acknowledged the financial
problems and investigative backlog and that it continues to work
diligently on the areas that it can through board actions and
authority. But, he added, as has been presented a lot of the
issues are beyond the board. He stated the board takes these
issues very seriously. He related that for most of the years
the board has been operating again, he has sat in the meetings
and the subcommittee meetings and participated in the guide
testing and has been impressed with the sincerity of individual
board members and the tone and tenure of the meetings. He urged
that, regardless of the length of extension that is chosen,
consideration be given at the end of the extension to remove the
sunset provision. He said the administrative problems being
faced today are nothing compared to what would happen if this
board was to sunset, as was evidenced when it was sunset before
and the problems in the field led to the board's re-creation.
MR. TURNER stated he supports the [proposed] changes to master
guide-outfitter qualification. He said he has been qualified
since 2012 but hasn't submitted an application because of his
belief that the bar is [currently] so low it doesn't equate with
his understanding of what a master of any trade should be. As
currently exists, he opined, a guide doesn't need to be
outstanding in any manner; a guide simply needs to be in
business long enough and will qualify to be called a master. He
said his belief that when another guide sees the title "master,"
he/she should be impressed.
2:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled Mr. Turner's statement of being a
guide for 22 years and a registered guide for 19. He asked how
a person becomes an unregistered guide.
MR. TURNER explained he was an assistant guide first to earn his
qualification to become a registered guide.
2:08:29 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide-Outfitter, testified he served
three terms on the Board of Fisheries and afterwards served
eight years as chairman of the Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory
Committee. He said Alaska is well known throughout the country
for its boards of fish and game and its Big Game Commercial
Services Board. He maintained that the other states are jealous
of Alaska's system of public process for how the state's fish,
game, and hunting resources are managed. Allowing this board to
sunset would be a slap in the face to all wild resource users in
Alaska, he said. He pointed out that Alaska is much different
than other states in that regular individuals can put forth
proposals to change the regulations, the proposals are published
through a board process, and at the board's meetings the public
participate in the discussion about changing the regulatory
process. Getting rid of it would be going backwards, he said.
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR noted he is a master guide-outfitter and has
been guiding for 33 years, his son is also a master guide-
outfitter, and his daughter is an assistant guide. Guides pay
their own way, he continued, in that non-residents pay a non-
resident fee in addition to their license and this fee pays 73
percent of the Division of Wildlife Conservation's budget, and
sport fish licenses pay for the majority of the Division of
Sport Fish's budget.
MR. UMPHENOUR pointed out the board doesn't have anything to do
with the investigation process. The investigator works for the
department, he said, so any problems are the department's
problem, not the board's problem. The board does not supervise
the investigator, he continued, and the board has gotten the
investigator to quit so many frivolous investigations that don't
amount to anything.
2:12:25 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that CSSB 43(FIN) was held over.
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
2:13:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act requiring the designation of
state water as outstanding national resource water to occur in
statute; relating to management of outstanding national resource
water by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
2:13:41 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
2:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
introduced HB 138. He testified the bill would clarify that the
designation of Outstanding National Resource Waters, also known
as designated Tier 3 waters, would be accomplished by the
legislature through statute. He said the Alaska constitution
places the responsibility for significant land and water use
decisions in the hands of the legislature. He read from Article
VIII of the constitution, Section 7, Special Purpose Sites,
which states: "The legislature may provide for the acquisition
of sites, objects, and areas of natural beauty or of historic,
cultural, recreational, or scientific value. It may reserve
them from the public domain and provide for their administration
and preservation for the use, enjoyment, and welfare of the
people." He also read from Article VIII, Section 2, General
Authority, which states: "The legislature shall provide for the
utilization, development, and conservation of all natural
resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said a good example of this constitutional
mandate in practice is the 118 state legislatively designated
areas in Alaska, which includes refuges, sanctuaries, critical
habitat areas, special management areas, forests, parks,
recreation areas, preserves, public use areas, recreation
rivers, and recreation mining areas, which total nearly 12
million acres. Each of these areas, he stated, was designated
by legislative approval, not an agency executive approval
process. He said Alaska's voters have clearly spoken on what
they believe the ultimate authority should be with land and
water use designation process. This was seen in 2014, he
specified, when voters approved the Bristol Bay Forever
Initiative by a margin of nearly 4:1, which gave the legislature
the final say in whether to allow the development of large scale
mining projects in the Bristol Bay Area. He said HB 138 would
simply continue this strong precedent of ensuring significant
land and water use decisions, in this case Tier 3 waterbody
designation, resides in the hands of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that Tier 3 designation bestows the
highest level of water quality protection under the federal
Clean Water Act such waters are deemed the highest ecological
and recreational importance. He related that in 1983 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined Tier 3 waters to
be exceptional ecological and recreational significance and that
their water quality be maintained and protected from degradation
in perpetuity. He said the EPA further mandated that each state
establish a process for designating these Outstanding National
Resource Waters. Alaska doesn't currently have a process, he
continued, and the EPA has asked the state to identify a formal
process for designating Outstanding National Resource Waters.
He said this puts the state at risk of violating the Clean Water
Act and opens up the possibility for the EPA imposing its own
designation process, which it has no interest in doing. He
related that in a 2018 letter to former Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) commissioner Larry Hartig, the
EPA wrote it supports Alaska's efforts to develop a designation
process and that it has no interest in doing that for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that defining a designation process
would provide conservationists and developers alike a measure of
certainty in how to go about this designation. He said HB 138
would solve this problem by codifying in statute a designation
process that is consistent with how lands and waters across the
state would be designated for conservation by legislative
approval rather than by department or agency decision. This
designation is an important tool for protecting human and
environmental health, he continued. He maintained it is a
significant policy decision because it would restrict a wide
range of activities on state waterbodies as well as on adjacent
lands that have waters flowing across them into those
waterbodies. He said large-scale resource development projects
located near Tier 3 watersheds would therefore be impacted by
Tier 3 designation and so would road and building construction,
motorboats, recreational activities, seafood processing,
municipal wastewater discharge, residential and commercial
septic systems, storm water discharge, landfills, timber
harvesting, and gravel quarries. He opined that such widespread
impacts effectively make Tier 3 designation a de facto land use
decision and as such the final decision for Tier 3 designation
properly resides in the hands of the legislature, which HB 138
would do. He further opined that HB 138 would provide certainty
for conservationists and developers alike on the designation
process of Outstanding National Resource Waters. Representative
Kopp said the bill isn't lengthy, it just says that this should
be done in statute by the legislature.
2:22:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that it is unknown what the statute
is going to be. He therefore asked why not come up with a bill
that defines the process because, then, "boom, we're done."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the logical outflow of HB 138
is that the administration would still have a duty as DEC to
document petitions brought forward for Tier 3 designations and
the legislature would know about it when the administration
brings forth a bill that would be introduced by the House or
Senate rules committees by request of the governor. That is how
those are done now, he continued, so the question would come
before that body in a manner in which the body is accustomed to
seeing it.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that a process is
not being defined, it is just being said that the procedure is
to follow the bill when the designation of a body of water or
river is wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded yes, file a bill and get
legislative approval.
2:24:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the governor could already
do that. She further asked whether this governor or a previous
governor has done that with any of the five nominations for
[Tier 3 designation].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the five currently outstanding
requests may go as far back as Governor Parnell. He related
that former DEC commissioner Larry Hartig wrote two separate
memos, one to DEC and one to the legislature, in which the
commissioner recommended an approval process where these
decisions were made by the legislature. He said Commissioner
Hartig further stated in the memo that until a process was
established the commissioner did not feel the state was in a
position to show it was complying with the federal Clean Water
Act as having a way to resolve these Tier 3 designations.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to why [DEC] hadn't forwarded
the nomination of the Koktuli [River] [located in Bristol Bay]
for Tier 3 designation given it has been pending for 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied it is because this bill has not
passed yet. He said Governor Walker filed Senate Bill 163
[Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature], but it didn't pass so
now he is continuing that.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how many states have a designation
process and how many have it limited to strictly a legislative
decision, as opposed to a hybrid of the Board of Water making a
recommendation and then the legislature acting on it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP deferred to DEC. He said there is a mix of
statute, board or commission, or executive agency decision, but
he doesn't know how those are broken down.
2:26:48 PM
EARL CRAPPS, Section Manager, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered Representative
Hannan's question. He said the division doesn't have those
broken down, but does have a summary of the different state
processes. He explained that the process itself is not
specified via federal regulation; it is up to each state
individually to determine that process. He said each state does
it differently - some are legislative, some are through a board,
and some are a specific agency within the state that makes the
designation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether there are any other
states where that decision is exclusively legislature with no
other board or department process preceding that.
MR. CRAPPS replied he would research it and get back to the
committee with an answer.
2:28:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR stated she would be interested in receiving
documentation from Mr. Crapps. She noted she has some documents
regarding some western states. For example, she said, Arizona
has processing criteria and regulations, Nevada is a little
different, New Mexico is in regulation, and Oregon is policy-
processing criteria combined in anti-degradation policy
regulation.
2:28:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what the EPA considers to be an
adequate definition to meet the Clean Water Act standards. She
further asked whether having it in regulation is enough.
MR. CRAPPS responded that the EPA does not specify. He said
[Alaska] currently has in place a policy that says these
nominations are to be taken to the legislature for designation
and the EPA has indicated that this policy is adequate to meet
an interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ concluded Mr. Crapps is saying that
[the State of Alaska] already has something in regulation that
meets the definition of the EPA's criteria to meet the Clean
Water Act standards.
MR. CRAPPS answered correct and said last year [DEC] promulgated
air degradation regulations and also posted [the department's]
policy for Tier 3, which indicates that these nominations be
taken to the legislature. The EPA, he continued, has indicated
that that is acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether there has ever been a
Tier 3 waterway designation in the state of Alaska.
MR. CRAPPS replied no, not to this day.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that there
are currently five nominations on the books, but so far, the
administration hasn't seen fit to bring any of them forward to
the legislature.
MR. CRAPPS responded correct; five are being held and have not
been brought forward any further.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said it sounds like the state already
has in place the process that is being recommended in HB 138.
She inquired why the sponsor thinks this process that is
currently in regulation and that meets the EPA's clean water
standards should be put in statute.
2:30:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied [Tier 3] designation is a political
question because it is so far reaching and is the highest
designation of any water body use. He said it is so high that
the state of California, which is probably far more restrictive
environmentally than Alaska, has only applied it to two water
bodies. He related that there are none in Nevada, Washington,
Idaho, or Alaska and offered his belief that there is one in
Oregon. This is a higher standard than drinking water, he said,
the reason being that some aquatic life is more sensitive to
copper than are humans. Its subsequent impact affects large
adjoining land areas, he continued. He said the question is,
"Do we want these types of sweeping decisions made by an
administrative agency or do we want to have these discussions
before a legislative body where we can talk about it
collectively and express our collective will if we think this
special use designation is what we want and hear from the people
rather than maybe get an internal agency report on their
thoughts on the matter?" Every administration changes, he
added, along with its preferences and wishes and this bill would
bring this highest-level question before the legislature.
2:32:55 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, specified that part of the answer is the timing of
the regulations. He stated the regulations were done in consort
with Senate Bill [163], which would have done what HB 138 [is
proposing] to do, and the regulations got into effect before the
bill got passed. There is currently an ambiguity, he continued,
because those regulations point to the legislature and there is
nothing currently in statute that says the legislature will do
this. So, he said, HB 138 would complete a process that was
started by DEC in consort with the legislation of a prior
administration.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that it sounds like regulations
are already in place that put into effect what is described in
HB 138. So, she continued, there may not be a problem that
needs solved, unless the effort is to ensure there wouldn't be
citizen initiatives that create a Tier 3 water designation. She
asked whether the intent is to try to prevent a citizen's
initiative from creating a Tier 3 water designation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied he is unsure what the constitutional
implications are with natural resources. He said the courts use
bright line tests for whether a resource can be done through the
initiative box and therefore he doesn't know if this could be
done through an initiative. But, he continued, DEC considers
this designation to be so far reaching that once a nomination
for Outstanding National Resource Water is made it basically
goes around most of the tools used by DEC to regulate water
quality standards for normal water quality designations and DEC
prefers this policy call be made by the legislature. He
deferred to DEC to answer further.
MR. CRAPPS clarified that the recently promulgated regulations
deal only with how Tier 3 water will be managed once it is
designated. He explained that what he spoke to earlier is DEC's
policy, which is not in regulation. The policy itself is just a
department policy, he continued, and it says the nominations
will be submitted to the legislature for designation.
2:36:51 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified in support of HB 138. He spoke as follows:
As you know, municipal powers, especially for
boroughs, can include planning and zoning,
transportation, ports and harbors, sewer and water,
solid waste management, road maintenance, and flood
protection and mitigation. Each of these relate back
to Tier 3 designation. The role of local government
is extensive as it relates to community development,
public safety, and public welfare. Local decision-
making takes into account extensive public input and
directly involves residents in a review of that
development's impacts on lands and waters within city
or borough boundaries. The designation of Tier 3
waters by an agency would impact local control and
decision-making, which otherwise would involve
residents and locally elected officials in a dialogue
about the sustainability of community development and
locally determined approaches to the mitigation of
negative impacts. Designation may adversely impact
municipal wastewater treatment plants, for instance,
or storm water permitting. Alaska's constitution is
clear in assigning to the legislature the
responsibility for the administration of the state
public domain and, further, the reservation of the
public domain for special purposes. In our review of
HB 138 we believe that the legislative role in Tier 3
designation maintains the separation of powers between
the executive and legislative branches, is consistent
with constitutional intent and, further, that the
legislative process mirrors that found locally the
inclusion of Alaskans in a process that is overseen by
elected officials. We commend to the legislature the
importance of the role that local governments have in
this process. Clearly the conservation and protection
of Alaska's waters is a meaningful discussion for all
Alaskans, just as important as Alaska's community and
economic development. Clarifying the legislature's
role in Tier 3 designations isn't making a choice
between the two, but provides a platform for the
careful negotiation that must take place with respect
to both.
2:39:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 138.
2:40:11 PM
KIMBERLY STRONG, Tribal Council President, Chilkat Indian
Village, testified in opposition to HB 138. She related that
her community is one of three that are proposing Tier 3 status
for the Chilkat River. She stated she is concerned about the
process being brought forth because it would depend on somebody
else and the administration in office. She maintained that
putting the process for Tier 3 designation into the legislative
body would result in the decision process becoming a political
battle. She pointed out that she would not have enough funds to
fly to Juneau to testify in front of legislators [unlike] mining
companies or other companies that want to have resource
extraction that could irreparably damage the river that provides
five species of salmon for the people of the Chilkat Valley.
MS. STRONG stated that Tier 3 designation should be a process
where environmental experts make the decision as to whether this
is needed to protect the waterway. She related that in the past
DEC was asked whether it had done water quality testing in the
Chilkat River and DEC said it had not because there were too
many waterways in Alaska for the department to test. So, she
continued, the Chilkat River goes untested for water quality.
She reiterated she would rather it not be a political process
and instead be a process that DEC decides.
2:43:08 PM
JONES HOTCH, Jr., Vice President, Chilkat Indian Village,
testified in opposition to HB 138. He noted Chilkat Indian
Village is a federally recognized Indian tribe. He urged that
the bills in the House and Senate not be passed. He pointed out
there would be no appeal process and therefore DEC should be the
one that handles the nomination and selection.
2:44:06 PM
SHANNON DONAHUE testified in opposition to HB 138. She said she
lives at the mouth of the Chilkat River, which has been
nominated for Tier 3 protection because of its exceptional
ecological and cultural significance. She stated that people
and all living things in the Chilkat Valley depend on this river
for sustenance. She said HB 138 would deny Alaskans their right
to protect their most valued waterways by implementing a
complicated political process for designation through the
legislature, making it nearly impossible to achieve the
protections that people have a right to as Alaskans and as
Americans. Meanwhile, she pointed out, mines and mineral
exploration companies go through a simple permitting process if
they want to degrade these waters. She said this makes no sense
because everyone in Alaska depends on the state's clean, life-
giving waterways, yet it is easier to get permission to pollute
the waterways than to protect them.
MS. DONAHUE stressed that Tier 3 designation should be a
transparent, reasonable, nonpolitical process based on clear
criteria, and ecological, cultural, or recreational values, and
the will to protect Alaska's waterways. She urged that the
entire review and designation process remain with the DEC. She
further urged that HB 138 be killed and the right of Alaskans be
defended to protect their waters and their homes.
2:45:35 PM
JILL JACOB testified in opposition to HB 138. She said it is
critical the authority for designating Tier 3 water remain with
the DEC and the process remain an administrative equal to that
of permitting water. She stated that it is astonishing Alaska
does not yet have a Tier 3 waterbody. She noted that Lake Tahoe
in California is a Tier 3 waterbody and that it hasn't stopped
people from swimming, drinking, or anything else. She offered
her understanding that HB 138 would remove the option for a
public ballot to designate Tier 3 water and would also provide
the way for a governor to veto a Tier 3 water designation.
Alaska has the last remaining healthy wild salmon on the planet
other than a few places in Russia, she said, so there is a need
to start protecting Alaska's waterbodies with the highest
possible protection. She added that no amount of economic
development is worth the state's safe drinking water or fish.
2:47:16 PM
KIP KERMOIAN testified in opposition to HB 138. He reported
that at a 3/20/17 meeting in Juneau, focal groups were formed to
specifically address the process that the state of Alaska should
employ to nominate and designate Outstanding National Resource
Waters. He said the meeting attendees were two representatives
for conservation organizations, two for commercial fishing,
eleven for government, sixteen for industry, five for Alaska
Natives, two for the Upper Lynn Canal Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, and five undeclared representatives. Of importance,
he noted, is that one point of consensus was that none of the
focal groups expressed support for a legislative path to Tier 3
designation; the opinion otherwise was split between an all DEC
option or some combination of a DEC and a Tier 3 advisory board.
MR. KERMOIAN stated that like those at the workshop, he does not
support a legislative option. He expressed his opinion that it
should be DEC along with an advisory board and it should be
evaluated for a specific nomination path and recommended to the
DEC by this board at least with stakeholders and a body of other
people involved. He said inviting the legislature to make this
determination politicizes this process and it should be left to
natural resources and scientists, people of expertise in the
field. He pointed out that for Tier 3 these experts would be
evaluating exceptional, important, unique, and sensitive
ecological waters. He added that the transient political nature
of how things go would not lend itself well to this process. He
said corporations can apply for a process to grade water and HB
138 and SB 51 would eliminate the ability for residents and the
public to do the same.
2:50:10 PM
BETSEY BURDETT testified in opposition to HB 138. She offered
her belief that this process should stay in the realm of DEC and
some kind of advisory board. She noted that legislators are
replaced every few years, as is the governor, and she would like
to keep it on an administrative level with experts that know
about the environment. She disagreed that this designation is a
land use decision and said it is about clean rivers. Given many
of these rivers already have things going on, she added, it
isn't like it is being taken off the grid.
2:51:28 PM
JAN CONITZ testified in opposition to HB 138. She stated that
while the bill sounds like a simple change, it isn't - it's a
sweeping change. She said HB 138 would take away the rights of
ordinary Alaskans, and over time would result in great harm to
Alaska's mostly pristine waters by taking away the right of
people who know these waters to take steps to protect them. She
pointed out that unique about Alaska compared to all other
states, is the direct dependence of so many Alaskans on clean
and unspoiled waters. Those with direct connection to the land
and water, she continued, have close-up firsthand knowledge of
the waterways that need protection and they know about the risks
of not taking care of those waters.
MS. CONITZ said all Alaskans currently have the right to
nominate waters critically important as Outstanding National
Resource Waters. The designation protects waters from long-term
pollution and degradation by simply not allowing dumping of
waste into them, she continued, and would not preclude ordinary
existing uses of the water. But, she stated, HB 138 would
remove the right of ordinary Alaskans to take the first step to
protect the water that they depend on and care about. The bill
would turn efforts to reasonably protect clean water over to a
political process, which would probably in practice be nearly
impossible to prevail. She pointed out the legislature can at
this time designate Tier 3 waters if it chooses to, but
evidently it has not, and so there is no point in passing HB 138
to give the legislature more authority. She reiterated that HB
138 would take away the authority and the rights of ordinary
Alaskans and would allow further degradation of Alaska's clean
waters. She urged the bill not be passed.
2:54:31 PM
DOUG WOODBY testified in opposition to HB 138. He said he began
working for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in the mid-
1970s and retired a few years ago as a chief fisheries
scientist. He noted he conducted research and management work
all around the state and is opposed to HB 138 for a number of
reasons. The primary reason, he continued, is because it would
make the designation of these exceptional waters a political
process when it should be based on best scientific expertise.
He said that based on the bill's sponsors, it is clear that many
are extractive industries. Alaska currently has no waters
designated under this special designation, he stated, and it
appears that HB 138 is a thinly veiled attempt to make that
almost impossible, which is why he opposes it.
2:55:51 PM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), testified in support of HB 138. She spoke as follows:
The Clean Water Act requires all states to maintain a
process for Tier 3 water designation. This is for
water that's described as having exceptional
recreational or ecological significance or waters that
are within parks and refuge, so truly special
scenarios of water protection above what the State of
Alaska already does. Tier 3 waters effectively cannot
have any new or any expanded activities that have the
potential to change the water quality in any way. So
this would apply even in situations where the activity
meets existing water quality standards and fully
protects the fish and the water and any other uses. A
designation would result in significant restrictions
on land and water users and cause significant adverse
and social and economic impacts. Because a
designation applies to a Tier 3 tributary or a Tier 3
water, it would prohibit development in entire
watersheds comparable to de factor wilderness. And
for that reason we believe ... the authority to
designate should lie solely with representatives of
Alaskans, which is the legislature.
With regard to the designations, they've got the
potential to become tools for anti-development
interests to block or delay projects. It's evident in
the five nominations before DEC currently, which
specify mining, oil and gas, federal land planning,
and Alaska Native corporation land selections as
threats to waterbodies. But it's clear that a
designation goes a lot farther. Tier 3 designation
could impact a lot of other users, non-development
users that the sponsor outlined in his introduction.
... That is why you will see in your packet a letter
authored by 15 diverse organizations that understand
the impact of a Tier 3 designation to all Alaskans.
And we believe that given the significant adverse and
watershed-wide land and water use impacts that a Tier
3 water should be designated only by a vote to the
legislature. This is consistent with the
constitution, the existing process for setting aside
areas of state land from development, and existing DEC
policy. And for those reasons we urge you to support
this bill.
2:58:10 PM
JESSICA PLACHTA, Executive Director, Lynn Canal Conservation
(LCC), testified in opposition to HB 138. She said her
organization's 300 active members are speaking with her as she
testifies opposing HB 138 and SB 51. She related that LCC
supports the Village of Klukwan, which nominated the Chilkat
River for Tier 3 protection. She continued:
Clean water is not a partisan issue. Anyone who has
ever fed a child or caught a fish knows that clean
water is a basic human right. Alaska is blessed with
abundant clean water and despite its small population
Alaska is also the biggest water polluter in the
country. It can do better than that. The state of
Alaska has been out of compliance with the Clean Water
Act for over 20 years. But [Alaskans] are demanding
the right to protect our clean waters and healthy
salmon runs before rampant industrialization makes our
way of life history. Support for subsistence is built
into the state constitution; it should not be easier
to pollute public waters in the state of Alaska than
it is to protect them. Opponents of protection argue
that Tier 3 designation would be bad for business.
Tell that to Florida, which has 41 designated Tier 3
waterways and a robust economy. We are counting on
you legislators to resist corporate pressure and do
the right thing. Let communities protect the waters
they rely on using sound science, not corporate
pressure and not politics for the yardstick. It's
that simple. There is an alternate Tier 3 bill
waiting in the wings, one that makes it easier to
protect the water we all rely on for our health, our
wealth, and our future generations. Wait for it.
Please oppose HB 138 and SB 51. Three hundred of us
here in Haines ask you to join us and oppose these
destructive backward bills. And please let us protect
the Chilkat River.
3:00:36 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Director, Government Affairs, The Alaska Center
(TAC), testified in opposition to HB 138. He stated:
We believe the state's top cop for water quality
regulations, DEC, has the ability, expertise, and
clear legal authority to establish a science based
nomination process for high value waters for Tier 3
water as required under the federal Clean Water Act.
We believe administration of Tier 3 for waters of high
ecological or recreational value can be rendered under
the existing anti-degradation policy incorporated in
the existing DEC water quality standards program. ...
DEC does not need additional legal authority to
designate Tier 3 waters; it just needs to adopt a
process for doing that. Moving legislative designation
of Tier 3 waters will result in an entirely political
process for any discussion on the science based
merits, and the Tier 3 designation will be steamrolled
by politics and money. And DEC has the water quality
expertise and the ability to regulate water quality
[and] should be the entity to make the protective
determinations.
MR. FLORA addressed the argument that HB 138 is necessary
because Tier 3 designations are too big of a policy call for
DEC. He said this to be a strange argument in that EPA is
currently moving ahead with certification of an Alaska water
quality regulation promulgated by DEC in 2006 that allows
pollution-mixing zones in salmon spawning areas statewide. He
pointed out that this 2006 regulation has far reaching
implications for salmon habitat and for salmon user groups
statewide and was carried out administratively. Yet, he
continued, with HB 138 it is being said that to protect very
specific and geographically limited waters of exceptional
ecological value the burden is too great for an administrative
process. He said the argument that the agencies should not
independently make determinations to protect certain waters
ignores the statute that allows citizens, organizations, and
state agencies to make in-stream flow or water quantity
reservations through an administrative process overseen by DNR.
These reservations, he noted, are made quite often by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to protect fish habitat and it's all
without legislated confirmation or approval.
MR. FLORA stated HB 138 is unnecessary and should not be moved
from committee. He said DEC should, within its clear authority,
create a regulation that satisfies the federal Clean Water Act
requirement that states have a process for citizens to nominate
specific high value waters for protection from additional
degradation.
3:03:32 PM
GUY ARCHIBALD testified in opposition to HB 138. He stated he
is representing himself but works as staff scientist for the
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC). He said some of
the talking points in the sponsor's statement are imperfectly
informed, such as the statement that the State of Alaska
currently has no formal process for designating a Tier 3. He
drew attention to the [7/26/18] letter in the committee packet
from the EPA to Mr. Andrew Sayers-Fay [Director, Division of
Water, DEC] and noted the letter mentions that EPA is approving
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 because DEC still has in place the interim
antidegradation guidance that outlines three different ways to
designate Tier 3. One of those ways, he said, is through the
triennial review process where any resident of the state can
nominate a Tier 3 and DEC is supposed to move that along.
MR. ARCHIBALD said nobody argues that the legislature does not
have the authority to designate a Tier 3. He stated the
legislature can act on those at any time and has always been
able to do that. So, he continued, if this bill is not a bill
to form a designation process, then it must be asked, What is
it? He said it's clear that HB 138 is designed to take a public
process out of it so that the public process does not have an
administrative process or even an appeal process judicially to
form a Tier 3. In regard to statements that protecting the
water is so far reaching and has so many other effects, he
pointed out that contaminating water has effects as well - on
other landowners, communities, and people's ability to make a
living through the fishing industry. He maintained it is not a
land use decision because landowners adjacent to the state's
public waters have no inherent right to pollute those waters.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired about the three ways [that DEC has to
designate a Tier 3].
MR. ARCHIBALD replied that the Alaska Department of Law (DOL)
has done an opinion on this, but has not made it public. He
related that the Department of Law told him it was attorney-
client privilege. He suggested the committee ask for it.
3:06:36 PM
SARAH DAVIDSON, Program Manager, Inside Passage Waters,
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), testified in
opposition to HB 138. She said her position with SEACC provides
her the opportunity to travel throughout Southeast Alaska, speak
to communities about water challenges and opportunities, and
listen to their concerns, needs, and interests. She continued:
Of the many concerns I've heard, those relating to the
future of wild Alaskan salmon stocks have come up the
most, a concern that I imagine is shared by many in
this room. As stressors in the ocean ecosystem
increase, our streams and rivers become even more
critical to the survival of salmon and the communities
that rely on them. Currently most Alaskan waters are
clean enough to catch fish and eat without significant
health hazards. This is one of the few places on
earth where this is the case. That alone makes Alaska
unique and fuels our two largest economic drivers in
this region fishing and tourism. We should be doing
everything we can to protect that special quality and
the waterways that make that possible. Instead HB 138
makes it even more difficult than it already is to
protect our clean waters and leads us down the same
path from which other states in our country are still
struggling to recover after decades of industrial
pollution. It should be no more difficult to protect
Alaskan waters that it is to pollute them. Not only
does HB 138 make this process political rather than
scientific by removing authority from DEC, it also
removes the opportunity of Tier 3 designation by a
public initiative. The same agency that has the
scientific expertise to implement a Tier 3 designation
should also have the authority to designate them
through an administrative and science based process.
This is not my perspective alone. It is shared by
over 150 people who signed our petition calling for a
Tier 3 designation process equally as administrative
and streamlined as the permit process to degrade our
waters. Any short-term gains made by the passing of
HB 138 will be undermined by the long-term detriment
to our clean water, our healthy fish, and our
resilient communities. HB 138 hurts all of us. ... I
call on each representative on this committee to have
the will and the courage to prioritize clean water for
those yet to come by defeating this bill.
3:09:20 PM
HEATHER EVOY testified in opposition to HB 138. She stated she
is Tsimshian from the Eagle Clan. She noted she works as the
Indigenous Engagement Lead for the Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council (SEACC), but is speaking today on behalf of herself as
an Alaska Native whose ancestors have been here for 10,000-plus
years. She said that for almost 10 years DEC has sat on the
five Tier 3 nominations, all of which have come from an Alaska
Native tribe, not corporations. In regard to the argument by
proponents of a legislative-only Tier 3 process that Tier 3 is
just a tool for special interest groups, she pointed out that
tribes are not special interest groups any more than any other
government entities.
3:10:53 PM
PHILLIP MOSER testified in opposition to HB 138. He stated that
passing the bill would be a blow to the voice and wellbeing of
citizens like him. He said he finds it outrageous that the
proponents of smaller government and less regulation have a
talking point that only applies to industry and capital, but
when citizens have a tool to advocate for themselves and their
health and the waters on which they rely, proposals are made to
add more and more bureaucracy to stop them. He stated DEC is
set up precisely to work through Tier 3 water issues and can
respond to community advocacy well; shunting Tier 3 designation
to the state lawmaking process would result in losing a
straightforward fact based investigative process to political
stalling.
MR. MOSER asked why business can apply to the DEC with a six-
page application to engage in long-term pollution of Alaska's
best waters while its own citizens trying to protect those same
waters upon which they rely and live on are considered a threat.
Regardless of whether the bill passes, he said, the evidence
already says Alaska's waters have many stressors and everything
possible needs to be done to uphold Alaska's waters as the
cleanest and best waters for its own citizens. He noted Tier 3
designations do not apply to existing uses of those waters, and
offered his belief that the argument that it could be onerous to
people if this legislation isn't passed is much overstated.
3:12:38 PM
[HB 138 was held over.]
3:13:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43 (SFIN) - Sectional Summary.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43, Version A.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| CSSB 43, Version B.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Work Draft v. M - Explanation.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 DCPL Letter .pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Bunch Testimony .pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Additional Testimony Huttunen.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 BGCSB Letter of Support 4.03.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| SB 43 Big Game Commercial Services Board Sunset Review Audit.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| HB138 Sponsor Statement version U 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 version A 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 Water Designation FAQ 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 response 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Final Tier 3 Guidance 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material Commissioner Hartig Letter to Senate 4.22.2019.PDF |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 40 CFR Part 131 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 18 AAC 70.016 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB136 Fiscal Note 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HR138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Chilkat Indian Village Letter of Opposition 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC P&P re Tier 3 Nomination 11.21.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| HB138 Fiscal Note 4.26.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HR138 Supporting Document EPA Response to DEC 7.26.18.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HR 138 |
| SB43 Supporting Document - RHAK Letter House Resources 4.25.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| HB138 Coalition Letter of Support 4.28.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Letters of Opposition 4.29.19.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB138 Additional Letters of Opposition.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |