03/20/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB27 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2013
1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 27
"An Act establishing authority for the state to evaluate and
seek primacy for administering the regulatory program for dredge
and fill activities allowed to individual states under federal
law and relating to the authority; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SB 27 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
implement a hunting guide concession program or otherwise limit
the number of individuals authorized to conduct big game
commercial guiding on state land."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to the interest rate applicable to certain
amounts due for fees, taxes, and payments made and property
delivered to the Department of Revenue; providing a tax credit
against the corporation income tax for qualified oil and gas
service industry expenditures; relating to the oil and gas
production tax rate; relating to gas used in the state; relating
to monthly installment payments of the oil and gas production
tax; relating to oil and gas production tax credits for certain
losses and expenditures; relating to oil and gas production tax
credit certificates; relating to nontransferable tax credits
based on production; relating to the oil and gas tax credit
fund; relating to annual statements by producers and explorers;
establishing the Oil and Gas Competitiveness Review Board; and
making conforming amendments."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 27
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/13 (S) RES, FIN
02/02/13 (S) RES AT 10:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/02/13 (S) Heard & Held
02/02/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/04/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/04/13 (S) Heard & Held
02/04/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/08/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/08/13 (S) Moved SB 27 Out of Committee
02/08/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/11/13 (S) RES RPT 2DP 3NR
02/11/13 (S) DP: GIESSEL, DYSON
02/11/13 (S) NR: MICCICHE, BISHOP, FAIRCLOUGH
02/26/13 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/26/13 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/27/13 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR
02/27/13 (S) DP: MEYER, KELLY, FAIRCLOUGH, BISHOP,
DUNLEAVY
02/27/13 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
02/27/13 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/27/13 (S) Moved SB 27 Out of Committee
02/27/13 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/11/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/11/13 (S) VERSION: SB 27
03/13/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/13 (H) RES, FIN
03/18/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
SPONSOR(s): COSTELLO
03/05/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/13 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
03/11/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/13/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/15/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on SB 27.
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on SB 27.
CRAIG FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion on HB 158.
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:42:17 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:42 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Olson, P. Wilson, Tarr, Johnson, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representatives Tuck, Hawker, and Saddler
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 27-REGULATION OF DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES
1:42:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 27, "An Act establishing authority for the
state to evaluate and seek primacy for administering the
regulatory program for dredge and fill activities allowed to
individual states under federal law and relating to the
authority; and providing for an effective date."
1:43:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-
GS1750\A.2, Nauman, 3/19/13, which read, as follows:
Page 4, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 46.03.021. Dredge and fill permitting
program report to the legislature. The commissioner,
in coordination with the commissioner of natural
resources, shall provide to the legislature, on or
before December 31 of each year, an annual report of
the cost of administering the state dredge and fill
permitting program described in AS 46.03.020(14)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:43:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood concerns about the potential
costs for the Section 404 program. She stated it would take
several years for the application to be completed. Amendment 1
requests the department provide an update to the legislature on
the cost of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the department to answer questions.
1:45:17 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), stated he understood the importance of
keeping the legislature apprised of expenditures. However, the
administration doesn't see the need for Amendment 1. He said he
has interpreted the Amendment 1 differently than presented by
Representative Tarr. He understood Amendment 1 would require
the department to provide an annual report of the cost of
administering the state dredge and fill permitting program.
However, the department would not administer the program for 5-
10 years. Prior to expenditures occurring, the department would
request the funding authority from the legislature. If the
intent of Amendment 1 is to have the department provide a
progress report, he responded that the department presents its
budget. Further, to submit a report seemed a little premature
until the information had been gathered, assessed, and
evaluated. Otherwise, the legislature would receive a report
with a lot of contingencies. Although he understood the need
for accountability, he felt this was not necessary.
1:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether the commissioner is
saying that the information would be provided anyway, just to
the Finance Committee rather than the legislature as a whole.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that is correct if the language is
read to report at the beginning of the next calendar year. He
elaborated that the program wouldn't be up and running, but the
department reports details to the Finance committee on its
activities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief this would require
reporting for the previous year, which he understood would be
presented at the time the department requested funding for the
future year. He did not see the necessity of the requirements
in Amendment 1.
1:49:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern that the fiscal note
spans five years. He further expressed concerned that a process
is being set up which would require $2.5 million each year over
the next four years. He suggested a report on the progress
could be helpful and perhaps Amendment 1 should be changed to
"progress on the analysis of the Section 404 primacy process."
Otherwise, an open-ended $2.5 million commitment exists.
1:50:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would require the annual report to indicate
any progress that has been made on implementing or analyzing
implementation of the 404 permit.
1:50:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion. He said
he is unsure of the sponsor's intent; however, the bill would
authorize the department to investigate whether or not the state
should assume primacy of the 404 program. He didn't think
requesting an annual report about the cost to administer the
state dredge and fill permitting program seemed to correspond.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that Amendment 1 is intended to
provide a progress report, as stated by Representative Seaton.
She said the committee has been reviewing the fiscal notes for
the next four years, without knowing the costs to actually
administer the program. She also said the legislature could
consider authorization of funding for positions necessary to
prepare the application; however, if primacy of the 404 program
will mean hiring 40 new staff members, given the current budget
situation, the legislature might decide now is not the time to
do so. Therefore, it might not be wise to consider continuing
with the applications. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to receive
a progress report. In fact, looking back at the department's
work on primacy for 402, at some point the department had to
submit the number of positions. Besides preparing the
application, the department will need to administer the program
and she could see the value to also obtain a fiscal impact for
administering a program.
1:53:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the Conceptual Amendment 1. She
also said on line 7 to add "projected cost" so it would read,
"...annual report of the projected cost of administering the
state dredge and fill permitting program ... ", which is what
she was intending. This would provide the legislature with a
full picture of the 404 process.
1:54:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested Representative Tarr and Representative
Seaton work on the conceptual Amendment.
1:54:28 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
2:00:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Amendment 1, line 7. He made
a motion to revise Conceptual Amendment 1, which would read,
"Annual report of the progress in the development of assuming
the state dredge and fill permitting program described in AS
46.03.020 (14) and the estimated cost of administration of the
program."
2:01:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a motion was on the floor
for a previous Conceptual Amendment 1 that needs to be withdrawn
prior to proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested he merely wished to clarify the
language for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER objected for discussion purposes. He
understood the intent is to allow the department to indicate
progress on the 404 primacy. He did not want to use an estimate
for the one-year process as the basis for not proceeding with
further evaluation. He clarified he understood it would be a
progress report and not a final decision point. Further, how
accurate an estimate needs to be, he suggested leeway given that
it's a new process.
2:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responding to Co-Chair Saddler, answered
yes, this would be a written progress report on the development
of the 404 permitting process to the legislature. He assured
members it is not his intention that the report must be
complete; rather, the department would submit a progress report
that includes any known estimates.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR echoed that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 is not intended to prevent the application from
going forward, but would provide an opportunity to obtain
additional information for the decision-making process.
2:03:55 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG allowed this body can ask DEC to come back
before it at any point. He expressed several concerns. First,
that any amendment will require the bill to go back to the other
body, yet the information is available to the legislature at any
time. Second, the DEC anticipates by 2015 it will have a good
idea of what primacy would entail and any costs and benefits so
essentially the effect of the amendment is to provide one
additional report prior to the DEC coming before the
legislature. Basically, the DEC would receive funding on July
1, but will report at the end of the calendar year on five-
months of activity. Realistically, the legislature will receive
a solid report on the costs and benefits two years out.
However, if the legislature really wanted additional
information, the DEC could present the committee with an update
at any time it so desires. Finally, while he did not think the
reporting concept is wrong, his concerns stem from the
practicality.
2:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he did not see any provision in the
bill that would requires a final report to the legislature in
2015. In fact, he noted the fiscal note extends to 2019. Even
though it's true that the department can come before the
committee, it's quite different to have a presentation than a
written report that details what has been accomplished to date.
Anyway, as often happens, projects are delayed and Conceptual
Amendment 1 would be in place to require an annual progress
report. Nothing in the amendment affects the program, but it
assumes the fiscal note is "real" and the process is planned to
extend through FY 2019. In conclusion, once the final report is
complete, the reporting would discontinue since the state will
have assumed primacy.
2:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that he did not think it is too
much of a burden to ask for a written report given the amount of
funding involved. Further, the justification to seek primacy is
absent; instead, the arguments are anecdotal. Further, given
the fiscal constraints, the 404 permitting primacy may not
always be a priority [for the department]. Thus it would help
to have accurate information to study to ensure that the state
is making a good investment and moving in the right direction.
He offered his support for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to a question, clarified the
committee is on [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
2:08:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER maintained his objection.
2:08:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson,
Tarr, Tuck, Johnson, Olson, Saddler, and Feige voted in favor of
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 8-0.
2:09:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that Amendment 1, as amended, is before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he voted for the
Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 1 since it would give more
guidance than the original amendment. However, he characterized
the whole bill as a report. To begin with, it seemed to him
that Amendment 1 asks the department to do the legislature's
job. When the department comes before the legislature in a
[Finance] subcommittee, this is the type of information the
committee needs to consider. The subcommittee can always make
recommendations to the finance committee with respect to
funding. Additionally, the department could better spend its
time evaluating the process rather than writing reports.
Further, it doesn't make any sense to him to obtain a five-month
report. In conclusion, the committee just needs to do its job,
he said.
2:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his support for Amendment 1, as
amended, stating it's important to obtain sufficient information
in order to do the job. Moreover, to defer to the subcommittee,
which is a much smaller group not focused on the natural
resources aspects would mean the focus will be on the fiscal
implications, not on the resource policy decision-making
process. Also, the committee would need to specifically request
updates on the 404 permitting. Amendment 1 would ensure that in
future years no matter what the committee membership, a report
will come back to the committee, which is why he supports
Amendment 1.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that unlike the 402 permit process
which was phased in, the 404 permit would be a "hard decision
all at once," which is why it's prudent for the legislature to
have ongoing information to make a solid decision. Also, having
the report would allow the legislature a better opportunity to
evaluate the 404 permitting primacy process. He offered his
support for Amendment 1.
2:12:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said Amendment 1 seems to short-circuit the
process. Again, the whole purpose of the bill is to authorize
the departments to evaluate and formulate information.
Certainly, the commissioners can provide progress reports at any
time. Previously, the committee heard testimony on another bill
that good project management entails planning only once and it
is a costly process to revisit planning. He recalled from water
and air quality permitting processes that the DEC has the
expertise to move forward with the 404 permitting. In the
meantime, the legislature has the opportunity at this point as
well as for the final sanction of the 404 primacy. He said he
was not likely to support Amendment 1.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG clarified that the DEC's fiscal note is for
$1.4 million, which includes the DNR costs via the reimbursable
services agreement (RSA). He pointed out he heard other figures
being used.
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he did not have
anything more to add in terms of the department's position on
Amendment 1.
2:14:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read from the fiscal notes [DEC, fiscal
note 1, Water Quality dated 1/11/2013], for FY 15, at $1,854.3
for eight new employees; DNR, Administration & Support [fiscal
note 2, dated 1/14/2013], for FY 15 at $566.7 with four new
employees. He said that combined, the fiscal impact is close to
$2.5 million. He asked for further clarification.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he believes the fiscal notes are being
wrongly interpreted. He clarified the intent of the fiscal note
is to begin in FY 14 with $1.434.7. He explained the fiscal
note such that DEC would have add five fulltime positions in FY
14 and add three more in FY 15. In FY 14 the personal services
line is for $495.4 which is in the form of an RSA to DNR, and
the amount increases to $883.5 in FY 15. The DNR would add two
new positions in FY 14 and two more positions in FY 15 for a
total of four new positions.
2:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON read from the DNR fiscal note, which in FY
15, indicates personal services at $425.6 and a total of $566.7.
He said he was unsure of how this corresponds. Once more, the
overall fiscal impact represents a lot of money when the
legislature is struggling to avoid adding to the state's
operating budget base. He anticipated a report on the $2
million to determine if the [404 primacy] makes sense.
2:17:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood that as DEC proceeds, any
additional funding requests and authorization will have to come
before the legislature.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the short answer is yes, that it would
come before the legislature in terms of budget request for
personnel costs. Additionally, he anticipated requesting
statutory changes as the DEC continues to work with the federal
agencies. On the 402 primacy, the DEC requested two bills, in
addition to budget requests. Again, he anticipated the 404
process would be similar.
2:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not think Amendment 1 is
necessary. She anticipated the DEC would be before the
legislature and viewed additional reporting as onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
2:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that statutory changes might not
have fiscal implications. She recalled the budget subcommittee
process as not allowing for significant detail. She did not
expect the report required under Amendment 1 would be a lengthy
report that would require a significant amount of staff time,
but rather would consist of an executive summary progress report
that would be informative, perhaps prepared in an afternoon.
She identified her frustration with the bill is due to the
missing information. She wished she had some overall estimates
today to help determine whether the [404 primacy] is the right
move. Certainly, given some of the conversations with respect
to fiscal constraints means the legislature will have some tough
decisions to make. This information would assist the
legislature in its decision-making process.
2:21:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated the question is whether Amendment 1, as
amended, should be adopted.
2:21:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Tuck, Seaton,
and Feige voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives Johnson, Olson, Hawker, P. Wilson, and Saddler
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, failed by
a vote of 4-5.
2:23:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER moved to report SB 27 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He stated that only two other states have undergone Section 404
primacy. In fact, every other state has rejected it. Virginia
studied the 404 primacy and reported on it in December 2012. He
recalled that their stakeholders had objected based on the cost
benefit analysis. Equally important, the cost to industry would
be less under the federal program than anticipated under the
state program. Further, the applicants must bear the costs;
however, the state must also acquire substantial staff to
process permits, which is the reason Virginia's stakeholders did
not support it. In any case, the statewide programmatic general
permits were found to provide almost all the benefits without
the costs associated with the assumption of the 404 primacy.
Finally, in Alaska, the DEC already has the ability to issue
statewide programmatic general permits. He preferred the agency
do so rather than go down this "rabbit trail" that could result
in hiring 49 new state employees and spending substantial time
and costs to obtain the 404 primacy for dredge and fill permits.
He suggested that effort could better be spent on statewide
programmatic permits, which will allow for coordination on
federal waters. This bill will not move the state forward or
allow input on the dredge and fill permits. For these reasons,
he opposes passage of SB 27.
2:27:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that Alaska is a
resource development state and its future rests with resource
development. He stated his biggest concern is a fear that the
federal government may grind to a halt. Granted, some people
don't want to see any development in Alaska. Further, it's
difficult to obtain permitting due to staff and costs. However,
Alaska must be prepared to "step into the breach" or resource
development will not happen. He thought that this may be the
first "arrow" the state will be absorbing, but the further along
the path the state is the better it will be. He surmised the
legislature will view the $4 million as the best investment it
has made. In any case, he predicted it wouldn't take much
resource development to make up the cost. For these reasons he
offered his support for SB 27, stating the state needs to
control its own destiny every chance it can. He concluded by
offering his wholehearted support for the state to take control
of its destiny.
2:28:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER echoed Representative Johnson's comments.
He said the language in the bill is permissive. This bill would
permit the executive branch of state government to pursue the
404 primacy, to review and study it to determine whether it is
the best course of action for the state. In fact, this bill
does not establish a 404 permit program. It does not mandate
that the state adopt a program. For all the reasons
Representative Johnson mentioned, this appropriating body ought
to investigate this avenue or the legislature will never know
[if it should have pursued the 404 primacy]. He offered his
support for SB 27 because he agrees the legislature should be
considering its future. He emphasized that once a decision is
made to implement a program - if it is made - it will still
require an appropriation and funding. At the end of the day,
the legislature still holds the purse strings. It is not "our
last bite at the apple" but will move a very important, very
sound, and very wise process forward.
2:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his belief that some of the comments
made would also be good arguments for Coastal Zone Management,
which the state did have control over at one time. In fact, the
state was able to make decisions "in our own backyards" on
projects that were moving forward. He worried that the trend
has been going the other way instead of taking control of the
state. While he isn't opposed to taking control, right now he
doesn't feel like the committee has enough information to
justify spending so much money [on the 404 primacy]. Besides,
the state doesn't have information on the federal backlog and
how much of the federal backlog the state could control or
reduce even if the state does have the 404 primacy. Moreover,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still has the authority it will
continue to retain so it can override the state at any time. At
this time, he couldn't support the bill because he needs more
information. Finally, the state is not exercising statewide
programmatic general permits, which could reduce part of the
backlog, and is the first step the state should take. The
department has the authority to issue statewide programmatic
general permits and it should do so. "Taking such a big bite
into growing state government" and doing something the federal
government is already doing doesn't make sense, he said.
2:32:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER commented he wondered what the state's founding
fathers would have thought if it had been said it would be
cheaper to let them manage the fish traps. Specifically, with
the amount of wetlands the state has, Alaska is a special case.
With the critical nature of permitting wetlands dredge and fill
activities in Alaska, as well as the importance it is to the
primary revenue generator, it seems prudent to "give a hard
look" at the benefits and costs of assuming wetlands primacy
under Section 404. First, the state has undergone this process
successfully for water quality and air quality. Second, it
would result in fewer departments for coordination purposes.
Third, it would result in Alaska-based decisions, which would
not be less strict than the federal standards. Fourth, Alaska
courts would adjudicate disputes, and finally, the mitigation
measures would be Alaska-designed measures. Granted, the state
will be giving the departments significant funding to perform a
difficult job, but the [departments] anticipate "good answers"
and "good information" to inform the legislature as it moves
forward. For these reasons, he offered his support for SB 27.
2:33:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that unfortunately the committee
did not hear from the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] but nearly
80 percent of the Corps' individual permits are granted within
120 days and less than "one percent of one percent" of all
permits has been denied. Therefore, the idea that the Corps'
program is not working is questionable. She recalled the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association letter [dated February 4, 2013], which
read, "And while a majority of the nation's wetland are in
Alaska, many of these may be non-assumable by the State under
the Clean Water Act's geographical limitations and would remain
subject to federal jurisdiction and duplicative Corps
permitting." Furthermore, the legislature did not receive
answers about where this process would apply. Although she
spent time on their website, she couldn't find many areas this
bill would apply. Even the CD-5 example brought up several
times would not have been impacted by this bill since it would
still be under federal jurisdiction. Generally, she wished that
the committee had more information on where this would apply.
She pointed out the individuals in the Alaska U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers office making these decisions are Alaskans, they
understand Alaska's issues and development, which is why she
surmised the success rate is so high. Besides, she didn't think
the system is broken. While she could have supported the bill
with the amendment since it would give the legislature more
information as the state moves forward, she said she is not
comfortable with the expenditure with so much uncertainty about
the commitment.
2:35:23 PM
COMMISSIONER FOGELS asked to respond to some of the points
raised. First, whether a problem exists: yes there is a huge
problem, such that a federal agency controls permitting on one
of the most important sectors of our lands. On the contrary, it
is not about the Corps' backlog. Even if the Corps had a zero
backlog, the state should be looking at the costs and benefits
of assuming the 404 primacy. In fact, this is about Alaskans
having control, with Alaska's agencies having control over
permitting of natural resource development in Alaska, and having
those challenges resolved in Alaska and not in Washington D.C.
In terms of the concerns about limited wetland exclusions, it is
a big issue, he said.
2:36:12 PM
COMMISSIONER FOGELS emphasized the committee must understand the
DNR/DEC will go into this 404 process with a strong position
that the state will receive primacy over most of the wetlands in
Alaska. In fact, the EPA has in past guidance documents
basically agreed. He read from a 1980 document specifically
addressed to primacy for states. He read, "By assuming the 404
program, states will gain clear jurisdiction on most of the
nations' lakes, small rivers, streams, and inland wetlands."
Consequently, the state believes it will gain jurisdiction over
most of the wetlands in Alaska, which is very significant.
COMMISSIONER FOGELS, with respect to the state programmatic
general permits and the reason to pursue primacy, the answer is
simple. The state programmatic general permits represent a
different tool for a different purpose; however, primacy is a
different tool. He stressed that wetlands permitting in Alaska
is very complex and primacy is only one tool. He highlighted
that this bill's fiscal note will allow the state to pursue the
opportunity to seek the other tools, as well as primacy. At the
end of the day, if the state decides not to "go for primacy" the
state will still have hopefully acquired some of the other tools
and the state will benefit greatly.
2:38:06 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG, with respect to some of the comparisons to
Virginia and other states that have not pursued the 404 primacy,
related the deputy commissioner is currently attending a
conference underway in Washington D.C. state wetland
administrators and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The topic
of this conference is how to obtain primacy and numerous states
are actively pursuing this. This isn't something that "everyone
else" looked at and rejected. He pointed out that states like
Virginia have considerably less wetlands than in Alaska. He
surmised that fewer permits are being sought in Virginia than in
Alaska so this tool would have less value to Virginia. This
bill considers what Alaska needs, but not from the perspective
of Virginia or Oregon. He concluded that Alaska should not
compare itself to other states.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said he does not care how other states do it.
The legislature's job is to look at what's best for Alaska and
the question of whether or not to seek the 404 primacy is a
worthy question to consider. He acknowledged a number of
options have been raised in testimony, which have advantages and
disadvantages. However, Alaska is a resource development state
and projects are part of Alaska's future. In conclusion, he
said that the status of 404 permitting program will have an
impact on those projects.
2:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
2:40:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hawker, Johnson,
Olson, P. Wilson, and Feige voted in favor of reporting SB 27
out of the House Resources Standing Committee. Representatives
Tarr, Tuck, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore, SB 27 was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-3.
2:41:18 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:41 p.m. to 2:44 p.m.
HB 158-DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
2:44:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to implement a hunting guide concession
program or otherwise limit the number of individuals authorized
to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land."
2:44:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated a proposed committee substitute has been
prepared that combines three separate amendments committee
members have asked to have considered.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute for HB 158, labeled 28-LS0444\U, Bullard, 3/20/13 as
the working document.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:45:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked sponsors of the three previous amendments
[not yet offered] to discuss the pertinent section of the
proposed committee substitute, Version U. He stated the change
in Section 1, adds paragraph (11), which read, "(11) implement
commercial concession programs on state land." This would
provide authority for the DNR to implement commercial concession
programs on state land, which is to accommodate big game guiding
and transporters.
2:45:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that Section 2 would add the big game
commercial services to subsection (b). He asked Representative
P. Wilson to address this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, of
Version U, and argued that it is important consider both the
land and the wildlife resources. She did not want DNR to change
the land use automatically, but rather to consider whether
wildlife resources are sustainable in a unit or area and
identify any user conflicts. In the event that the wildlife
resources are sustainable and user conflicts do not exist, it
would not be necessary to make any changes to the GMU.
2:47:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification on the version, Co-
Chair Feige identified as Version U.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to a question, referred to page 3,
lines 3-11.
2:48:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the language on page 2 was
necessary to incorporate the relationship with the commissioner
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 2, line 28, of the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 158, Version U. He said this
language is intended to slightly broaden the language to include
guides and transporter concession programs.
2:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3, lines 12-19, to
subsection (c) of Version U. He said that the committee has
heard testimony that a certain number of guides are allowed to
operate in areas. He explained the concern was that if a guide
was assigned three areas, it would exclude other guides from the
area. This change also would consider the federal concession
holdings held by individual guides and limit guides to a
combined total of three concession areas. The overall effect
would be to add to the number of guides who will have access to
state resources.
2:50:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, lines 20-24, to subsection
(d), which adds definitions for "concession permit" and "game
management unit." He also referred to page 3, lines 25-31,
which lays out the section related to the big game transporter
concession program.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 4, line 11, which would
establish an effective date for the transporters that would
start one year after the DNR implements the big game guide
commercial concession program. This would allow the department
one year to develop the transporter program after the department
established the big game guide concessions. This recognizes
that perhaps implementing the entire program at once might be
"too big of a bite" and separating it into two sections seemed
more appropriate.
2:52:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 1 [line 7] and to language
that reads "may" instead of "shall". She understood the intent
of the bill is to give the department the authority. She noted
that proposed AS 38.05.023 (a) would give the DNR the authority
to adopt a concession program, but the language also reads,
"may" [which means optional.] She asked whether the department
will follow through on the commitment to implement the provision
or if the language should be changed to read "shall" to give the
DNR explicit direction.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked to return to that question after adopting
the proposed committee substitute, Version U.
2:53:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 3-11, and asked
whether this means the ADF&G will change the number and types of
concessions that DNR must allocated. He understood the program
is a DNR program; however, this subsection directs that the
commissioner of fish and game "shall" determine the number and
type of concessions that may be provided in each game management
unit (GMU). He assumed the ADF&G's determination would be based
on the fluctuating biomass of the resource. He further asked
whether additional testimony is needed to determine the
interaction between the DNR's guide concession program (GCP) and
the ADF&G's control over the number and types of permits it must
issue.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the intent is for DNR to
manage the land and how land is allocated. The number of
concessions allowed would also depend on the carrying capacity,
which is determined by the ADF&G. He suggested this is
something the department addressed when they formulated the GCP
program, which is formalized by this language. This specifies
that the legislature expects ADF&G to provide the information to
DNR for the proposed guide concession program (GCP).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 3, line 9, which requires the
ADF&G to review this every five years. This also matches the
timeframe for the concession review, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the committee has not heard from the
DNR on the coordination between DNR and ADF&G.
2:57:09 PM
CRAIG FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), prefaced his comments by stating he hasn't had an
opportunity to thoroughly consider this bill version since he
just received it about an hour ago. He suggested one area to be
careful about would be [on page 3, lines 3-9, subsection
(b)(2)], which discusses the commissioner of ADF&G. The
department has long stayed away from concept of allocation of
resources since this responsibility has been up to the Board of
Game. He highlighted one problem is whether it would place the
ADF&G and its staff in the business of allocation and how many
guides will be able to harvest. Probably, it would be good to
get the DNR's perspective on this as well; however, it seems as
if the amount of work would likely require significant staff
time. Further, one of the things that the ADF&G is careful
about is the relationship between the "on the ground" staff and
hunters or guides throughout the state. If the "on the ground"
staff help determine the numbers and types of concessions, it
could jeopardize those relationships. Clearly the ADF&G does
want to work with the DNR on determining the proposed concession
areas. He suggested it might be necessary to include language
such as "DNR consulting with the Department of Fish and Game and
the Board of Game to determine population levels and harvestable
surplus." This has been the process the ADF&G has used until
now, which might work a little better.
2:59:28 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), agreed that the DNR and
ADF&G have not had much opportunity to discuss Version U. He
said that the DNR worked closely with the ADF&G in the process
of preparing maps and proposed allocations. Since the DNR does
not have expertise in wildlife management, it has relied on the
ADF&G to provide the expertise. Since concessions will be
reviewed every five years, he envisioned the agencies will work
closely at that time during the review process. Again, the DNR
has not had enough time to consider the merits of the proposed
committee substitute.
3:00:45 PM
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), echoed what Mr. Fleener said, that DNR's
mission is related to land access and the land use. These [GCP]
figures were determined based on the use patterns and the
appropriate number of guides and hunters in an area, not on game
allocation. He suggested that the DNR & ADF&G could spend more
time on the program as a whole.
3:01:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON expressed her concern that DNR has not
taken all of ADF&G's recommendations. She referred to page 3,
line 6, to paragraph (1), and suggested if it was removed, she
would still want the [decision] to be weighted toward ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred that the DNR and ADF&G are
working together; however, she remained concerned about the
wildlife resources. Clearly, ADF&G controls the harvest levels
and how much is available in each game management unit (GMU).
Therefore, the DNR must listen closely to what ADF&G says, to
make sure it is sustainable. She mentioned she has a
constituent who works as a guide in an area and while he said
[wildlife management] problems didn't exist, it seemed as though
the GCP still made significant changes. Thus, she has some
concerns about [the GCP plan.]
3:03:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON shared the concern, but said the question
is whether the ADF&G's commissioner or the Board of Game (BOG)
would have the authority to determine allocation. He said he
wasn't opposed to the changes, but wants to ensure the
amendments are correctly crafted.
3:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 3, lines 12-19. She asked
whether any reason exists to prevent the DNR from limiting the
number of state concessions based on federal concessions held.
In response to a question, she wondered if the DNR has the
authority to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled holding discussions with the
legislative bill drafter and concluded that the state has the
authority to limit concessions on state lands. However, if a
guide already has federal concessions, this provision would
allow the state to limit state concessions, accordingly. In
fact, he offered his belief that the federal and state
concession decisions are independent decisions.
3:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is unaware of whether the
information is public. She asked whether the state can request
the applicant to list any outstanding federal applications or
any federal concessions that can be awarded.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that it would be up to the
department to regulate. He surmised the information would be
public information.
MR. FOGELS offered his belief that the information is public as
which guides can operate in specific areas. He deferred to Mr.
Clark.
MR. COX said the department has been working closely with the
federal agencies and the information has been made available.
He offered his belief that this language would not limit someone
who holds three state concessions from securing federal
concessions, permits, or licenses on Native lands or federal
lands after they obtain the three state concessions. Therefore,
the guide could still hold more than three guide concessions if
the guide obtained the state concessions first.
3:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the language clearly states that the
guide cannot hold more than three concession permits. He
offered his belief that the guide would lose a state concession
permit if the guide later gained federal permits. He suggested
that obtaining additional federal concession permits could lead
to jeopardizing losing all permits.
MR. COX agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that would be a pretty risky
business.
MR. COX pointed out that permits on Native Corporation lands
would not be public information.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied that the proposed committee substitute
(CS) for HB 158 doesn't address Native Corporation lands and it
doesn't need to either.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it was not his intention to regulate
private landowner activities.
3:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, line 26, which read,
"... commissioner may implement a concession program ...." He
recalled the committee discussed changing it to "shall". He
expressed concern that it may take DNR more than one year to
fully implement a program. He also referred to the language [on
page 3, line 27] related to "individuals who provide
transportation services to big game hunters in the field," which
could be boat operators or air taxi operators. He suggested
"may" is appropriate since the committee has not heard from air
taxi operators so it seemed more appropriate to allow additional
time.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE agreed.
3:09:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, with respect to transporter services, asked
whether any licensing requirements or business licenses are
necessary before an operator is allowed to transport passengers.
He further asked whether DNR has the authority to regulate the
activity.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that transporters fall under the Big
Game Commercial Services Board's (BGCSB) authority.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether that would also include air
taxis.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that air taxis have an exemption if the
transportation is "incidental" to their business. He suggested
the committee may wish to review the definition.
3:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR returned to the discussion by Representative
Johnson with respect the number of concession permits that could
be issued. It sounded as though an issue exists in terms of the
total number of state and federal concession permits. She
related a scenario in which in which a guide obtained three
state concession permits and subsequently obtained three federal
permits, which would mean the guide could potentially have six
concessions but not be up for concession permit review for five
years. She wondered if this provision could potentially be
abused.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that if a guide
subsequently obtained federal permits he/she would be in
violation of the state permits. He pointed out the language
indicates the guide cannot hold more than three concession
permits and anything done to circumvent that would be in
violation of the application.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised it would be a simple matter to indicate
the concession permit the guide wanted to drop in the event a
federal concession permit was subsequently awarded. The state
concession permit could then be reallocated by the department.
3:12:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the DNR have an easy way to
access this information.
MR. FOGELS replied yes; that this kind of information is
transparent. He thought it would be more than a high risk since
the industry would know who held the concession. Additionally,
he also thought it would be possible to put in a stipulation on
the application.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the situation
would be a self-policing circumstance.
3:13:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
3:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He said he would rather keep the
old version of the bill than to keep the language as is.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that is not part of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his support for the original bill
and to address amendments individually.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that it would be easier to keep
the amendments in the bill and address the language in the
proposed committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection.
3:15:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, in response to Representative Tarr, agreed the
committee would take further testimony.
3:16:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON supported adopting the proposed CS so
people can comment on it and the committee can review it.
3:16:33 PM
There being no further objection, Version U was adopted as the
working document.
3:16:48 PM
[HB 158 was held over.]
3:17:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB27 Virginia 404 Feasibility Study 2012.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 USACE-Alaska Legislative Briefing 2.28.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 DEC Response to HRES 3.19.2013.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| SB27 Amendment A.2.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 27 |
| HRES HB 158 Amend A.4.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 9.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES CSHB158 3.20.13.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |