Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/25/2002 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 2002
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 343(RES)
"An Act clarifying the term 'best technology' required for use
in oil discharge prevention and contingency plans; affirming
existing Department of Environmental Conservation regulations
defining 'best technology' and oil discharge prevention and
contingency plans approved using those regulations; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 343(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 474
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for
surface transportation affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge."
- MOVED CSHB 474(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 46
Relating to the moratorium on fish farming in British Colombia.
- MOVED CSHJR 46(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 508
"An Act relating to publication of results of testing for
paralytic shellfish poisoning by the Department of Environmental
Conservation and to participation of the Department of
Environmental Conservation in the development of operating plans
of qualified regional dive fishery associations."
- MOVED HB 508 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 343
SHORT TITLE:BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY:DISCHARGE PLAN
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/27/02 2319 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/27/02 2319 (S) RES
03/04/02 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/02 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
03/06/02 2386 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/06/02 2386 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
HALFORD,
03/06/02 2386 (S) STEVENS, WILKEN, LINCOLN; NR:
ELTON
03/06/02 2387 (S) FN1: ZERO(DEC)
03/13/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/13/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/13/02 2416 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/13/02
03/13/02 2417 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/13/02 2417 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/13/02 2417 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/13/02 2417 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
343(RES)
03/13/02 2417 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E1 A1
03/13/02 2418 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/13/02 2420 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/13/02 2420 (S) VERSION: CSSB 343(RES)
03/15/02 2538 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/15/02 2538 (H) O&G, RES
03/22/02 (H) O&G AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/22/02 2642 (H) O&G RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM
03/22/02 2642 (H) DP: DYSON, CHENAULT, FATE;
NR: JOULE,
03/22/02 2642 (H) GUESS; AM: KOHRING
03/22/02 2642 (H) FN1: ZERO(DEC)
03/25/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 474
SHORT TITLE:ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2315 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2315 (H) CRA, RES
03/05/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/05/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/02 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/19/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/19/02 (H) Moved CSHB 474(CRA) Out of
Committee
03/19/02 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/20/02 2617 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 2DP 4NR
03/20/02 2617 (H) DP: SCALZI, MEYER; NR:
MURKOWSKI,
03/20/02 2617 (H) GUESS, KERTTULA, MORGAN
03/20/02 2617 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.CRA)
03/22/02 2655 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE
03/25/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 46
SHORT TITLE:BC MORATORIUM ON FISH FARMING
SPONSOR(S): FISHERIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2308 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2308 (H) FSH, RES
03/04/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/02 (H) FSH AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/02 (H) Moved CSHJR 46(FSH) Out of
Committee
03/18/02 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/19/02 2602 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 6DP
03/19/02 2602 (H) DP: DYSON, COGHILL, SCALZI,
KERTTULA,
03/19/02 2602 (H) STEVENS, WILSON
03/19/02 2602 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.FSH)
03/25/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 508
SHORT TITLE:DIVE FISHERY ASSOCIATIONS/PSP REPORTS
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/02 2618 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/20/02 2618 (H) RES
03/25/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 343(RES) on behalf of the
Senate Resources Standing Committee, sponsor, which he chairs.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 343; indicated the issue is
the legislative intent for meeting the "best available
technology" statutory requirement.
DOUGLAS MERTZ
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council
319 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 343.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
121 West Fireweed, Suite 207
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 343; indicated
passage of SB 343 would remove the obstacle faced by the
industry because of the supreme court decision.
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
103 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 343.
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 343; supported the proposed
amendment language submitted by the Prince William Sound RCAC
and strongly encouraged including periodic best available
technology conferences consistent with the 1997 regulations.
ROSS COEN
Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility
P.O. Box 82718
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 343, saying he is opposed
to its intent and believes [DEC] should promulgate regulations
that comply with the supreme court's decision.
GARY CARLSON, Senior Vice President
Forest Oil Corporation
310 K Street, Suite 700
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 343, saying it
is necessary to clarify the legislative intent, DEC practices,
and regulations currently in place.
TOM LAKOSH
P.O. Box 100648
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 343; requested a
requirement for DEC to examine improvements in the ability to
address problematic spill-response situations.
SUSAN SCHRADER
Alaska Conservation Voters
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to [SB 343], which
rolls back oil spill protection laws that the legislature passed
a number of years ago.
LAURA ACHEE, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 474 on behalf of
Representative Green, sponsor.
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
P.O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474.
JEFF LOWENFELS
(No address provided)
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474.
MIKE MITCHELL, President
Anchorage Trails and Greenways Coalition
1331 Hillcrest Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474.
CHIP DENNERLEIN, Director
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1579
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474.
MIKE JENS
9300 Grover Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474.
LORVEL SHIELDS
2140 Shore Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 474.
JIM REEVES
4001 Westwood Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474, saying he supports a
resolution that will result in a trail.
MICHAEL DOWNING, Chief Engineer
Design and Engineering Services Division
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the department opposes HB
474.
BOB BELL
801 West Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 474.
CHERYL SHROYER
P.O. Box 113264
Anchorage, Alaska 99511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474.
JANEL FEIERABEND, Director
Friends of Potter Marsh and
the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
3170 Marathon Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 474.
JEAN ELLIS, Staff
to Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHJR 46(FSH) on behalf of the
House Special Committee on Fisheries, sponsor, which
Representative Wilson co-chairs.
GERON BRUCE, Deputy Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HJR 46.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 2138
Wrangell, Alaska 99929
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 46 and HB 508.
CHERYL SUTTON
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association
P.O. Box 39214
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 508.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Scalzi, Fate, Green, Stevens, and Kapsner were present at the
call to order. Representatives Chenault, McGuire, and Kerttula
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 343-BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY:DISCHARGE PLAN
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business, CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 343(RES), "An Act clarifying the term 'best
technology' required for use in oil discharge prevention and
contingency plans; affirming existing Department of
Environmental Conservation regulations defining 'best
technology' and oil discharge prevention and contingency plans
approved using those regulations; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0154
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, Alaska State Legislature, presented CSSB
343(RES) on behalf of the Senate Resources Standing Committee,
sponsor, which he chairs. He explained that the bill responds
to the Alaska Supreme Court's February 1, 2002, ruling in Lakosh
v. Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation by clarifying the
meaning of "best available technology requirement for oil spill
contingency rulemaking plans." First, it clarifies that the
1997 negotiated regulations, which establish a three-tiered
approach for making best available technology (BAT)
determinations, is a correct interpretation of the statute;
second, it confirms the continued validity and effect of the
1997 regulations, which have been utilized in approving over 100
contingency plans since April 1997; and third, it affirms the
continued effect of contingency-plan approvals issued under the
1997 regulations, and ensures that plan holders can continue to
operate under those approvals.
SENATOR TORGERSON said this bill doesn't eliminate or weaken the
BAT requirement; however, some have incorrectly argued that the
bill rolls back protections enacted in 1990 after the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. The BAT requirement has been part of the
contingency statute since 1980, long before the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. In 1990, the legislature amended the existing law to add
rigorous oil spill response planning standards; however, the
legislature did not address the relationship between the
planning standards and the best available technology. This bill
would restore the 1997 consensus criteria developed in
negotiated rulemaking, which have been used for making BAT
determinations for the last five years.
Number 0362
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), came
forward to testify, noting that DEC is responsible for reviewing
and approving all discharge prevention and contingency plans for
over 120 facilities in Alaska. Those facilities include: oil
terminals, pipelines, exploration and production facilities,
tank vessels, oil barges, nontank vessels, and the railroad. In
addition, DEC has been working with the Department of Law since
the supreme court ruling to devise a remedy that meets the
supreme court ruling on best available technology that is
described in the contingency plans.
MR. DIETRICK said the issue is the legislative intent for
meeting the "best available technology" statutory requirement.
The court noted that when an agency has adopted regulations
under a delegation of authority from the legislature - using the
process prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act - it is
presumed the regulations are valid; thus the review is limited
to whether the regulations are consistent with and reasonably
necessary to carry out the purposes of statutory provisions, and
whether the regulations are reasonable and not arbitrary.
Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the legislature
established what are arguably the toughest response planning
standards in the world, he noted.
MR. DIETRICK further explained that when reviewing the
contingency plan, DEC had interpreted the statute to mean that
meeting Alaska's tough response planning standards also
satisfies the BAT requirement, if the equipment is proven,
reliable, and appropriate for its intended use and the magnitude
of the spill it is addressing. This interpretation was
developed through an extensive workgroup process when the
regulations were developed in 1997. The court recognized that
this approach has considerable merit and that the agency
judgment in this regard deserves considerable deference, but
only to the extent that the legislature actually granted DEC
authority to define "best available technology" in terms of
reliance on the response-planning standards.
Number 0500
MR. DIETRICK told members the court has raised a rather narrow
question regarding whether [DEC's] regulatory interpretation
meets the intent and lies within the limits of authority
delegated by the legislature. Best available technology wasn't
defined by the legislature, so the court has interpreted the
statutory language to mean that the legislature intended to
impose two separate requirements. This precludes DEC from
relying on the response-planning standards or performance
standards put in regulation to establish the BAT requirement.
Number 0555
MR. DIETRICK noted that the court's ruling has invited the
legislature to clarify the intent. The department believes any
legislation should meet the following goals. First, because of
the timing of the release of the court decision and the time
remaining during this [legislative] session, it is important
that any legislation be limited to what is necessary to address
the court ruling; there isn't time to entertain other statutory
changes and to do credible research in coordination with the
regulated community and other stakeholders. Second, legislation
should be passed this session to ensure continued operation of
Alaska's facilities and eliminate the "cloud of uncertainty"
from the court ruling regarding the validity of existing plan
approvals made since 1997. Third, the legislation must validate
the existing regulations and preserve the approach for making
BAT determinations as envisioned by the 1997 task force.
Fourth, the legislation must sustain the same level of rigor for
plan reviews as now practiced, and not diminish the existing
response capability. Fifth, the legislation must continue to
support the ability of the department to evaluate new
technologies and make BAT findings.
Number 0707
MR. DIETRICK said SB 343 meets these five goals and provides a
straightforward language clarifying the legislative intent. In
addition, it validates the BAT approach taken by the department
in a 1997 negotiated-rulemaking process and affirms the
continued effect of contingency plans approved by the department
since 1997. He suggested the language is responsive to the
supreme court ruling, and doesn't reduce the rigor of existing
contingency-plan reviews or diminish the response readiness and
capability of industry. The bill also provides for the
department's periodic examination of new technologies to keep
Alaska on the forefront of environmental protection worldwide.
He stated that the department supports SB 343.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Dietrick when and where the
last [oil] spill DEC was involved in occurred, and what the best
available technology was that the DEC used in the cleanup.
MR. DIETRICK indicated [oil] spills occur almost daily in
different amounts across the state. He talked about a large
spill in Prince William Sound where a new boom was used, and
said [DEC] believes it would be a good candidate for reviewing
and making a determination of its best available technology. He
offered an example of a recent event: a fish processor hit a
rock [in Prince William Sound], resulting in the largest
refined-products spill there. The recovery rate was over 50
percent, using aforementioned technology and the Alyeska SERVS
[Ship Escort Response Vessels System] response capability.
Number 0879
DOUGLAS MERTZ, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council (RCAC), came forward to testify, noting that his
organization involves 18 communities and other entities within
the area affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. He said the
RCAC recognizes the need for [SB 343] and for clarification
after the supreme court decision. He mentioned concerns about
the enormous amount of discretion that [CSSB 343(RES)] would
give DEC on how and whether to implement the BAT requirement.
He referred to the statute and said it uses the word "may"
rather than "shall" [several times], and where it can say
"shall", it says "may". He said as a result, DEC is vested with
an enormous breadth of discretion, from making the BAT
requirement highly burdensome, to making it a "meaningless walk-
through," or anything in between.
MR. MERTZ expressed concern that the department should implement
the regulations put together by a bipartisan group in 1997. He
said there is general agreement that these are good regulations
and really do the job. He suggested that if implemented, they
would be to the entire state's advantage. One part of those
regulations - considered important by everyone who put together
that package of regulations, including the agency, the industry,
environmentalists, and the RCAC - was the requirement that every
five years a conference on BAT [would be held]; experts from
industry, government, and all sources could come together and
attempt to reach a true consensus on what is the best available
technology. He pointed out that although the conference was
supposed to happen every five years, the deadline was missed
last year; now, there is a request in to fund, from the "470
fund," [a conference] in the upcoming fiscal year.
MR. MERTZ told members it is important that discretion in the
department be narrowed by the legislature's telling the DEC [to
comply] because regulations require it. He said "we've" given
[the legislature] language that would accomplish that, fairly
mild language in the declarations section at the beginning of
the bill that would simply say these regulations were put
together and that they are the law, just as the statute is.
MR. MERTZ referred to a handout that would later be addressed by
proposed conceptual Amendment 1. Titled "Suggested Changes to
Senate Bill 343," it read:
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council suggests that such language could be inserted
into Senate Bill 343 at 1(a)(5) by changing it to read
as follows (new language in boldface):
(5) under AS 46.04.030(j) and 46.04.070, the
Department of Environmental Conservation adopted
regulations at 18 AAC 75.445(k), effective April 4,
1997, that established a reasonable three-tiered
process, including periodic Best Available Technology
Conferences, for defining what was meant by best
available technology;
MR. MERTZ explained that adding the foregoing language would
make it enormously difficult for the agency to "write off" that
part of the existing regulations and essentially decline to take
the best opportunity for discovering and defining what the best
available technology is.
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 3 [line 30] and asked Mr.
Mertz whether he felt that [provision] was stringent enough.
For example, a company might find that the technology it is
already using is the best available technology. He surmised
that [a company] would find the best available technology.
MR. MERTZ suggested [the provision] meant "they" shall come up
with a declaration as to what is the best available technology.
It may be standards-based or something else, but doesn't require
going through the processes they committed themselves to in the
1997 regulations. The [regulations], by contrast, require that
a process is gone through in order to examine what [technology
is available] and to make a fact-specific finding. He said that
is what [his organization] would like to see tightened up here,
either through making those "mays" mandatory or through the
milder suggested method - referring to the regulations and the
declarations so those regulations clearly are required.
Number 1268
MR. MERTZ, in response to Representative Green's request for an
example, suggested that the worst-case scenario would be if the
agency decided it didn't have the manpower or funding to do an
actual examination regarding what technology exists. New things
are happening all the time. For example, if the five-year
examination through a conference weren't held, and the only
requirement would be for the entities to present their
contingency plans to be examined - to find whether they could
clean up a specific number of gallons in a certain number of
hours - then the specific technology wouldn't be examined and
compared to evolving technology in the rest of the world.
Instead of being a standard that improves as technology
improves, it would be fixed forever until "they" decide to
reexamine what exists in the world.
Number 1368
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a scenario in which "they" had looked
at a "C Plan" [contingency plan] and agreed that the equipment
available is the best available technology; however, some new
technology had been developed in the meantime that wasn't
covered but [that the provision] said will be covered. He asked
if that meant DEC would be derelict in its duties.
MR. MERTZ said he didn't think so.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Mertz if he was concerned that
"they" won't stay abreast of current technology. He mentioned
that there might be extenuating circumstances. He said the bill
says they are going to stay abreast of technology to the best of
their ability and may not [have the technology most recently
available]. He expressed concern that if the bill says "will",
then they won't ever be able to stay [current] on [the most
recent technology available].
MR. MERTZ responded that the beauty of referring to the 1997
regulations is that they provide a methodology for reassessing
periodically - every five years. This would prohibit a judge
from saying that recently developed new technology must be
incorporated into the C Plan approvals.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he'd interpreted the ruling of
the supreme court to mean that some definition was needed. He
mentioned that he thought the supreme court would be satisfied
as long as [BAT] was addressed. He remarked, "I think if you
nail that too tight, you're almost determined to fail."
MR. MERTZ replied, "That's why we are not advocating nailing it
too tight." He mentioned that the requirement is not tied to
specific technology. He indicated that requiring so many
"shalls" would make it possible for somebody to claim that
because there is certain new technology currently available,
regardless of when it was developed, the new technology must be
incorporated. He offered his belief that by [having the bill
refer to] the regulations and the five-year conference, a
reasonable judge would [maintain that] the requirement for a
grand reexamination is every five years, not every month.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Mertz if he was concerned that
the "may" would allow it not to be done.
MR. MERTZ said [that would be so] if it weren't coupled with a
reference to the regulations - an affirmation that the process
in those regulations is what is intended.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered his understanding that regulations
are an advent after a statute has been determined.
CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that she thought Representative Green
had a point, and that it was better to fix the problem by
statute rather than regulation.
Number 1612
MR. MERTZ, in response to Representative Kerttula, explained
that the [regulations] were created in 1997; the first five-year
conference should have occurred during the last fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked where the process was in terms of
holding such a conference.
MR. MERTZ answered that DEC and the industry support [the
conference], and there is a component in the governor's CIP
[capital improvement project] budget for seed money for it, for
the coming fiscal year. It is anticipated that the industry
would also provide the experts some money, and there may be
funding from other sources. He said the plan is underway.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked when the response standard was
last looked at in statute; if the Exxon Valdez [oil spill] was
the last time there was a response standard; and if the RCAC
felt comfortable that by overturning the case and saying, "If
you meet the response standard, you are best available
technology," that meets what needs to be done in Alaska.
MR. MERTZ said no. He explained that the RCAC has been very
much involved in examining C Plans and - at least in Prince
William Sound - actual capabilities for cleanup. There has been
a good deal of controversy and concern about meeting those
performance standards, whether those [standards] had become
outdated since the Exxon Valdez [oil] spill, and the legislation
immediately following. He said with those performance standards
in place, "we" are at a juncture: the technology is rapidly
outstripping what was put in place back then.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Mertz if there was technology
that the state wasn't using that he thought would be better.
MR. MERTZ said, "No."
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Mertz if he was satisfied to
accept mentioning of the conference in the bill.
MR. MERTZ replied that it would be "folly" for the legislature
itself to set new performance standards every year or to declare
what the best available technology is; it should be left to the
agency that has expertise to decide some of these [issues]. If
[the agency] is given complete discretion and not required to
update periodically, however, then there is a risk that updating
and reexamining won't happen as time goes on. He remarked that
[requiring this conference] is a sensible middle ground.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI called the RCAC the "watchdog group" for the
industry. He asked Mr. Mertz if [the RCAC] has watched and
participated in compliance standards that the industry is under,
and the overview that DEC has.
MR. MERTZ answered in the affirmative.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Mertz whether he thought there was
enough [in place] without [placing] further mandatory
requirements on legislative intent.
MR. MERTZ said the watchdog function the Prince William Sound
RCAC and its sister organization in Cook Inlet perform is very
valuable. However, the [organizations] aren't regulatory
agencies and have no authority. He said only DEC and the
federal authorities can do that.
Number 1865
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said Mr. Mertz was correct, but that the RCAC is
better than the legislature at knowing where a problem in a
situation may occur. He said [legislators] value agencies like
[the RCAC] to help them know that the industry is keeping up
with certain standards, and hope to rely on the input that [the
RCAC] gives them every year. He said he didn't know if it was
needed to have regulations [put in place] that might be
unnecessary. He remarked that he thought relying on [the RCAC]
was perhaps better than relying on some of the agencies.
Number 1937
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), came forward to testify, noting that AOGA
has 19 member companies and represents all of the [oil and gas]
producers in the state, including the three in-state refiners.
She said because of the nature of their operations, all of
AOGA's members are required to have "oil spill discharge" and
contingency plans in place. She said AOGA has a vested interest
in resolution of this issue.
MS. CROCKETT noted that on February 1, 2002, the Alaska Supreme
Court determined it was unable to find the legislative intent it
was looking for, in deciding whether the regulations promulgated
by DEC, following a stakeholder process, in fact met with the
legislature's intent when the bill was passed. She said AOGA
participated in that stakeholder process, along with other
public-interest groups, the RCACs, local municipalities, and
utilities. That process began in 1996, and the regulations were
adopted by the department in 1997 after the group reached
agreement on what those regulations should contain. Two
sections of the regulations that the supreme court has thrown
out are [18AAC 75.445](k)(1) and (2), dealing with the BAT's
meeting the response-planning standard and the prevention
standards. With regard to the conference, she said Mr. Mertz is
correct: industry supports the conference and the regulations
it worked on with the stakeholder group. She agreed the
conference should be held this year; the regulations were
adopted in 1997, and 2002 is the five-year timeframe for that.
Number 2038
MS. CROCKETT said this decision has placed everyone - AOGA's
members, the public, and DEC - in a tenuous position. She
explained that those two provisions are not on the books at this
time, so the department is not able to approve any new
contingency plans, nor able to process the renewals in a timely
fashion. She said C Plans have to be renewed every three years.
At the time of renewal, they must include the best available
technology that has been proven reliable and appropriate for
whatever that activity is.
MS. CROCKETT said the court decision was also very limited in
its scope, and it acknowledged that the legislature had [given]
considerable authority to the department in making these
determinations - they simply could not make the link that the
two sections of the regulations provided. She emphasized AOGA's
strong support for the bill as it reads, and said AOGA is not
pursuing any diminishment of the department's authority, nor
would AOGA support any diminishment of the department's
authority at this time.
MS. CROCKETT said the objective [in the passage of SB 343] is to
remove the obstacle that [the industry] is faced with because of
the supreme court decision, and [AOGA] is hoping to get a
validation of the regulations that were developed through the
stakeholder process. It is a time-critical factor for industry:
some projects are very close to getting final approvals for all
of their permits but are unable to reach that final-approval
stage because of the two provisions being removed. She again
encouraged passage of the bill.
Number 2136
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Ms. Crockett how she responds to
the concern that there needs to be more reference to the [BAT]
conference in the statutes, as opposed to in the regulations.
MS. CROCKETT answered that [AOGA] doesn't believe the bill needs
to be amended to include that specific provision because it is
in the regulations. She remarked that the entire set of
regulations could be included in the bill, if necessary, to make
everyone more comfortable. The department has the regulations
in place governing how it makes these determinations. She said
the [amendment] that had been suggested is to the findings
section of the bill, and reiterated her concern about the timing
and that the bill pass as soon as possible.
Number 2222
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
testified via teleconference. He noted that he would cover two
topics: the reasoning and effect of the Alaska Supreme Court's
recent decision concerning the BAT requirement for oil
contingency plans, and how the legislation responds to the
supreme court's decision in a focused and measured way.
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that SB 343 seeks to clarify the
statutory requirement that oil spill contingency plans use best
available technology in light of the Alaska Supreme Court's
ruling in the Lakosh v. DEC case. The best available technology
has been in place since 1980 for response equipment used in C
Plans. Due to the addition of oil spill prevention to the C
Plan statute in 1990, the BAT requirement became applicable to
prevention equipment at that time. In addition, the 1990
amendments added the rigorous oil-spill-response planning
standards to the C Plan statute, but the legislature didn't
address the relationship between the planning standards and the
BAT requirement.
MR. TOSTEVIN said the court found two parts of DEC's regulatory
criteria for determining whether an oil discharge contingency
plan uses BAT to be inconsistent with statute. These regulatory
criteria were developed as part of a negotiated rulemaking in
1997, which included numerous stakeholders from throughout the
state with a broad range of interests. In the Lakosh case, the
Alaska Supreme Court was confronted with a general challenge to
these regulations. He said the court's ruling was a narrow
legal decision focusing on the language of the regulations, as
opposed to a technological determination of whether any
particular piece of equipment or technology used in the C Plan
was indeed the best available.
MR. TOSTEVIN reported that in finding parts of the regulations
inconsistent with the statute, the court relied upon the
dictionary definition of the term "best" - concluding that in
the absence of legislative history to the contrary, the BAT
regulations could not rely on the stringent response planning
standards for oil spill response technologies, nor rely on
performance standards set forth in regulation for determining
BAT for prevention technologies. The Alaska Supreme Court
concluded that while reliance on performance standards for
determining BAT had considerable rhetorical merit - and had been
used in other federal and environmental statutes in lieu of a
one-size-fits-all technological rule - the absence of specific
legislative history on the interplay between these standards and
the BAT requirement led the court to the conclusion that the
criteria were invalid with regard to the statute.
Number 2409
MR. TOSTEVIN said given the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling
overturning the 1997 workgroup's use of the response-planning
standards and the prevention-performance standards, the BAT
statutory requirement is ripe for legislative clarification. He
said [SB 343] would restore the regulatory criteria adopted in
the 1997 negotiated rulemaking, which had been used in approving
more than 100 C Plans since April 1997. He suggested this
legislation doesn't weaken the BAT requirement, but is an effort
to restore the consensus criteria used for making BAT
determinations for the last five years - criteria that have
resulted in major improvements in oil spill prevention and
response.
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that SB 343 clarifies that the 1997
negotiated rulemaking regulations that established a three-
tiered approach for making BAT determinations are a permissible
interpretation of the statute. Also, [SB 343] affirms the
continued validity and effect of the 1997 regulations; if SB 343
is enacted, DEC would not be required to revise its BAT
regulations. Furthermore, [SB 343] affirms the continued effect
of the contingency plan approval issued under the 1997
regulation and ensures that plan holders could continue to
operate under those approvals.
Number 2461
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Tostevin if the department
only looks at the performance standard when it makes a
determination on best available technology, and if work had been
done to try to make a determination of what's available and what
could be reasonably expected from the companies to have
available.
MR. TOSTEVIN answered that for response equipment, the
regulation requires that if it is technology that meets the
response-planning standard, it also must be proven, reliable,
and appropriate for its intended use. For example, if used for
nearshore skimming, the equipment would have to be reliable and
appropriate for that purpose, and would also have to be reliable
and appropriate for the magnitude and type of the spill it is
addressing. He said it isn't simply meeting the response-
planning standards; rather, there are additional criteria
involved in making that determination.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether that was in the statute or
in regulation.
MR. TOSTEVIN said it was in the 1997 regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there are any other regulations
[with similar requirements] - not just to meet a performance
standard.
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that the regulations call for the review
and the five-year conference to review breakthrough
technologies; if DEC finds there is a new technology
[available], it makes a finding with respect to that technology.
He noted that it would be picked up in the next renewal of the
contingency plan process.
Number 2585
SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United (CDFU), testified via teleconference. Ms. Aspelund told
the committee that CDFU fought long and hard following the Exxon
Valdez spill to make sure the oil companies and the state have
worked to ensure that oil spill contingency plans are the best
possible to prevent a repeat of 1989. The BAT is one of the
most crucial elements within prevention and response contingency
planning. Furthermore, CDFU supports the proposed amendment
language submitted by the Prince William Sound RCAC [text
provided previously]. She said CDFU strongly encourages the
inclusion of periodic BAT conferences consistent with the 1997
regulations, as negotiated by stakeholders that included CDFU;
furthermore, it is CDFU's opinion that compliance with the
performance standard and adherence to best available technology
are two very significant things.
Number 2637
ROSS COEN, Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility,
testified via teleconference, noting that his organization is a
nonprofit group dedicated to holding industry and government
accountable to environmental laws and regulations. He mentioned
that he had testified in previous committees in opposition to
[SB 343]. He said he is opposed to [SB 343's] intent and
believes DEC should promulgate regulations that comply with, not
circumvent, the supreme court's decision. He said he also
believes the legislature should withhold action while [DEC]
holds a public-comment period on such regulation changes; he
offered his understanding that this bill is on the way to
passing. He stated that he fully endorses an [DEC]-sponsored
conference on BAT, which was stipulated in the 1997 regulations
but never has been held. He said the conference is supported by
the RCAC and AOGA. He strongly encouraged that the conference
be [included in this] legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the theory behind having the
conference is so everyone can find out what the [BAT] is - some
commitment on the record, not just in regulations that haven't
been followed.
MR. COEN indicated he would like to see this bill go down.
However, given the present circumstances, he would like to see a
conference [added to the bill].
Number 2738
GARY CARLSON, Senior Vice President, Forest Oil Corporation
("Forest Oil"), testified via teleconference, noting that Forest
Oil holds leases on approximately 200,000 acres, primarily in
the Cook Inlet, and a license for an additional 200,000 acres in
the Copper River Basin. He said Forest Oil is a major investor
in resource development in Alaska. He indicated he'd like
timely passage of SB 343. Mr. Carlson explained that Forest Oil
is one of the companies caught in the dilemma caused by the
supreme court ruling. Forest Oil supports the position of AOGA,
[DEC's] prior testimony, and the [assistant] attorney general's
analysis of the bill. The State of Alaska has one of the most
comprehensive oil spill prevention and requirements in the
world, he told members. Forest Oil's position is that SB 343 is
necessary to clarify the legislative intent as well as DEC
practices and regulations currently in place.
MR. CARLSON said in Forest Oil's case, the Redoubt Shoals
development phase includes facility and pipeline installation;
more than 300 jobs this summer are in jeopardy without quick
resolution of this problem. Forest Oil has "built" BAT and all
aspects of Redoubt development, including state-of-the-art
materials of construction, facilities siting, and innovative
pipeline design. After more than three years in the permitting
process, Forest Oil anticipates having all required state and
federal permits in place by early April. The current BAT
requirements have changed the permitting rules in the middle of
the process, however. Alaska offers a limited construction
season; therefore, getting SB 343 on the books within the next
few weeks is critical to the commercial success of this project.
The project is not only critical to Alaska operations, but to
the industry as a whole, he told members. He encouraged the
committee, the legislature, and the administration to act as
quickly as possible to enact SB 343 as it is now written.
Number 2864
TOM LAKOSH testified via teleconference, noting that he was the
plaintiff in Lakosh v. DEC. He explained that he'd pursued
litigation because in 1995 when the Prince William Sound
contingency plans were approved, several communities, affected
individuals, and user groups had appealed the decision of that
contingency plan; one basis was that the department had failed
to adequately consider best available technology as it was
understood then. Subsequently, during the litigation process -
the administrative appeal process - DEC decided to change the
regulations because it couldn't withstand the strict scrutiny of
the law at that time, he told members. Now, DEC has again
failed to apply the law as it was written in 1980, and has
failed to implement any form, manner, or shape of the
regulations. He has been compelled to pursue this at every
turn, he said. He mentioned the 1997 regulation and the demand
that the agency substitute the technology conference and
subsequent analysis of breakthrough technology.
TAPE 02-19, SIDE B
MR. LAKOSH noted that several committee members live in
districts where there are severe problems with dealing with
hazardous substance spills - in particular, oil spills. He
recommended asking Forest [Oil Corporation] if it can respond in
Cook Inlet's ice from its new development; that may stop its
ability to be approved under the "reliable and appropriate"
standard, he suggested, because currently there is no reliable
and appropriate method of removing oil from ice-bearing waters;
however, there are some scant references to it in various
contingency plans. Under none of them does DEC have the
delusion that any of these permittees can respond in broken
rivers; in fact, Susan Harvey (ph) lost her job over this same
type of political fix to a technological problem, he informed
the committee.
MR. LAKOSH, with regard to floating ice, said there is no
ability to meet the response-planning standard under those
conditions. He referred to Prince William Sound and said the
huge barges and millions of dollars' worth of equipment are
unable to respond in seas higher than six feet - those systems
are designed poorly and require people to work on deck, and
there is a limit to that. However, some design features in some
of their equipment show a great deal of promise for expanding
the ability to work in the more severe Alaskan conditions.
Number 2987
MR. LAKOSH told members the BAT [provision] was supposed to
improve the ability to protect Alaska's resources, because it's
not constitutionally permissible to put an ultrahazardous
activity in the middle of everybody else's reasonable,
concurrent uses without the ability to mitigate the damage that
the hazardous activity could create. Comparing an oil spill to
a fish trap, he said the constitution outlawed fish traps
because they didn't provide for sustained yield and reasonable
concurrent use. He said neither do oil spill contingency plans
- mere "paper tigers" - that don't employ the best technology
designed to operate in Alaskan conditions.
MR. LAKOSH urged the committee to go back through the testimony
and take time to look at what the response problems are in each
particular district. He requested that members include a
requirement for DEC to examine improvements in the ability to
address those problematic spill-response situations; that is
what BAT is needed for. There is a big gap in the ability to
recover spills under severe Alaskan conditions, he explained.
The spill equipment presently [used] has been stagnant for some
time and was never designed to operate under Alaskan conditions.
He indicated that in recent years many northern European
countries have [acquired technology more advanced] than
[Alaska's current] system.
MR. LAKOSH said this inability of DEC to properly determine BAT
goes back 21 years - 21 years of accumulated damage to Alaskan
citizens from DEC's dereliction of duties, including problems of
response to spills in ice, response to spills in high seas, and
response to spills in tundra, as seen at the Livengood spill.
He also mentioned the railroad-related spill in [the Willow]
area and the need to have BAT response in the Susitna [River]
regarding ice.
MR. LAKOSH said the legislature is essentially taking an
administrative role in approving illegally issued permits; that
administrative function may be subject to appeal. There are
several other bailouts that the legislature will have to do if
DEC isn't strictly directed to provide the analysis of spill
technology that was mandated by law by two previous
legislatures. He said, "This legislature, by a wave of a wand
cannot reinterpret as a matter of law." Encouraging the
committee to look at the changes he'd recommended, Mr. Lakosh
said the [changes] are not that far from the RCAC's or DEC's
position in using the technology conferences and an analysis for
breakthrough technology. He suggested that it be done on a
semiannual basis instead of every five years, however, to be
more consistent with statute. He mentioned the response
industry and some conversations with manufacturers.
Number 2676
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Lakosh if he had brought the
tractor tugs to the awareness of the industry.
MR. LAKOSH said that was not his original action, but he did
strongly support them, and he strongly supports their being
tethered throughout Prince William Sound.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Lakosh if he'd argued to see
those [tractor tugs] used.
MR. LAKOSH said yes.
Number 2610
SUSAN SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), came forward
to testify. She told the committee ACV believes SB 343 will
weaken the state's oil spill response laws. In addition, this
bill will be a disincentive to the oil industry to spend the
money needed for resource research and development on best
available technology. She reported that [ACV] also believes
this bill gets DEC "off the hook" for requiring best available
technology. She said the opinions of the attorneys that she
works with differ from the assistant attorney general's opinion.
She remarked that the supreme court case is about differing
opinions. She said ACV is opposed to [SB 343], which represents
a rollback in the oil spill protection laws that the legislature
passed a number of years ago. She concluded by saying she hoped
the committee would consider all viewpoints on this bill.
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Schrader how she would have
DEC determine what is best.
MS. SCHRADER indicated she wasn't the person to answer that
question because her knowledge of the details of oil spill
planning and prevention was minimal.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that a standard of "the best"
is inherently unworkable because it would be [difficult to
determine] what "the best" is. She asked if the problem was a
performance standard. She indicated that even with the best
technology available in the world, if there is not a good
performance standard, then it [might] not meet the necessary
requirements.
MS. SCHRADER referred to the supreme court decision. She said
there are two lines of approach to determining the quality of
the C Plan: meeting performance standards and planning
standards, and also addressing best available technology. She
indicated ACV would like to see the "winnowing" process - the
alternative analysis to determining best available technology -
be kept in regulations, and that DEC be required to go through
that process. She indicated if an applicant comes in with a
draft plan and it meets the planning standard, then that would
allow DEC to determine that as the best available technology.
She said DEC is not required to go though the winnowing process,
however, which ACV feels would result in a potentially stronger
more protective plan.
Number 2438
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked that DEC is testifying that it
is not changing its regulations; however, it is meeting
regulations that are currently on the books. She asked Ms.
Schrader if this bill allows [DEC] to get out of something that
it currently does in regulations.
MS. SCHRADER said ACV's belief is that DEC doesn't need to
address the Lakosh decision through statute; it already has
started its regulatory process to address the court's decision.
She indicated ACV would like to see that process continue. She
said ACV does support the concept of a conference, whether every
five years or every year. A conference between DEC and industry
shouldn't be the end to determining best available technology,
however. There has to be opportunity for public comment on
whatever comes out of those conferences. She said ACV thinks
DEC can address all of the court's concerns through the
regulatory process.
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked if ACV supported the regulations
that came out of the stakeholder working group; whether the
stakeholder panel included [an environmental] representative and
who that person was; and whether Ms. Schrader has a problem with
the concept behind the regulations and their being implemented
in statute.
MS. SCHRADER answered that she'd tried to determine who the
environmentalists were on the stakeholder group, but nobody she
has worked with knows or has come forward. She said ACV was
just formed in 1997, and didn't take a role in [the stakeholder
group]. She said, however, that ACV does agree with the supreme
court's interpretation that DEC did not promulgate regulations
coming out of that 1997 stakeholder group that comport with the
statute.
MR. DIETRICK recalled that the 1997 stakeholder group included
RCACs and industry groups; the lead contact for the
environmental community was Patty Saunders (ph), who represented
a number of environmental organizations, and another person who
was her alternate. There were other participants, but all
stakeholders were at the table, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she wanted it stated on the record
that there was representation by the environmental community.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Dietrick if there would be any
impact by requiring a five-year conference and mentioning it in
the intent statement. She offered her understanding that this
is something DEC will do. Furthermore, it is not much of a
requirement, and the RCAC has asked that it be done.
Number 2205
MR. DIETRICK said he didn't think there would be a problem with
that. He remarked that the problem that has been expressed is
timing with regard to passage of the bill. He said the proposal
by the Prince William Sound RCAC included in the packet hadn't
been reviewed internally, but that his first review would
indicate it isn't a problem.
MR. DIETRICK pointed out that DEC believes in holding the BAT
conference, had agreed to that process in 1997, and thinks it is
an important and efficient way for the state to examine new
technologies; without the conference, DEC does it on an
individual plan review basis. He added that he would argue that
there are benefits to the conference, the industry, and all
parties. Doing a comprehensive review on a periodic basis
allows DEC to identify technologies that individual companies
may not have to repeat, he explained. There are 120 facilities,
so there's an efficiency there in making the BAT review and
moving in that direction.
Number 2112
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to a letter submitted by DEC. She said
there are five points that refer to [SB 343]. She remarked that
it seems to be in order. She said she didn't think it had
caused the committee that much concern, and that it is testimony
from DEC's deputy commissioner. She said she felt this bill
would answer some of the issues from the [supreme] court's
ruling in wanting the legislative body to clarify its intent.
She remarked that she believes this legislation does that.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said after the Exxon Valdez [spill], she
thinks the BAT standard was a compromise from requiring the
industry to meet the best technology. She remarked that there
was an intense reaction [to the oil spill]. She said it was a
compromise to come down from something that could have been
required of the industry. Best available technology ends up
being a "circular" standard; if there is not a good performance
standard, then it's not going to matter what kind of technology
there is because it's going to be meaningless, she suggested.
She referred to Mr. Dietrick's testimony and said the converse
is also true: when there is a conference, scientific
information is shared; when it's known what's available, the
performance standard can be pushed.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the testimony about oil and
broken ice, which she said is a difficult issue. She said DEC
and the industry are in an eternal balance of how to meet a
performance standard and how to do what's reasonable. She said
the supreme court's decision was correct on the language - it
looked behind the intent and tried to do the best it could. She
remarked that the committee is stuck in a difficult position
because it doesn't want to stop everything from moving forward.
She mentioned the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and said she had some
real concerns about this legislation. "It's not really in me to
just overrule a court case and say, 'Go on your way,'" she
added.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that her biggest concern is
that DEC has very few resources; it has excellent people who do
everything that they can, but there is concern about their
future. She mentioned testimony and the compromise that seems
to be coming forward of at least putting the five-year
conference in the intent [language]. She therefore told members
that what she would like to see coming out of the committee
today is explicitly mentioning the conference in the intent
language, which will help both sides. Mr. Dietrick is right,
she said: it is going to help the industry because DEC will not
have to review every single plan.
Number 1878
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the addition is in the bill
to guide litigation and to help the supreme court understand
what the legislature meant when saying "they" have the authority
to determine what the best available technology is. He
indicated there is no way for the statutes to stay current on
best available technology, and that it would be difficult for
the legislature to stay informed because technology is
constantly changing.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated perhaps a superlative would
essentially force noncompliance. Therefore, "may" is the only
logical way to go for an agency charged with ensuring that the
best technology is available. He also indicated using "may"
would allow a watchdog organization to monitor the
administration for compliance, whereas "must" would result in
micromanaging of the administration.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated that it is important to resolve
the issue and get permits processed. He suggested that putting
things in intent language helps the supreme court with another
piece of litigation. He mentioned an incident in 1989; he
indicated the intent was not in statute. He told the committee
that [SB 343] takes care of what the supreme court found was
missing. He expressed his desire to move the bill out.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI indicated agreement with Representative Green on
the practical application of the service project. He said most
local fishing vessels have participated throughout the state
since the Exxon [Valdez] oil spill. Each year, the vessels go
through the practice of picking up material that is supposed to
symbolize an oil spill, and every year there is some new change.
He said often [the process] goes backwards: methods used a
couple of years ago may be more efficient than new technology or
machinery. He indicated the equipment's effectiveness won't be
known until it is used on an actual oil spill.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI offered that [this issue] is subjective, and
that the latitude of having "may" in the language is needed. He
said he thought referencing the [conference] would be fine if
it's part of the intent language, and is what the legislature
wants to do. He added that the bill is written fine the way it
is, however, and that he supports moving it out.
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated her belief that nothing is being taken
away; the legislature must validate the existing regulations and
preserve the approach to use for making that determination as
envisioned by the 1997 task force. She said the same level of
rigor for plans reviewed must be sustained, as now practiced,
and not diminish existing response capability. She said the
legislation must continue supporting the ability of the
department to evaluate new technologies and make BAT findings.
Number 1469
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that she thought the language
Co-Chair Masek had read was from DEC; however, it is not in the
bill itself. She said mentioning the conference is very little
to ask.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA began specific discussion of [conceptual
Amendment 1]. She referred to line 21, but suggested [an
amendment] would be more appropriate after line 17: to add
language that the regulations require best available technology
every five years. She explained that the conference will
identify best available technology in an orderly way. She
indicated [the amendment] is in line with the RCAC and [current]
regulations. She said she didn't think it would cause any
problems, but seems to engender some goodwill on the part of the
RCAC and other groups.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt the foregoing as
[conceptual Amendment 1], to add the language wherever the
drafter believes it is appropriate.
Number 1399
CO-CHAIR MASEK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Representative Green,
clarified that [conceptual Amendment 1] would say that
regulations require a BAT conference every five years, which
will identify best available technology in an orderly way. She
pointed out that there are almost two pages of intent [language
before the committee]. She said she would be in [favor] of
taking it all out, but that if there are two pages, it seems
little to ask that one sentence about a conference be added.
CO-CHAIR MASEK responded that she thought Representative
Kerttula had a good motive; she reiterated her own belief,
however, that the issue is "answered" in regulations and doesn't
need to be included in the bill.
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Number 1198
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Kerttula voted for
conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Fate, Chenault, Green,
McGuire, Stevens, Masek, and Scalzi voted against it.
Therefore, conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-7.
Number 1174
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSSB 343(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 343(RES) was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 474-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Number 1120
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 474, "An Act relating to
public rights-of-way and easements for surface transportation
affecting the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge." [Before the
committee was CSHB 474(CRA).]
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease from 2:32 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.
Number 1095
LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 474 at the request of Representative
Green, sponsor. She told the committee that the Anchorage
Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR) was created in 1988 by the state
legislature. She referred to a map that illustrated ACWR's
[location] along part of the coastline, adjacent to the
Municipality of Anchorage. She said Cook Inlet has a unique
coastline because Fire Island protects a section of land from
the movement of ice in Cook Inlet. She also mentioned the
uniqueness of the area as a habitat for shorebirds, coyotes, and
other small animals. She said HB 474 recognizes the fragility
and the value of this section of land by requiring that
legislative approval be granted before the state acquires or
creates any new surface transportation rights-of-way through the
refuge.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned some [proposed] alternate routes
illustrated on the map. He said the route of most contention is
the "orange" route [located along] the bluff - the most critical
of the habitats. There is also a "gold" route that goes inland
to connect with other existing sections of trails, which would
be far less expensive than trying to build a route along the
[bluff]. In addition, the [gold route] would connect existing
trails, which is one of the concepts - to [allow] neighborhoods,
schools, and so forth to utilize the [route]. Most important,
the route would stay out of those critical habitat areas and
allow a view for everyone, he explained. He mentioned that he
was told the gold route offers as much of a view of [Cook] Inlet
as the orange route does; furthermore, because of the location's
being elevated, more of the inlet can be seen.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked which route is the original trail.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there is no original trail; the
purpose of [HB 474] is to prevent [a trail in that area].
CO-CHAIR MASEK mentioned the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail
was at the beginning of the map. He mentioned other existing
trails that go through the park. He said there is an area
scoured by ice every year that the trail runs along. He also
mentioned an area shielded by Fire Island, which has allowed a
saltwater marsh habitat to develop; an area near the Old Seward
Highway and new Seward Highway; and a previously existing trail.
He indicated that a section near the top section of the map is
critical [for preservation]. He explained that the concern is
that if there is going to be a trail there, then it will be the
least damaging.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Representative Green which [proposed] trail
he was rejecting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he thought the gold route would be
better because it avoids some critical areas and home sites on
the bluff. He mentioned that putting a trail on the bluff would
[require] condemnation. It would [require] habitat destruction
to put the trail at the bottom of the bluff, he added.
Number 0698
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), testified via teleconference. He told the committee that
AOC recently held its annual meeting, with about 24 member clubs
represented by delegates who voted unanimously to support the
passage of HB 474. He mentioned that AOC had worked closely
with Dave Adams from SARTA [South Anchorage Regional Trail
Advocates] on the issue and on the consideration of different
routes. He mentioned writing a letter in support of the gold
route at one time.
MR. VANDERZANDEN conveyed a primary concern: that future access
regarding trails and roads, if they are to be constructed,
doesn't limit or impact existing uses such as currently found at
the refuge regarding waterfowl hunting and at the Rabbit Creek
rifle range. In regard to legislative oversight on that
particular trail, he suggested the precedent is fairly clear
because [the legislature] initially created the refuge and some
of the parameters surrounding the refuge. He indicated the
legislature should participate in changes made to the refuge
that may impact habitat, existing uses, and so forth. He said
AOC strongly supports passage of HB 474.
Number 0481
JEFF LOWENFELS testified via teleconference, noting that he
lives on the bluff over the proposed coastal trail. He offered
his belief that there are some compelling reasons why there
shouldn't be a coastal trail in the refuge. He said he had been
involved in a number of permitting processes for 27 years;
however, this one seemed the most unusual, with constant
shifting of environmental proposals and, at nearly every public
meeting, a new proposal that someone in the government has
brought up. He said there are incredible levels of frustration
at meetings - more than anything he has been involved in,
including permitting for the [proposed] gas pipeline. There is
a tremendous lack of trust of officials because of the political
gamesmanship that has been played, he remarked. As examples, he
cited the name of the trail, the extension of the trail,
comments by the governor that the trail will be down in the
refuge, and comments by the commissioner of the Division of
Natural Resources (DNR).
MR. LOWENFELS expressed disbelief that public officials have
gone about the process this way - exposing themselves and both
sides to continuous, extensive, and expensive litigation. As
someone who lives on the bluff, Mr. Lowenfels said he wants this
settled once and for all; he is tired of going to meetings and
having people come up with new proposals, the latest being the
so-called "fuchsia" route, for which, despite extensive
testimony, no map has been made available to the public. He
said there is something so wrong with the process that the
legislature was asked to "step back in," which is quite unusual.
He urged the committee to pass HB 474.
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that many people who live in her
and Representative Green's districts are profoundly affected by
this issue. She mentioned that she had also experienced similar
frustration pertaining to the trail route. She said she and
Representative Green had been in touch with the Department of
Transportation [& Public Transportation (DOT&PF)]. She told
members that a woman in her district had received bad treatment
from DOT&PF in her first effort at being involved in state
government; as a result, [the commissioner] had since issued the
woman a letter of apology. Representative McGuire said she
believes it is important to have this second layer of
representative process because the process has not worked. She
described it as one of the most "dramatic abuses of government"
she has ever seen.
TAPE 02-20, SIDE A
Number 0028
MIKE MITCHELL, President, Anchorage Trails and Greenways
Coalition, testified via teleconference. He told the committee
the coalition is a nonprofit corporation in operation since
1994, with members throughout the greater Anchorage [area]; its
mission is to promote both trails and protected open spaces in
the area. He spoke in opposition to HB 474, which he said would
politicize, disrupt, and ultimately trump a public process that
has been going on for several years - to study alternative
routes and pick the optimal route to connect the existing
coastal trail with the Seward Highway corridor. He mentioned
that the coalition's members feel the process is working.
MR. MITCHELL said hundreds of people throughout Anchorage have
put [time] into this process - attending various meetings,
submitting testimony, and advocating for various routes. He
said everyone agrees, and there have been frustrations on all
sides; however, it would be inappropriate at this point to step
in, at the end of this process, to give the legislature a "trump
card" and to [relegate] the entire process to a simple "yea" or
"nay" vote, without any real standards for that vote, and
without the full understanding of all of the issues that have
been discussed.
MR. MITCHELL directed attention to those members from outlying
areas and said the precedent that could be established by [HB
474] is a dangerous one. He explained that this could take a
particular project and potentially bypass the permitting process
that has been established - a public process that provides
opportunity for input at the grassroots level and that provides
certain decision points and certain criteria for evaluation of
the various routes and for the [decision] regarding the optimal
route.
Number 0268
MR. MITCHELL said [HB 474] would ultimately bypass [the process]
and [leave the decision] to the legislature, basically
disregarding the efforts of [participants] throughout Anchorage.
If this were adopted in other areas, then it could potentially
put the decision made at the local level at the will of the
legislature, [which consists of members] from across the state
who haven't had the opportunity to hear all of the information
and to carefully consider the various factors that need to go
into this decision. He said the Anchorage Trails and Greenways
Coalition and its members urge the committee to oppose [CSHB
474(CRA)].
Number 0365
CHIP DENNERLEIN, Director, Division of Habitat and Restoration,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), testified before the
committee, noting that he couldn't judge or take responsibility
for anything that happened on the project before January 7, but
would offer a few observations and take full responsibility for
everything he'd done since then.
MR. DENNERLEIN told members that the concern over the refuge's
value is legitimate. Mentioning that he'd lived in Anchorage
for almost 30 years and [previously] owned a house on the bluff,
Mr. Dennerlein indicated he and his family have several
interests in this area, and that he has spent a lot of time
involved in the coastal trail [issue]; in addition, he has been
an executive manager for the city and a state park director.
MR. DENNERLEIN agreed that the refuge is unique; as an example,
he cited the area of no ice scour. He said it is a very
important habitat type all through Cook Inlet, such as the Kenai
flats, which is why snow geese stop there. He also agreed the
orange route is of the most concern because it is located in the
"heart of the habitat." He mentioned an aerial map and that
Representative Green had pointed out where the refuge widens.
Number 0630
MR. DENNERLEIN highlighted the organic soil depth and the
nesting in the area; in addition, there is a lot going on in the
refuge. He referred to a memo and said:
Yes, we did come up with a new, alternative route.
Yes, the controversy focuses on the orange route - in
particular, the portion of the orange route that runs
between the fill area and down toward Johns Park.
There's a lot of wildlife reasons I could give you for
that - I'd be happy to - but the bottom line is that I
would not, as habitat director, issue required permits
for that route. I ... am convinced that I couldn't do
so under my statutory authority and the values at
stake there, and I think we correctly focused on the
problem.
MR. DENNERLEIN reiterated that he had hunted extensively in the
[refuge] area, which isn't currently hunted and was closed by
the Alaska Board of Game. The bluff in that area is about 20-30
feet high, and the birds go up against the back of the bluff;
there were noise issues, and concerns about shot and shotguns.
He remarked that it is also a very important section of true
refuge.
MR. DENNERLEIN said the process has been tortuous. Many people
had put a lot of work into the process, which he would like to
see go forward. He offered his belief that Representative Green
was correct regarding the area most at stake. A new route was
designed because there still are many "checks and balances" to
come in the process: coastal management reviews, Title 16
permits, and special areas permits. He mentioned putting
together a list of reasonable, viable alternatives that the
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) must approve, which will go
to the public.
Number 0832
MR. DENNERLEIN explained that his desire is to give the public a
chance to see the most coastal, in-character route that ADF&G
feels it could permit. Indicating the route couldn't be built
immediately, he mentioned building, design issues, and
techniques [associated with building the route]. He talked
about the causeway that would go through the refuge and how it
would be built. He said [the fuchsia route] has no associated
issues that would require a section of trail to be lifted off
and [placed] on another [area] of the map. The new fuchsia
route's problems could be solved through design and management.
If the FHA puts that [route on the map] and [the department has]
requested to take the orange [route] off, then the [fuchsia
route] will go before the public, which he said is the point.
He told members:
Put in front of people what is real - show them a
spectrum, from the gold [route] to the most coastal in
character that avoids critical wildlife problems that
could be issued permits under the law, so they're
looking at range of alternatives that's realistic. I
think that's the right thing to do, and I think
between the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] -
the concurrence that agencies have to have - that the
routes would be viable and would meet statutes, and
all the way through to the courts if we mess up. I
think there are many checks and balances. And I
finally agree with [Representative] Green's comments
on the last bill: if you get into micromanagement,
you soon get into a lot of trouble.
MR. DENNERLEIN concluded by saying it is about time to put a set
of alternatives in front of people that are real and that cover
the spectrum, and then let that process play out.
Number 0980
MR. DENNERLEIN, in response to Co-Chair Masek, said he was
testifying in opposition to HB 474. With regard to specific
permitting, a few points in the bill are troublesome in terms of
the whole municipality, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT requested a copy of the [fuchsia route].
MR. DENNERLEIN indicated he would provide that. He mentioned
the release of a draft document for the set of alternatives by
the [FHA], and said he was hoping the orange [route] wasn't on
the [draft document]. He reiterated that he wouldn't permit the
middle section [of that route].
Number 1067
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Mr. Dennerlein had said he
wouldn't permit the orange route. Representative Green said
it's been a very long and tortuous process wherein DOT&PF has
insisted [several times] on the governor's behalf that "we stay
on the orange route and argue against it." He remarked that if
Mr. Dennerlein could see the error of [the process] in the short
time that he has been involved, then it is inconceivable that
DOT&PF and others under the administration shouldn't also have
[heard] what people have been saying for two and a half years.
MR. DENNERLEIN responded, "I think the train left the tracks
early on." He pointed out that the [coastal trail route] was
going to be managed as a municipal trail project, and the AOC is
also correct about uses. He indicated wildlife management and
hunting aren't within the municipal charter. The municipality
doesn't manage those two things, and those were the resource and
use issues on which a lot of the decision would turn, he pointed
out. He said he thought it was the managing system that was
uniquely ill-equipped to deal with it; therefore, it was good
that the resource management agencies became involved.
Number 1151
MR. DENNERLEIN said he thought people didn't listen to each
other about different species of geese, and that there was
miscommunication: geese on the park strip - Canada geese -
aren't snow geese. He said, "We sat down and put together some
principles, and I think geography works for us." He remarked
that the area below Kincaid [Park] is open to hunting. He
mentioned the difficulty of getting up and down the bluff. "You
could take them along the top of the bluff in that section,
separate hunters and trail users forever, naturally," he said.
He mentioned that he'd tried to get all of the users together to
listen to each other. The technical point is that these routes
never went to the agencies, he added.
Number 1257
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that Mr. Dennerlein's predecessor
was opposed to the [coastal trail route] because of the
destruction that would happen to the habitat, and now he's "not
allowed" to talk. Also, the cost issue that had been talked
about has suddenly gone quiet; the estimates [indicate] it would
be extremely expensive to go into the refuge because of the ice
and the unstable nature of the ground, he said. He indicated
that building and maintaining the trail would be expensive. He
added that the [projected cost] had gone from $300,000 to $2.2
million, although cost overruns are nothing new. He said one
big concern expressed to him by people who live there is that
people using the trails frequently have dogs with them. Dogs
have a tendency to kill wild animals and could potentially
disrupt the birds that nest in the habitat.
Number 1446
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to a letter [dated March 14,
2002] from Mr. Dennerlein to Kurt Parkan, Deputy Commissioner,
DOT&PF. She asked Mr. Dennerlein if he thought ADF&G could be
objective if there were a mandatory no-build alternative.
MR. DENNERLEIN responded that the letter was for the purpose of
putting the alternative [fuchsia route] on the list that the
[FHA] approves. He said was not alone in designing the [fuchsia
route]; furthermore, his predecessor was very supportive of the
process, and many biologists in the department worked as a close
team on the [route]. It is consistent with the refuge to bring
people to it and provide education opportunities, he said. He
reiterated that the problem occurs when [the route] goes above
or below the bluff.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE suggested DOT&PF was very careful to
endorse a specific route because "they knew they didn't have the
EIS [environmental impact statement]." She asked Mr. Dennerlein
how he could endorse a route that hasn't been [made available]
to the public. She said that Mr. Dennerlein had made statements
supporting the fuchsia route. She asked him whether he was
endorsing a particular route.
MR. DENNERLEIN said ADF&G didn't have any objection to a coastal
route. He started to mention the management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interrupted to ask if [ADF&G] had no
objection to extending the route or was in support of a coastal
route. She pointed out that the letter Mr. Dennerlein wrote
says, "ADF&G has consistently supported that concept of
extending the South Anchorage Coastal Trail."
MR. DENNERLEIN spoke about correspondence from his predecessors
and others that support the concept of extending a south coastal
trail and providing people with the opportunity to experience
the refuge. He said the concept of extending the south coastal
trail is different from a route. In Anchorage, he said,
citizens and agencies often support a decision to build a road
and then look at alternatives; even when an alternative is
chosen, an agency may not issue the permits. He mentioned the
interchange for the Parks Highway and Glenn Highway and the
permitting process as an example.
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Dennerlein who designed the
route.
MR. DENNERLEIN replied that the route was designed by a
combination of biologists at ADF&G. He said he was involved in
it, although it comes largely from a proposal that ADF&G tried
to advance earlier on. The route was based on a concept that
the commissioner of ADF&G and the department had tried to
propose. He mentioned some refinements made to the route, and
some "user perspective" with regard to using existing
infrastructure to address issues such as parking.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Mr. Dennerlein if [the route] was
designed at the request of the governor. She referred [to the
route] as a "moving target." She said people in her and
Representative Green's districts almost had to hire an attorney
to get a copy of the orange route and had to invoke the Freedom
of Information Act to get one. She reiterated that she wanted
to know where the fuchsia route came from and how that process
occurred.
Number 1932
CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested that Representative McGuire give Mr.
Dennerlein a list of questions; she asked Mr. Dennerlein to
provide her and the committee with the answers.
Number 2119
MIKE JENS testified via teleconference. A resident who lives on
the bluff, he told the committee he has been a follower and a
supporter of the coastal trail project since its inception. He
mentioned that he finds it unusual that such a momentous
decision had been turned over to the legislature. He remarked
that he doesn't think it should be done, and that this may set a
precedent for the future. He said he thought the fuchsia route
had some merit and should be considered.
MR. JENS reported that with regard to DOT&PF, he'd had the
opposite experience of that conveyed in testimony: he'd spent a
lot of time with [DOT&PF personnel] and found them gracious and
informative. He'd been able to get information whenever he
needed it, [DOT&PF] had been very forthcoming, and he had never
had to wonder what was going on. Mr. Jens recounted his own
frustration because there doesn't seem to be much progress,
partly because there are so many differing opinions, hidden
agendas, and personal agendas about whether people want this
trail in their backyard. Most of the opposition is from people
who live on the bluff, he said. Mr. Jens referred to studies
and said that most of Anchorage is supportive of the trail.
MR. JENS mentioned overhearing information about where the
various routes would be located. He pointed out that the
boundaries of the coastal wildlife refuge zigzag along the coast
and come up to the bluff in a couple places. He mentioned that
the trails that have been discussed don't really go into the
refuge, but do cross some isolated corners of the wildlife
refuge. He said the trail planners had been trying to go up on
the bluff to avoid crossing an isolated corner of the boundary,
which would knock out houses; he suggested that was absurd and
shouldn't be considered. He mentioned that it should be
considered, however, whether crossing a corner of the wildlife
refuge creates an impact. He also mentioned HB 131.
MR. JENS said he didn't think the committee should pass HB 474.
Rather, it should be left to the vote of the people in
Anchorage, because it's an Anchorage decision; he surmised that
[a vote would reveal] that most of the people want to see the
trail built. Mr. Jens said he just wants to see some trail
built, and doesn't care if it's below the bluff. The fuchsia
route is a good compromise and should be given some serious
consideration, he concluded, or else all of the money is going
to be spent and nothing will have been accomplished.
Number 2337
LORVEL SHIELDS testified via teleconference. A longtime
resident of Alaska who has a doctorate in biology with expertise
in ecology and animal behavior, Mr. Shields said he has lived on
the bluff over 13 years and has spent an enumerable amount of
time in the refuge; in addition, he is bicyclist and makes
extensive use of the Anchorage trail system. For the last five
years, he has served as the elected representative for the
Bayshore/Klatt Community Council on coastal wildlife refuge
issues; in that capacity he has attended hundreds of hours of
public meetings concerning the route of the proposed southern
extension of the Anchorage trail system.
MR. SHIELDS told members he had seen a cabal composed of
engineering firms. Regarding the DOT&PF, other representatives
of the state executive branch, and the [Municipality] of
Anchorage, he said each entity had its own agenda. The
engineering companies wanted the profits from the contracts; the
more difficult the trail built, the better, he suggested. The
[Municipality] of Anchorage wanted the trail in spite of the
fact it can't afford to maintain the trails it currently has.
The end product of this grouping was and continues to be a
collective effort to get the trail built, with virtually no
regard for the biological worth of this rare salt marsh
ecosystem or the costs of the project, he said. The Anchorage
Coastal Wildlife Refuge is a state refuge; it doesn't belong to
engineering firms, the [Municipality] of Anchorage, DOT&PF, or
the governor. It belongs to the citizens of Alaska, and what
happens in any state refuge is important to all Alaskans, he
told members.
MR. SHIELDS recalled that a few years ago there was a very late
spring; a flyover census by the ADF&G showed approximately 1,500
snow geese, 10,000 Canada geese, and too many ducks to count,
hunkered down in the coastal refuge waiting for ice-out farther
north. These animals were able to feed and otherwise sustain
themselves for at least ten days in the refuge because it is an
intact, thriving ecosystem.
MR. SHIELDS urged the committee to pass HB 474, which would
provide the legislature with a valuable mechanism to protect
this precious state refuge from being used for damaging,
trivial, and sometimes self-aggrandizing projects. He pointed
out that if the costs overrun on building, the estimated
building cost of $22 million is by the same factor as the
planning stage - $300[,000] to $2.2 million dollars. That 11
miles of trail would end up costing $154 million dollars.
Number 2502
JIM REEVES testified via teleconference. He told the committee
there is an overwhelming consensus in Anchorage in favor of
finding some route that will connect Kincaid Park with Potter
Marsh and beyond. The controversy involves identifying which
route [to use]. He said this controversy has many facets and
provokes a great deal of anxiety, bad feelings, and distrust
because it affects people where they live.
MR. REEVES told members he is one of the people who eagerly and
enthusiastically support some resolution of this controversy
that will result in a trail. He said he has been very involved
in the [trail route] controversy. He added that he had been
involved in many other similar controversy's about public lands
and trails and recreational developments in the borough;
furthermore, this [trail route] has the same characteristics
that all of those others do. People on one side of the argument
feel there is a preconceived plot, cabal, or clandestine
conspiracy; people on the other side think there is some
skullduggery afoot because it's a moving target and there's no
clear definition of what the proposal is. There's no
conspiracy, he said, nor good or bad people [involved]. Rather,
there is a complicated, important local decision that must be
made in a public process that involves many people and many
state, local, and federal agencies.
MR. REEVES spoke against the idea of complicating this already
complicated controversy by adding one more "theater of battle"
or forum: putting the legislature in the position of having one
more decision about this is simply a bad idea, he said; it is
unnecessary. Opponents of this route through the wildlife
refuge argued against it based on concerns about wildlife refuge
values and have been very persuasive. He said ADF&G and others
are trying to respond to their concerns on the merits by
identifying other alternatives that will address the wildlife
values and accommodate them. There's no reason for the
legislature to step in and attempt to "trump" that process; it's
working just fine the way it is, he concluded.
Number 2665
MICHAEL DOWNING, Chief Engineer, Design and Engineering Services
Division, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, told
the committee he oversees his division, which develops
environmental documents and does projects for DOT&PF, taking
them from the end of planning to the beginning of construction.
He said [DOT&PF] opposes HB 474 for a number of reasons. For
one thing, it's an awkward way of influencing the outcome. He
spoke about prejudicing the environmental document and keeping
the objective. He remarked that he couldn't think of a step
that would prejudice the outcome more than this bill would.
MR. DOWNING said that anytime there is concern about how the
department develops a project, there is a tendency to want to
add steps to the process. An environmental impact statement is
very difficult to do; a whole series of projects are in the EIS
phase that the department has had difficulty in completing;
adding steps doesn't help. He said this is very early in this
process, with much public testimony to go through; it is
appropriate for "us" to continue the study to expand the scope
of work to look at more alternatives, and for [DOT&PF] to
develop a cooperative alternative with ADF&G, he said.
Number 2803
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing whether any other
refuges have required legislative approval.
MR. DOWNING answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing what [obtaining
legislative approval] would do to the process.
MR. DOWNING answered that this bill deals with right-of-way
acquisitions - the creation of the corridor or the acquisition
of property. The federal process doesn't allow the acquisition
of right-of-way at this early stage; he indicated [the
department] must have an alternative that it has a record of
decision in support of. He said the reason is because it
prejudices the outcome to make right-of-way decisions in advance
of the environmental document's completion.
Number 2854
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing if requiring prior
approval would interfere with how the federal process requires
[DOT&PF] to act.
MR. DOWNING answered that he isn't sure how the FHA would react
to this, or whether it would advise [DOT&PF] in terms of
continued eligibility now that the alternatives have been taken
off the table. He said [DOT&PF] has represented to the public
that these are viable alternatives and has worked to develop the
alternatives with public input, but now would have to say no,
these won't be looked at further.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Downing if he has had any other
areas like this: saltwater marsh, federal habitat, or state-
created park.
MR. DOWNING indicated DOT&PF had just agreed with ADF&G on
provisions that will allow construction of the interchange for
the Parks Highway and Glenn Highway intersection. He remarked
that [DOT&PF] had done considerable investment relating to that
project, including investing [a large amount] of money in
habitat protection there.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if he was referring to the saltwater
marsh.
MR. DOWNING deferred to the ADF&G representative.
MR. DENNERLEIN explained that it is brackish water influenced by
fresh water and salt water; the rearing occurs not in the stream
channel but in the flooded area around those creeks, mostly in
fresh [water]. There are several other areas. The Kenai River
would be another one "we'll" work together on, and Cooper
landing is a major habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the possibility of alternatives.
TAPE 02-20, SIDE B
Number 2990
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if coming back to the legislature
[with such an issue] is normal procedure.
MR. DOWNING responded that under federal highways programs, it's
a "4(f)" determination, and in this case this is 4(f) property;
"we" can only select an alternative in a 4(f) property if no
feasible and prudent alternative otherwise exists. That is the
case in refuges, state parks, and federal parks - any kind of
recreational facility.
Number 2915
BOB BELL testified via teleconference, noting that he is a
registered professional engineer who practiced engineering in
Alaska for over 31 years, and that he doesn't live on the bluff.
He reported that he'd served on the Anchorage Municipal Assembly
from 1993 until 1999; one duty was serving on the AMATS
[Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study] committee.
When [the coastal trail] project came before the committee at
that time, it showed a line running down the bluff.
MR. BELL explained that at the time, he'd asked if a route had
already been [chosen], and "they" said no. He'd asked why the
line was running down the bluff and pointed out that the area of
study was everything between the Seward Highway and [Cook]
Inlet; "they" had said the line would be taken off, but when it
came before the municipal assembly, the line was still there.
Again, he'd questioned why the line was still there along the
bluff, and was told not to worry about it, that it would be
taken care of - which "they" never did.
MR. BELL said during a Bayshore/Klatt Community Council meeting
there was a debate on the extension of the coastal trail; Mr.
Shields was on one side of the debate, arguing against putting
the trail in the refuge. In favor of putting [the trail] in the
refuge was the project manager for HDR [Alaska, Inc.], which is
charged with doing the study, he said. Shortly thereafter, the
governor, on two separate occasions, stated that he wanted the
trail in the refuge, Mr. Bell said.
MR. BELL remarked, "It's blatantly obvious that this project is
badly, badly, prejudiced." When "we" asked "them" to look at
inland routes, they gave it a cursory review, he said. He
referred to conspiracy and distrust and said Mike Jens had
testified that he thinks the fuchsia route is a good route; Chip
Dennerlein said it would be available to "us" in a month. Mr.
Bell asked: Why would Mike Jens know what that route is now,
when we don't?
MR. BELL said he thinks it is extremely important that the
legislature oversee this process, which has a bad history of
prejudice towards the bluff route, disregarding the community's
wishes. He indicated South Anchorage residents don't want the
route going down [the bluff], but want the route up on top so it
can connect all of the other facilities in Anchorage. He
mentioned that he thought this would be a very serious problem
without legislative oversight. He pointed out that the north
extension of the coastal trail goes up Ship Creek and out the
Glenn Highway, and is not coastal. He said he didn't know why
that requirement is placed on "here." He said he could
[identify] engineering problems in the process with the trail
being down in the refuge.
Number 2752
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the point at which all of the
various trails come together. He indicated the plan is to put
the trail somewhere along the railroad track. He said the area
is steep, and there are hillsides above or marsh below. He
asked Mr. Bell what his opinion was of the ability to [place a
coastal trail in that area] without disrupting the stability of
those slopes.
MR. BELL answered that there is already a considerable amount of
erosion along those slopes. He said [from an engineering
perspective] that he didn't think [it was possible]. He said
[the route] would either go down the railway right-of-way or it
would cross the highway and go down the Old Seward Highway on
the east side of Potter Marsh. He remarked that he didn't think
[the route] could get through there.
Number 2679
CHERYL SHROYER testified via teleconference, noting that in
January her term as president of the Oceanview Community Council
finished, and that she was speaking as an individual, not a
member of the executive board. Ms. Shroyer urged the committee
to pass HB 474. She offered her belief that having legislative
approval of a process that has run amok is a good idea. She
said "we" are disappointed, disheartened, and discouraged.
Mentioning that in 1998 the [council] had decided to maintain a
neutral approach to the trail and was assured the process would
work, she commented, "Boy, was that wrong. We have suffered
through the spaghetti map public workshop; we all drew little
lines on these maps." She said the result of the workshop was a
short list of alternatives that was very disappointing; it
wasn't alternatives [suggested in the workshop].
MS. SHROYER mentioned the viable-alternatives report and noted
that during one particular meeting, eight out of ten people
spoke against the trail and the way [the process] had gone; in
addition, there was a petition with hundreds of signatures
against the trail. However, the report said the public was very
responsive and positive, which the council could not believe.
That was very frustrating, she said.
MS. SHROYER referred to the preliminary engineering report and
the environmental impact report. She said at each [meeting] all
the community council people showed up and testified, but that
testimony seems to have disappeared. Furthermore, the governor
had a picture taken standing in the marsh and said he wants the
trail to through the wildlife refuge, she told members. She
mentioned that during one community council meeting, someone had
asked what the point was of all the meetings and everything that
[the council] had testified to, when the governor stands there
and says he wants [the route] through the marsh. She said she
didn't know what to say. Ms. Shroyer concluded by pointing out
that this process has had an interesting impact on the people in
Oceanview: because they are so disappointed, discouraged, and
disheartened, they are now angry, and it has steeled their
resolve to come to the meetings.
Number 2474
JANEL FEIERABEND, Director, Friends of Potter Marsh and the
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, testified via teleconference,
noting that the organization's mission is to help protect the
integrity of the marsh through education. She mentioned that
the organization had just hosted an [event] for which the topic
was sandhill cranes as "refuge royalty." The lesser sandhill
crane eats, sleeps, and nests like royalty in our coastal refuge
because the habitat there so perfectly supports its well-being,
she said. The 32,000 acres that comprise the refuge, which
extends from Potter Creek to Point Woronzof, were designated as
a state refuge in 1988 by the state legislature in recognition
of the value of the habitat and the need to protect waterfowl,
shorebirds, salmon, many mammals, and other animals that use the
unique area. The state was very wise to think about the future
and to establish the refuge, knowing that "wild and wonderful"
will always have value, she told members.
MS. FEIERABEND brought attention to a list of observed refuge
life, which can be found in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge Management Plan printed in 1991 by ADF&G. She remarked
that the list had grown since then. Talk of development of any
kind in the refuge should raise flags of grave and major
concern, due to the fact that the area has been established as a
state refuge - home to many migrating birds and mammals, she
cautioned. It is managed by the state; any possibility of
encroachment by development into the refuge should be studied
and analyzed by state decision makers, she suggested. Study and
analysis of information provided by state biologists and other
experts should be made by the same decision makers that are part
of the checks-and-balances system.
MS. FEIERABEND also suggested the state decision makers should
read reports such as the "Wildlife Field Study 2001"; books
regarding the human and canine impact to wildlife should also be
[reviewed]. Our state refuge is a unique and special place that
hosts a wealth of plant communities, invertebrate communities,
and wild animals, she said. Birds fly from as far away as South
Africa to use it; the lesser yellow-legged chick, only hours
old, walks for miles to settle into it. Mammals of all sizes
use it, and [the refuge] is one of the last protected coastal
areas abutting the city. These birds and mammals know no
boundaries, she pointed out.
MS. FEIERABEND said wise statesmen who think beyond municipal
orders and concerns should be part of the checks-and-balances
system when it comes to state- and even broader-funded projects.
It is up to the legislature to weigh in on the protection of the
very area it deemed worthy to reserve as a refuge, she
concluded, reiterating that HB 474 helps to protect the treasure
that belongs to all of Alaska.
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why there is an exception for the
railroad and the road, and why those wouldn't have to come back
to the legislature, too. They are more intrusive than a trail,
she noted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered that the [railroad and road] were
there before the park was established.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if [the legislature] had any legal
right to take any action on that.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there is also a reserved
corridor out to Fire Island that predates the [refuge].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Downing why it would be
necessary to exempt roads or railroads from [HB 474] if the
desire is to protect the refuge.
MR. DOWNING agreed that it is inconsistent to require approval
for a trail but not a highway. He said he couldn't explain it.
Number 2120
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report [CSHB 474(CRA)] out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 474(CRA) was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 46-BC MORATORIUM ON FISH FARMING
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the next order of business, HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 46, Relating to the moratorium on fish
farming in British Colombia.
[There was a motion to adopt CSHJR 46(FSH) as the working
document, but it was already before the committee.]
Number 2068
JEAN ELLIS, Staff to Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HJR 46 on behalf of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries, which Representative Wilson co-chairs
and which sponsored the resolution. Ms. Ellis informed members
that on January 31, 2002, the Government of British Columbia
announced that the provincial moratorium on fish farming would
be lifted. This decision could substantially affect the Alaskan
economy and environment, both directly and indirectly, she said.
This resolution strongly encourages the Government of British
Columbia to reinstate the moratorium.
MS. ELLIS reported that in 2001, there were 29,000 accidental
releases of farmed salmon from British Columbia salmon farms.
Escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, which have been caught in
Alaska's commercial fisheries, pose a threat to Alaska's marine
environment and the ecology of Pacific salmon. Escaped Atlantic
salmon from British Columbia are now spawning in approximately
80 streams on the West Coast, Ms. Ellis said. They compete with
Alaskan salmon for food, and there is a continuing concern with
possible disease transfers. Seafood is Alaska's number-one
international export, and the commercial fishing industry is
Alaska's [primary] private-sector employer. Therefore, the
House Special Committee on Fisheries strongly encourages the
Alaska State Legislature to support reinstatement of the British
Columbia moratorium on fish farming.
MS. ELLIS acknowledged that there are some concerns with the
bill. She said there is not proof that the salmon are actually
spawning in the 80 [streams]; however, the salmon are spawning
in [at least] a few streams.
Number 1896
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt [Amendment 1]. She
requested that Ms. Ellis explain the content, noting that the
changes are technical ones that Ms. Ellis has worked on through
checking facts and talking to fishermen. She agreed that the 80
streams cannot be verified, for example.
MS. ELLIS brought attention to the first portion of Amendment 1,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1 line 16
Delete "farmed Atlantic salmon are the largest
bycatch by British Columbia fishermen and"
Page 2 line 2
Following "fisheries"
Insert "as far west as the Bering Sea"
MS. ELLIS explained that although the [existing statement] is
probably true for salmon fishermen, for clarity it would be
better to remove that sentence. Therefore, [the resolution]
would read as follows:
"WHEREAS escaped farmed Atlantic salmon have been
caught in Alaska commercial fisheries as far west as
the Bering Sea; and"
MS. ELLIS turned to the second part of Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 8
Delete "spawning"
Insert "found"
Page 2, line 8
Following "streams"
Insert "and most of these salmon are mature and
capable of spawning"
MS. ELLIS explained that the wording would then be: "found in
approximately 80 streams". In response to Co-Chair Scalzi, she
pointed out that the Alaska Trollers Association had found
[these changes].
[Following a loose discussion of placement of the words and
punctuation, Representative Kerttula, whose name was on the
amendment, suggested the written wording was fine.]
Number 1625
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if these salmon have been found
farther out the Aleutian chain. He asked whether that is as far
west as Adak.
Number 1559
GERON BRUCE, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), answered by relating
his belief that the resolution refers to the fact that in a
trawl survey in the Bering Sea, an Atlantic salmon was captured.
Therefore, the assumption is that Atlantic salmon are present in
the Bering Sea in some numbers and would be caught in salmon
fisheries there; those fisheries include the coastal fisheries
in Bristol Bay in the [Yukon-Kuskokwim] region along the north
side of the peninsula. However, there are no actual documented
recoveries of Atlantic salmon in those commercial fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how the diseases of a Atlantic salmon
would enter into the wild stock of Pacific salmon.
MR. BRUCE answered that it would vary, depending upon the
particular disease. He explained that certain diseases are
transmitted through spawning activities. Therefore, if the two
[types of salmon] are spawning in the same area, a disease could
be transmitted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his understanding that salmon
return to the stream in which they were hatched. These Atlantic
salmon were hatched elsewhere. He asked how these Atlantic
salmon knew where to go.
MR. BRUCE explained that a certain amount of straying occurs
naturally in a salmon population. It is an evolutionary
technique that enables them to colonize new areas and to survive
if they can't return to the stream in which they were hatched.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI added his belief that salmon also swim with
different schools.
Number 1355
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report CSHJR 46(FSH), as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 46(RES) was moved
out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 508-DIVE FISHERY ASSOCIATIONS/PSP REPORTS
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the final order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 508, "An Act relating to publication of results of
testing for paralytic shellfish poisoning by the Department of
Environmental Conservation and to participation of the
Department of Environmental Conservation in the development of
operating plans of qualified regional dive fishery
associations."
Number 1300
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, speaking on behalf of the House Resources
Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 508, explained that paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP) is a serious biological disorder that
occurs naturally in shellfish; therefore, it is in the state's
best interest to ensure that it is monitored to the best of the
state's ability through the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). The reporting of this disorder, as well as
the testing, is an advantage to the dive-fish industry in
particular, so that information can be posted online as soon as
possible. In addition, the department will benefit by shifting
the [responsibility] of making the announcement to the industry,
rather than having to send out individual facsimiles as the
[test results] become available. It creates an efficiency and
is also available for the general public to know which beaches
or areas may have concentrations of PSP.
Number 1186
CO-CHAIR SCALZI addressed the second part of the bill, which
speaks to DEC's involvement, along with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), in the development of the associations
for the dive [fisheries]. He explained that DEC is [supportive]
because it will be more involved and will have "upfront"
information and input regarding the dive fishery. He clarified
that [HB 508] was requested by the [shellfish] industry in
concurrence with DEC.
Number 1127
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association (SARDFA), testified via teleconference.
She told the committee SARDFA supports HB 508; she also
mentioned that a letter of support had been submitted to the
committee. She offered some background on how DEC currently
distributes PSP results. In the past, lab personnel faxed the
shipper who'd paid for the test as soon as possible after the
results were known. This year, upon the request of SARDFA -
which paid for the first 19 tests in the geoduck season - the
lab faxed all registered geoduck shippers, DEC regulators, and
the SARDFA office when the results were known; then SARDFA sent
e-mails to its members and posted the results on its web site.
MS. DECKER explained that ADF&G currently has a system of
posting its news releases through software that allows sending
an e-mail contained in the news release to its distribution list
of people and posting the news release on its web site - all
with a "single click of a button." She highlighted reasons to
post the PSP results on the web site. First, it creates a more
efficient process for the DEC lab to distribute the results.
Second, it eliminates problems associated [the question of] "who
is allowed or when they are allowed to see PSP results"; if DEC
is removed from having to deal with that issue at all, the
results will automatically get posted, enabling public access to
that information. Third, it fits a "vision" of a developed
shellfish industry in Alaska, which is performing PSP testing on
a regular basis in certain areas of the state. For example, in
Washington [State], where many PSP tests are performed daily in
an area, regulators are able to use this information to track
PSP blooms, she noted.
MS. DECKER explained that this web site would allow both
regulators and the public to track PSP blooms in an area in real
time. In addition, the web site would be used by the DEC lab,
DEC regulators, shellfish shippers, SARDFA, ADF&G biologists,
aquatic farmers, potential [aquatic] farmers looking for new
farm sites, subsistence users, and PSP researchers. She
remarked that she hopes DEC includes all historical PSP on the
web site to make it an all-inclusive site.
MS. DECKER mentioned that she'd e-mailed Rodger Painter of the
Alaskan Shellfish Growers Association (ASGA), and he didn't have
any problems with HB 508; however, he'd mentioned possibly
adding the Jellet Biotek [Limited (JBL)] data of community
monitoring programs currently being established by Ray RaLonde.
She also mentioned a conversation with Lee Gerber, NorQuest
Seafoods, Inc., plant manager in Ketchikan; she said Mr. Gerber
recognized the possibility of hysteria surrounding
misinformation in the food industry but had offered NorQuest's
support for HB 508.
MS. DECKER referred to the annual operating section. She said
DEC currently works in coordination and planning with ADF&G and
SARDFA; however, it's been difficult to bring everyone together
at the appropriate time for preplanning of the fisheries. She
said she thought bringing DEC into the annual operating plan
process with ADF&G and SARDFA would help all three groups plan
with an appropriate timeline. In conclusion, Ms. Decker said
she believes HB 508 is part of SARDFA's larger goal of creating
a more efficient industry that maximizes the value of its
resources.
Number 0819
CO-CHAIR SCALZI agreed that [HB 508] is a small piece of a
larger plan. He mentioned HB 208 [relating to aquatic farms for
shellfish].
Number 0772
CHERYL SUTTON, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries
Association (SARDFA), testified before the committee. She told
members that in 1997 legislation was passed that allowed
creation of the Regional Dive Fishery Association. She said she
was the person who drafted that bill, but hadn't had the
foresight to include DEC. She said she'd put ADF&G in [the
bill] because it is a partner in management, but DEC is very
involved because the fisheries cannot occur without [DEC's]
approval on PSP testing for all of the shellfish species. She
highlighted the desire to have [DEC] in the planning process;
get the problems out of the way upfront; and have a better view
of how the fishery is going to occur, how much testing has to be
done, how much it will cost the industry to pay for the testing,
and so forth.
MS. SUTTON mentioned that Janice Adair [Director, Division of
Environmental Health, DEC] had indicated in a letter that some
people in the industry might not like to have PSP results posted
[on a web site]. Ms. Sutton told members that in all of her
experience, however, she cannot think of a downside to posting
PSP results on a web site. She indicated Japanese buyers don't
care about the level of micrograms, and that she couldn't
foresee [posting of PSP results] as a tactic to scare buyers;
rather, it would be a public-information source so people could
plan more effectively. She specified that although [scaring
buyers] was a concern for DEC, she didn't see any need not to
post all PSP results for all of the species. She said HB 508 is
a great bill and encouraged the committee to pass it.
Number 0588
CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned an amendment drafted on behalf of
SARDFA, which addressed Ms. Adair's letter. He asked Ms. Sutton
if she was in support of the amendment.
MS. SUTTON reiterated that she could not think of any reason why
posting results on an Internet site would harm anyone. She said
she thought it would be good [to do] for all PSP [results].
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said the committee would not move that
amendment.
Number 0489
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to a letter submitted by Julie Decker,
which says it is necessary to establish a state web site where
all PSP results will be posted. She asked if DEC [currently]
has the role of deciding who will receive the PSP results.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI explained that when DEC does [PSP] testing, it
only notifies the person for whom those tests are performed.
Posting that information on a web site would allow everybody
[equal access to the results]. [PSP results] are public
information; it is beneficial if everybody knows [those
results].
Number 0321
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HB 508 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 508 was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0228
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|