Legislature(2017 - 2018)Anch LIO Lg Conf Rm
07/20/2018 01:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: How Will Ballot Measure 1 (initiative Petition 17fsh2) Impact the State of Alaska? | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
ANCHORAGE LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION OFFICE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
July 20, 2018
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan (online)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Chris Birch
Senator Shelly Hughes (online)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: How Will Ballot Measure 1 (Initiative Petition 17FSH2)
Impact the State of Alaska
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOANNE GRACE, Director
Civil Division
Alaska Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the state's position on Ballot
Measure 1.
SAM COTTEN, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
RON BENKERT, Fish & Game Coordinator
Division of Habitat
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
BEN WHITE, Environmental Program Manager
Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
ANDREW T. MACK, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
KYLE MOSELLE, Associate Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
ANDREW SAYERS-FAY, Director
Division of Water
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on
the department.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:10 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Wilson, Giessel, Senator Egan
(online), and Chair Meyer.
^OVERVIEW: How Will Ballot Measure 1 (Initiative Petition
17FSH2) Impact the State of Alaska?
OVERVIEW: How Will Ballot Measure 1 (Initiative Petition 17FSH2)
Impact the State of Alaska
1:32:04 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the committee's agenda is an overview of
Ballot Measure 1, Initiative Petition 17FSH2. He explained that
the committee meeting would address the initiative's impact on
the state's day-to-day operations and budgets. He noted that
four commissioners would address the impact to the state should
the initiative pass. He emphasized that the committee was on a
fact-finding mission and would not take a position on the
initiative. He noted that the initiative was under litigation
and conceded that there was not a lot of time to educate people
on what the initiative's impact would be on the state.
1:33:57 PM
JOANNE GRACE, Director, Civil Division, Alaska Department of
Law, Juneau, Alaska, disclosed that she has held her current
position for several months and was previously the head of the
Civil Appeals Section. She revealed that during her time in the
Civil Appeals Section she handled the Alaska Supreme Court case
in Mallot v. Stand for Salmon which is litigation that arose out
of the initiative that is now known as Ballot Measure 1.
She said she would explain the state's position on the
previously noted litigation to provide context for the
discussion of the other agencies that would address the
committee. She noted that prior to her explanation, she would
address the committee's forthcoming departmental testimonies as
follows:
In testifying today, the agencies will be mindful of
Alaska's statute AS 15.13.145 which prohibits state
agencies from spending money to influence the outcome
of a ballot measure unless the Legislature has
specifically appropriated money for that purpose. The
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has determined
that a public official's statements about a ballot
proposition do not violate the statute if they are
made in the usual and customary duties of the official
such as responding to a constituent's inquiry or
answering questions at a press conference.
The public officials who are appearing at this hearing
to explain the impacts of Ballot Measure 1 will be
engaging in conduct very similar to the activities
that APOC has determined to be permissible, so the
statute also permits their testimony today, but the
Department of Law has advised them to refrain from
taking a position on the initiative and just simply
provide an objective view of its impact on each
agency; that said, the sponsors of Ballot Measure 1
disagree with the state's interpretation of the bill
and the state agencies do not proport to explain the
sponsors' interpretation.
1:36:11 PM
MS. GRACE addressed the pending litigation for Ballot Measure 1
as follows:
My main purpose here is to explain the pending
litigation on Ballot Measure 1. The lawsuit arose from
the decision of the lieutenant governor which was
based on the advice of the Department of Law to deny
certification of the proposed initiative. Under Alaska
statutes, the lieutenant governor has 60 days to
either certify or notify an initiative committee that
he is going to deny certification and the reasons for
denial.
The potential reasons for denial are very limited. One
reason is that the initiative deals with the subject
that is prohibited by the Alaska Constitution. One
prohibited subject is appropriation. An initiative
that makes an appropriation cannot appear on the
ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court has said that an
initiative makes an appropriation when it deprives the
Legislature of its exclusive authority to allocate
state assets among competing needs.
The court has also held that the prohibition on
allocating state assets by initiative is not limited
to money, but also applies to natural resources. The
reason that the convention delegates included a
prohibition on appropriation via initiative is that
they saw in other states taking control of finances
away from the Legislature had impeded the
Legislature's ability to do its job, that is to
facilitate governmental functions and to plan for the
state's future.
In Alaska it makes sense to include natural resources
in this prohibition because we are a resource state,
because Congress gave Alaska an enormous grant of land
and mineral rights to allow the state to generate
revenues to fund state government. So, if an
initiative can take that authority away from the
Legislature, that would be just as harmful as
restricting the Legislature's ability to allocate
financial resources. So, a law like Ballot Measure 1
can be enacted by the Legislature, just cannot be
enacted by initiative so that the authority to decide
how to use the state's assets remain exclusively with
the Legislature.
1:38:27 PM
MS. GRACE continued as follows:
The Department of Law advised the lieutenant governor
that Ballot Measure 1 makes an appropriation by
eliminating the Legislature's exclusive authority to
allocate anadromous fish habitat to certain uses, it
does this in part by eliminating any discretion to
allocate the habitat to uses that do not permanently
preserve it; for example, some large development
project.
The initiative requires a permit for any use of
anadromous fish habitat that will have an impact other
than a de minimis effect, and it defines anadromous
fish habitat very, very broadly to include all lands
and waters that could affect anadromous fish, even
indirectly; it creates standards and it prohibits
granting a permit for activities that cannot meet the
standards.
Several of the initiative's provisions create the
appropriation of fish habitat, among these are the
bill's prohibition on granting a permit for activities
that cause substantial damage to habitat; this is
found in section 7 of the proposed bill. Under the
bill substantial damage will occur if despite
mitigation measures any anadromous fish habitat will
be adversely effected such that it will not likely
recover or be restored within a reasonable period to a
level that sustains the fish and wildlife that depends
on it, so this prohibits a permit for any activity
that will permanently displace any fish habitat, but
large acreage development projects will generally
permanently displace at least some small amount of
anadromous fish habitat as that is very broadly
defined in the bill; for example, according to the
evidence presented in the case, large hard-rock mines
cannot be built without tailings and waste-rock-
disposal areas and those sites often permanently
impact at least some amount of anadromous fish
habitat. Under currently law, the loss of this habitat
is mitigated off site by creating new habitat, but
Ballot Measure 1 prohibits off-site mitigation; this
provision will also prohibit other types of projects
including, for example, a highway or a pipeline that
will permanently displace wetlands or a seasonal flood
plane that contributes indirectly to anadromous fish.
1:40:55 PM
MS. GRACE continue as follows:
Another section proposed, AS 16.05.887(a)(5), would
prohibit a permit for activities that will withdraw
water from an anadromous fish habitat in an amount
that will adversely affect the habitat, fish or
wildlife; and AS 16.05.887(a)(6) would prohibit a
permit for activities that will dewater and relocate a
stream or river if the relocation doesn't provide for
fish passage or will adversely affect anadromous fish
habitat, fish or wildlife, both of those provisions
will prevent a permit for many activities. Mining
projects, for example, routinely dewater stream
segments according to the evidence in our case and
divert streams, and because of the great prevalence of
streams in Alaska, some amount of stream location is
typically necessary in order to build roads, buildings
and other facilities that large-scale development
projects require, and in Alaska highway projects often
parallel streams and rivers that sometimes require
relocation to make sure that the highway will remain
intact as a road. Relocating a stream will always
adversely affect the fish habitat where the stream was
once located and where a building or a road is located
instead.
1:42:16 PM
MS. GRACE continued as follows:
Another provision that creates an appropriation by
prohibiting the use of anadromous fish habitat is
proposed AS 16.05.867(b), which is found in section 2;
this section states that when issuing a permit, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) shall ensure the
proper protection of anadromous fish habitat by
maintaining seven-habitat-protection standards, these
include maintaining instream flows, passage of fish,
and bank stability. The bill requires that the
commissioner must ensure that these standards are
maintained when issuing a permit and it requires that
all duties carried out under the chapter must be
consistent with those standards, and the
commissioner's failure to follow these standards is a
Class A misdemeanor under this bill; for example,
permits cannot be granted for large hydro projects
because AS 16.05.867(b)(2) requires that an activity
maintain instream flow, the duration of flow, and
natural and seasonal flow regimes.
In short, certification of Ballot Measure 1 was denied
because the initiative would preclude certain uses of
anadromous-fish habits and thus would deprive the
Legislature of its authority to decide how to allocate
fish habitat among competing uses. This is not a
policy decision, it does not matter to the Division of
Elections whether anyone thinks this initiative is a
good idea or bad idea, the only question for purposes
of certification and the only issue in the ongoing
litigation is whether the initiative makes an
appropriation and based on Alaska Supreme Court case
law we think that it does.
1:44:05 PM
She continued as follows:
As a result of the denial of certification, the
sponsors filed suit in September of 2017, three weeks
later the Superior Court ruled in the sponsor's favor
and ordered the lieutenant governor to prepare the
booklets to allow the sponsors to gather signatures.
The sponsors then got the signatures needed to get the
initiative on the general election ballot in November.
Meanwhile, the Division of Elections appealed the
Superior Court decision to the Alaska Supreme Court
which held oral argument in April. The argument in the
Supreme Court was not only about whether Ballot
Measure 1 makes an appropriation, parties also argued
about severability.
The Alaska Supreme Court will allow an initiative that
makes an appropriation to appear on the ballot if the
court can sever unconstitutional provisions and the
remaining bill meets a three-part test. The test is:
first, standing alone the remainder of the proposed
bill can be given legal effect; second, deleting the
impermissible part of the bill would not substantially
change the spirit of the measure; third, it's evident
from the content of the measure and the circumstances
surrounding its proposal that the sponsors and the
petition subscribers would prefer the measure to stand
as altered rather than to be invalidated in its
entirety.
The state argued that eliminating the unconstitutional
provisions of Ballot Measure 1 would delete all the
substantive standards in the bill and all that would
be left would be the procedural requirements and that
this would substantially change the spirit of the bill
and thus it would not sufficiently reflect what the
petition signers had approved and thus it was not
evident that they would prefer that the bill go ahead
as altered. The sponsors argued that no severance was
necessary because their position is that there are no
unconstitutional provisions but that if the bill were
severed it would still meet that three-part test.
The possibility that the court might sever parts of
Ballot Measure 1 means that there's a whole range of
possible outcomes of the litigation so that it's
difficult to say with any certainty what the bill
might look like if it goes on the ballot. The court
could uphold the initiative in its entirety, the court
could strike the initiative in its entirety, or by
severing certain provisions it could order one of a
number of variations between those two extremes. For
this reason, the state asked the court if it's going
to sever any provisions to issue a decision at least a
few days before the ballot printing deadline for the
general election to September 5, so the Division of
Elections can review the new draft and write a summary
to appear on the ballot. The court could issue a
decision sooner than September, but we don't expect
that it's going to wait until after September 5.
CHAIR MEYER thanked Ms. Grace for explaining the initiative to
the best of her abilities based upon the circumstances. He noted
that Ms. Grace answered one of his questions regarding the
prospect of a ruling to occur.
1:47:51 PM
CHAIR MEYER recognized Representative Birch for attending the
committee meeting.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Ms. Grace to summarize the three-part
test.
MS. GRACE reviewed the three-part test as follows:
The first part is that standing alone after the court
deletes unconstitutional provisions, standing alone
the remainder of the proposed bill can be given legal
effect. Secondly, deleting the impermissible part of
the bill would not substantially change the spirit of
the measure. Three, it's evident from the content of
the measure and the circumstances surrounding its
proposal that the subscribers, the sponsors and the
petition subscribers prefer that it stand as altered
rather than being struck entirely.
1:49:05 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced section 8 and noted that the term in
the section appears in AS 16.05.889(a) as follows:
Within 30 days after the date of a determination of
the commissioner under AS 16.05.871(e), AS
16.05.875(d) or (d), AS 16.05.883, AS 16.05.884(d) or
(f), or AS 16.05.885(d), any interested person may
request that the commissioner reconsider the
determination. A request for reconsideration must be
in writing.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what the definition is of "any interested
person." She inquired if "any interested person" could be a
Canadian or an individual that resides in Iowa who just feels
like asking for a reconsideration.
MS. GRACE answered that "any interested person" was not defined
in the bill. She said she thought other statutes have similar
language and perhaps one of the other agencies in attendance
could address previous case law. She opined that the Alaska
Supreme Court tends to be broad minded and Ballot Measure 1 is a
bill that is intended to preserve fish habitat. She continued as
follows:
I think that citizen who felt that granting a permit
was improper under the law would be allowed to appeal,
but that would be open to interpretation by the court.
1:50:36 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the initiative was not prioritizing one
resource over multitudes of others. She inquired if the Alaska
Supreme Court was wrestling over the same question.
MS. GRACE replied as follows:
That's essentially the core of it, in other words, the
bill takes away the discretion of the Legislature as
delegated to the Department of Fish and Game to choose
to use anadromous fish habitat for some purposes which
generally is going to be large development projects
because if the habitat is not permanently preserved
the bill prohibits it; for example, if a road or a
pipeline or a tailings facility is going to
permanently displace that habitat then that's taking
away, then that's not permitted, it cannot get a
permit and that takes away the discretion of the
agency and therefore the Legislature to decide to use
the habitat for that purpose, that's in fact what
makes it an appropriation and what therefore makes it
an improper subject for an initiative.
CHAIR MEYER asked Ms. Grace to address the ballot measure's
impact on hydro projects as follows:
You had mentioned that this could have a big impact on
hydro projects and certainly we have a lot of hydro
already in the State of Alaska. Are those projects
grandfathered or would they have to fall under this
initiative if it passed?
MS. GRACE answered as follows:
It grandfathers permits, authorizations, license
approvals for activities adversely effected on or
before the effective date of the act until expiration
or termination of the user's permit authorization
license or approval. I don't actually know what the
permitting requirements are for hydro projects, I know
that a new hydro project would be unlikely to get a
permit under the standards in this bill. I don't know
if for an existing permit if the permits ever expire
or whether it might be required to get a new permit
for some kind of additional building.
1:53:27 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked to verify that a hydro project like in Kodiak
or even Bradley Lake would be almost impossible to get permitted
under the initiative.
MS. GRACE answered as follows:
The affidavits in our case said that larger hydro
projects would not be able to meet the standard, I'm
not entirely sure how large those are and exactly
where that line is drawn.
CHAIR MEYER asked how the initiative pertains to other
developments. He inquired if Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oilfields
would be able to come online if Ballot Measure 1 had been passed
when the oilfields came online. He asked if the previously
mentioned oilfields would be grandfathered as well.
MS. GRACE answered as follows:
The affidavits that the state got from our agency
officials said that Prudhoe Bay would not have been
built with this initiative. Again, whether they are
grandfathered depends on what permits would expire and
when they would need new permits; for example, one of
our affidavits said that the Red Dog Mine is going to
need a new tailings facility and so even though it is
an existing project a new tailings facility would
require a new permit to the extent that it would
displace anadromous fish habitat and would not be
grandfathered under this bill.
1:54:58 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk are private
developments that provides the state with most of its revenue.
He asked to address state projects like the new Seward Highway.
He inquired if Ballot Measure 1 would allow major roads to be
built.
MS. GRACE answered that she could not speak to Chair Meyer's
inquiry because she did not know what would be entailed;
however, she opined that it was possible.
CHAIR MEYER noted that the commissioner of the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) could address
his question.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed section 5, AS 16.05.877, "Significant
adverse effects," subsection (a):
The commissioner shall find the potential for
significant adverse effects where the activity may,
singly or in combination with other factors: (1)
impair or degrade any habitat characteristic protected
under AS 16.05.867.
He asked if any habitat characteristic protected under AS
16.05.867 would be a source of litigation.
MS. GRACE answered that it may well be. She noted that the
section Senator Coghill referenced lists habitat protection
standards that the commissioner is required to respect when he
or she issues a permit and that could also subject the
commissioner to criminal penalties if he or she fails to do so.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the section he previously referenced
talks about the aquatic habitat diversity. He asked to confirm
that diversity could be a primary topic of discussion if any
impact occurred on that characteristic.
1:57:36 PM
MS. GRACE confirmed that the scenario Senator Coghill noted
could be a topic of litigation.
SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows:
That would stand true for all three characteristics
and the eight qualifications under (b). What I'm
looking for is the fact that it looks to me like the
initiative is written in such a way that the courts
would be forced to have to decide many, many of these
questions. So, any habitat characteristic would be the
source of discussion under those at least nine
criteria?
1:58:13 PM
MS. GRACE answered that Senator Coghill's question was certainly
possible.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed section 5 as follows:
If you look in section 5, once again it's in the
additional criteria, so additional criteria beyond on
those would then be something that would have to be
decided.
MS. GRACE answered as follows:
To the extent that Fish and Game drafts regulations
and those could also be subject to challenge.
SENATOR COGHILL replied as follows:
I think one of the reasons I'm asking these things is
because if we had a bill like this in front of the
Legislature, those are the kinds of things you would
try to get some understanding of, "What did you mean
when you said that?" way before you signed off on it.
I find those very, very broad in such a way that my
expectation is that it could grind to a halt anything,
not withstanding the constitutional issue, just the
procedural issue itself would then in my view cause a
constitutional tension on, "Could the state actually
move forward?" So, those are at least the two points
that I wanted to bring up immediately.
1:59:27 PM
CHAIR MEYER concurred with Senator Coghill. He noted that
Senator Coghill serves as chairman on the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
SENATOR WILSON addressed section 3 regarding possible impact and
asked Ms. Grace what the definition was for "anadromous waters"
and how far does "anadromous waters" go out. He inquired if
"anadromous waters" would cover all of Resurrection Bay or
Prince William Sound.
MS. GRACE replied that the definition was very broad and
essentially included lands or waters that could impact
anadromous fish, even indirectly. She conceded that the answer
was potentially "yes."
SENATOR WILSON asked to confirm that there is no mile
designation for the "anadromous fish" definition. He voiced his
concern that the initiative could impact docks, cruise ships,
harbor repair, new liquid natural gas (LNG) docks in Nikiski and
extending pilings in the Mat-Su Borough.
2:01:01 PM
MS. GRACE answered that Senator Wilson's statement was certainly
a possibility. She specified that the definition applies to the
following:
Lands or waters that contribute directly or indirectly
to the spawning, rearing, migration or over-wintering
of anadromous fish.
SENATOR WILSON asked to confirm that offshore drilling would
also be impacted as well.
MS. GRACE answered that is was possible someone could make that
claim.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that two military bases were in the
Fairbanks area. He pointed out that the entire Fairbanks area is
considered a floodplain. He continued as follows:
If it was intermittent which is the case in Fairbanks,
I have lived through several floods in the Interior
and they certainly impact the whole community in a
variety of ways, but that water body in that town
would then probably be considered under this chapter
as an anadromous fish habitat, if I understand this
definition. Would you see it the same way?
MS. GRACE replied as follows:
My reading of this definition is that it was written
to be as broad as it possibly could be.
SENATOR COGHILL opined that Fairbanks, whether building a
toolshed or building for an F-35 aircraft, would be hugely
impacted.
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Giessel had sent a letter of
inquiry to a mayor in her district on a similar subject.
SENATOR GIESSEL answered that she did and detailed that she
addressed the impact of fire service in the Hillside area where
large tankers access water bodies and streams to fight fires.
She remarked that getting a permit to withdraw water as she
described could be complicated or possibly be denied.
2:03:27 PM
MS. GRACE answered as follows:
The bill prohibits a permit for an activity that will
withdraw water from anadromous fish habitat in an
amount that will adversely affect the habitat of the
fish or the wildlife, so I guess it would depend on
how much was being withdrawn.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Ms. Grace to address her statement that
the commissioner could be liable for criminal penalties under
Ballot Measure 1.
MS. GRACE replied as follows:
The bill makes failing to follow any of the provisions
in this bill a Class A Misdemeanor, and some of the
provisions including these habitat protection
standards and the standards for granting or denying a
permit can only be done by the commissioner.
2:05:24 PM
SAM COTTEN, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Juneau, Alaska, addressed the impact of Ballot Measure 1 on the
department as follows:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is
responsible for issuing Title 16 permits;
specifically, our Division of Habitat takes care of
that. Our primary purpose is to protect fish and game
resources from any adverse impacts as a result of
development. Ron [Benkert] will be able to describe
some of the examples of permits like stream crossings,
pipelines and anything that might impact habitat.
We've been doing this for a lot of years and they've
had a lot of big projects to benefit from the
experience.
If the initiative were to pass it would certainly
change the way we approach these permits, obviously a
lot of rules would change and so we are able to
discuss some of that and hopefully respond to some of
your questions on those kinds of changes. In order to
comply with the new statutes, obviously we would have
to do a new regulatory exercise, put in new
regulations, that would take some time, it's uncertain
now and it would cost some money. I think our cost
estimate that we submitted to the Legislature earlier
was I think about $1.3 million a year for at least 5
years, an additional expense that we would have to
undergo.
Ron Benkert, you may already know, he's our regional
supervisor for the habitat divisions for the
Southcentral region, he has a lot of experience with
the Pebble prospect, the Chulitna coal project, the
Susitna project, Port MacKenzie rail extension, he
also represents the department with what's known as
the LMPT, Large Mine Permitting Team, so in that
regard he works with other departments in a joint
effort. Internally, Ron also works with our other
divisional folks with the Division of Wildlife,
Division of Commercial Fish, Division of Sportfishing,
Division of Subsistence, so we take a very
comprehensive approach to it internally and then
within state government.
2:08:07 PM
RON BENKERT, Fish & Game Coordinator, Division of Habitat,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that his intent was to provide a brief background on how the
division was currently operating and then to address initiative
concerns. He said his presentation addresses the division's
perception in how it currently operates and potential changes.
He said he would also address projects that probably would have
impact associated with Ballot Measure 1.
MR. BENKERT commenced his presentation and addressed the
division's mission statement as follows:
Habitat's mission is to protect Alaska's valuable fish
and wildlife resources and their habitats as Alaska's
population and economy continue to expand.
He said the Habitat Division does a balancing act. He asserted
that the division understands that there are acceptable impacts
to fish habitat because the state must build roads, cross
streams and extract resources.
He explained that the division has a mitigation sequence by
working with project applicants to minimize any kind of impacts
that could potentially impact fish habitat. He noted that the
division is working with the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) on replacing fish-habitat
culverts. He added that the division works with DOT&PF and local
entities to provide good designs for fish pipes that provide
passage for fish.
2:10:21 PM
He addressed "Workload Priorities" as follows:
• Title 16 permitting and enforcement;
• Field work: research, inspections, fish surveys;
• Large projects of importance to the state;
• Forest Resources and Practices Act;
• Special Area permitting and planning;
• Summation:
o Habitat's top workload priorities are
focused on the anadromous waters catalog and
our Title 16 permitting authority. We also
participate in large project reviews and
reviews of forest practices on state and
private land. We also conduct Special Area
planning and research that helps us make
sound permitting decisions.
CHAIR MEYER asked that Mr. Benkert address how Ballot Measure 1,
if passed, would impact the division.
MR. BENKERT addressed "ADF&G Statutory Authority Fish
Protection" as follows:
• The Fishway Act:
o AS 16.05.841.
• Anadromous Fish Act:
o AS 16.05.871.
• Special Area Planning & Permitting:
o 5 AAC 95.700.
• Summation:
o Alaska's early fish protection laws have
helped us avoid many of the major issues
related to fish passage and habitat loss or
degradation seen in many areas of the Lower
48. As early as 1919, the territorial
government could require fishways prior to
construction of dams or other obstructions.
By 1959, the Legislature enacted a Fish and
Game Code included statutory protections for
fish passage and later fish habitat.
2:13:04 PM
MR. BENKERT addressed the "Fishway Act (.841)" as follows:
• Requires that any obstruction built across fish-
bearing waters will provide for fish passage.
• Jurisdiction:
o Applies to all fish-bearing streams
(resident and anadromous) and all fish
species.
o Requires long-term commitment to operation
and maintenance.
o Applies to fish passage only.
• Activities not covered by .841:
o Projects that do not have the potential to
block passage:
square4 Docks, streambank protection, motorized
stream crossings, etc.
• Summation:
o The primary strength of the Fishway Act is
that it requires passage for all species of
fish and, if an obstruction such as a
culvert is authorized, the structure has to
be maintained in the long-term, rather than
just built and left alone.
He addressed "Anadromous Fish Act (.871)" as follows:
• Jurisdiction:
o Applies to any activity.
o Applies to any life stage.
o Restricted to ordinary high-water mark.
• Application of (.871):
o Activity occurring below OHW with some
exceptions.
o Waterbody must be in AWC.
o Freshwater only down to low tide in the
marine environment.
• Summation:
o Broad in scope and applies to nearly any in-
water activity, protection to all life
stages of anadromous fish. For fish passage
projects, this statute allows us to review
designs and make decisions based on more
than just fish passage. We can consider
impacts to habitat or stream function and
include requirements for streambank
restoration and revegetation, and of a new
culvert.
2:16:16 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked to confirm that Mr. Benkert's presentation
focuses on current practices and not on changes from the
initiative.
MR. BENKERT answered yes. He noted that the first portion of his
presentation addressed current operations and the remainder
would focus on changes from the initiative.
He addressed "Activities That Typically Require Fish Habitat
Permits" as follows:
• Culvert, bridge and ford installation, maintenance, and
restoration;
• Stream crossings: vehicles, pipelines, power lines;
• Streambank repair and construction;
• Stream diversions or removals;
• Water withdrawals: road work, drilling, mining, ice roads;
• Material extraction sites;
• Dam construction and maintenance;
• Run of the river hydro projects (no dam);
• Research projects: fish weir installation and operation;
• Dock and boat ramp construction;
• Blasting.
2:19:33 PM
MR. BENKERT addressed "New Duties and Functions the Initiative
Would Require Habitat to Implement" as follows:
• Presume that naturally occurring connected water bodies and
adjacent riparian areas are anadromous, currently
jurisdiction ends at the ordinary high-water mark of
documented anadromy.
• Require site-specific determinations to determine a water
body is not anadromous fish.
He referenced a map which showed locations where the division
has done sampling. He noted that the proposed Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) project would require the division to do
sampling during the current season.
SENATOR EGAN asked how an anadromous stream is added to the
division's catalog.
MR. BENKERT explained that the division has a process where a
team in the Sport Fish Division receives nominations. He
detailed that a nomination form is submitted by a biologist or
whoever has identified additional fish habitat that could be put
into the division's catalog. He explained that nominations are
reviewed several times including an area biologist who must
signoff. He summarized that new segments go to the lieutenant
governor to sign into law every spring. He noted that the
process has a lot of steps to ensure what is being looked at
should be included in the catalog.
2:22:55 PM
SENATOR EGAN asked if fieldwork is done for every request for
catalog inclusion.
MR. BENKERT answered that the division has a team that goes out
annually on what is called the Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory
Team.
SENATOR EGAN asked if Mr. Benkert knew what the average cost was
for each request to add to the anadromous catalog.
MR. BENKERT answered that he did not know.
CHAIR MEYER asked that the information that Senator Egan
requested be provided to all committee members at a later date.
2:25:35 PM
MR. BENKERT addressed the division's additional responsibilities
as follows:
• Develop bonding structure and requirements;
• Develop regulations associated with the
initiative;
• Develop a bail schedule for bailable citations as
noted in the initiative;
• Implement civil penalties in addition to criminal
penalties as noted in the initiative;
• Extend jurisdiction into the riparian areas
adjacent to anadromous streams as noted in the
initiative for cross-jurisdictional issues;
• Respond to appeals on permit decisions;
• Restrict project mitigation to on-site only.
He addressed public notices development for the following:
• Permits, applications and amendments;
• General permits;
• Rescinding a permit;
• Any draft major anadromous fish habitat permit assessment,
and major fish habitat applications;
• May require written authorization for an individual to
operate under a general permit.
2:28:40 PM
He addressed additional responsibilities in response to the
initiative as follows:
• Determine whether a fish habitat permit is a major or minor
permit.
• Respond to and address public input on major fish habitat
permits.
• Collect fees equal to the cost of service for major
permits.
• Determine if the proposed activity is likely to cause
substantial damage to anadromous fish habitat.
• Determine if anadromous fish habitat will recover or be
restored within a reasonable period of time.
• Specify in regulation all de minimus activities that do not
require a permit and require a permit for all activities
not specified.
CHAIR MEYER asserted that his focus was on the impact to the
state. He opined that the additional duties and services noted
by Mr. Benkert would be very costly.
MR. BENKERT concurred with Chair Meyer. He noted that the
division's cost estimate includes additional personnel needed to
develop regulations and citations, a program analyst, regulatory
specialists, and added personnel to deal with the workload from
all the other requirements that would be the result of the
initiative's passage. He agreed with Commissioner Cotten that a
significant impact for a cost perspective would occur, an
estimated $1.3 million per year for at least 5 years.
2:31:24 PM
He addressed "Initiative Impacts on Stakeholders" as follows:
• Increased time and cost because of public notice
requirements and determining whether anadromous fish are
present.
• Public input into permitting process could slow down the
process.
• Prohibitions contained in the initiative that would modify
or preclude the issuance of permits for certain activities.
• Determine if bonding is required on major permits.
• Expense of conducting site specific determinations and
extensive data needs to prove anadromous fish are not
present, an expense borne by the applicants.
He addressed "Specific Examples of Initiative Implementation" as
follows:
• New AS 16.05.867(a) states that an anadromous fish habitat
permit may not be granted for an activity that will cause
"substantial damage" to anadromous fish habitat.
• "Substantial damage" is defined as an activity inconsistent
with restoring the habitat within a reasonable time to
support anadromous fish.
• Under this provision, larger hydro projects/dams such as
the Susitna Hydro Project which, by definition, change
flows and alter natural and seasonal flow regimes, may not
be permittable.
He noted that defining what "substantial damage" is will be
required to codify regulation.
2:33:35 PM
MR. BENKERT addressed "Additional Examples" as follows:
• New AS 16.05.887(a)(1) may prevent us from issuing permits
for the proposed Donlin Prospect mine because two
anadromous streams would be eliminated permanently, causing
substantial permanent damage to anadromous fish habitat.
• New AS 16.05.877(a)(6) states that an anadromous fish
habitat permit may not be granted for an activity that will
dewater and relocate a stream or river if the relocation
does not provide for fish passage or will "adversely
affect" anadromous habitat, fish, or wildlife.
• Major highway projects often parallel streams and rivers
and often require extensive erosion control and/or
relocation to keep the highway intact and passable.
• These types of projects have an adverse effect on
anadromous fish habitat and could potentially not be
permitted.
He addressed "Conclusion" in his presentation as follows:
• Passage of the initiative would require, but is not limited
to:
o Hiring additional staff including habitat biologists,
an analyst programmer, and program technicians to
implement initiative components and handle additional
workloads.
o A public education component may need to be developed
to inform the public of our new and expanded
jurisdictional authority.
o The division anticipates that development of
regulations could take a significant effort.
o Implementation of any new regulations and criteria
would also take significant time and effort.
2:36:23 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if Mr. Benkert had a definition for "any
interested person."
MR. BENKERT answered no. He explained that the department would
have to defer to the Alaska Department of Law for determining
the definition.
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced subsistence and addressed the Fish
Resource Monitor Map regarding "New Duties and Functions the
Initiative Would Require Habitat to Implement." She noted
various subsistence communities that will drive their four-
wheelers through creeks. She pointed out that Mr. Benkert
mentioned that pedestrian fording in creeks was considered di
minimus. She asked what consideration was given to the impact of
four-wheelers on an established hunting trail and would a permit
be required.
MR. BENKERT answered as follows:
If you are fording an anadromous stream now you need a
permit for it. A lot of the thrust of our general
permits we issue to the public is just specifically
for that activity when we have a well-established
trail that the public has been using for decades, we
try to identify those areas and develop a general
permit to authorize that activity with some
sideboards. We have stipulations in there that
basically requires them to ford the creek in an
appropriate manner to minimize any impacts to the
stream bed or banks. We are continually identifying
those, we are always adding new general permits as we
identify new areas that could use that, but currently
you still are required to come and get a permit from
us if you are planning on crossing with a four-wheeler
or pickup truck fording on an anadromous stream.
2:38:08 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed the Red Dog and Fort Knox mines as
follows:
A question now about two large projects that exist now
and the impact that they had on fish resources. I'm
referring to the Red Dog Mine, this is a zinc mine
that had a natural leeching of minerals into Red Dog
Creek creating a sterile creek actually because of all
of the minerals and actually the riparian edges of
that creek were also devoid of vegetation. Then we
have Fort Knox, Fish Creek right below Fort Knox;
again, the area had been damaged by historic mining,
it was restored by the mine and fish are back, same
thing happened at Red Dog. When the mine began
operation, the water was purified, and the fish
actually came back. Is that allowed to take into
consideration under this initiative, the potential for
actually cleaning up a waterway and restoring fish
resource?
MR. BENKERT replied that Senator Giessel's points were very
legitimate. He asserted that the Fort Knox project has done a
great job of providing on-site mitigation by transforming old
plaster mining operations into a very productive wetland complex
for aquatic vegetation, fish and wildlife. He said Fort Knox is
an example of how to have compensatory mitigation offset
impacts. He noted that Fort Knox is in a resident fish-stream
area that is not an anadromous fish habitat but is a good
example of offsetting impacts to a fish habitat. He concurred
with Senator Giessel that Red Dog Creek was a sterile creek
during the construction of the Red Dog Mine. He confirmed that
Red Dog Creek currently supports a strong run of fish due to the
mine's perpetual water treatment. He noted that the mine had
issues with some of their discharges but pointed out that the
water can support fish populations. He disclosed that Red Dog
Creek could not support fish populations prior to the Red Dog
Mine.
He addressed Senator Giessel's question regarding anadromous
stream mitigation as follows:
The way we read the initiative, even if you could
provide onsite compensatory mitigation, just because
of the statement that if you actually had to remove a
piece of anadromous stream that would probably trigger
denial of the permit because it says you can't
permanently remove or alter an anadromous fish stream;
I don't see the connection between that statement and
providing appropriate on-site compensatory mitigation,
I think the compensatory mitigation part could be
trumped by some of those statements in the other parts
of the initiative.
2:41:14 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what industry, company or agency, applies
for most of the fish-habitat permits that the division grants.
MR. BENKERT answered that the division's largest client is
DOT&PF. He added that the division works closely with the North
Slope producers who have a lot of permits in play.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the division has ever issued a fish-
habitat permit that it regretted. She inquired what the division
would do in a situation that she previously described.
MR. BENKERT answered that the division has conducted enforcement
actions with a cease-and-desist due to noncompliance of permit
provisions and stipulations. He noted that noncompliance in
egregious situations may result in a Class A Misdemeanor.
SENATOR WILSON asked if there are gaps in the current law where
the initiative would make the division's day-to-day operations
easier or better. He noted that Mr. Benkert previously addressed
penalties and asked if he felt that current laws were good as is
or does the initiative bolster current laws.
2:43:55 PM
COMMISSIONER COTTEN commented as follows:
As the chairman noted before the meeting started,
we're really not supposed to voice our opinion as to
the nature or the preference, pro or con, on the
initiative, it's an advocacy position.
SENATOR WILSON asked if Commissioner Cotten believed that there
were gaps in the current law that needed to be repaired.
COMMISSIONER COTTEN replied that "statutory section 871" was
addressed in the last legislative session where rewrite efforts
were made regarding adequacy. He said the department was dealing
with the rewrite and noted that there has been success but
conceded that critics have suggested that it could have been
more restrictive.
SENATOR COGHILL said there were two things that he noticed in
the initiative: description of "anadromous fish habitat" and
"significant adverse effects." He continued as follows:
In section 3 under the "anadromous fish habitat," the
adjacent riparian areas which you said would be kind
of a new authority, it says that it may contribute
indirectly to the spawning, rearing, migration. How
would you see that in kind of the intermittent
seasonal-water runoff? Would that be just a spawning
area only or would that be a vegetation runoff that
might hinder egg spawning or have a biomass that would
be beneficial to the fish? How would you see that as
an adjacent to the spawning area? That's in section 3
and it's under subsection (f) in this chapter,
"anadromous fish habitat means," and then they talk
about "naturally occurring permanently intermittent
seasonal water body," but they also talk about
indirectly affecting spawning, migration, over-
wintering of this anadromous fish, I was just
wondering; would it be runoff? Would it be the fact of
egg hatching? Would it be movement of mud that might
hinder that? How would you see that in an indirect
impact on those fishes from an adjacent water body?
2:46:30 PM
MR. BENKERT answered as follows:
I think that's correct. If you had some kind of an
operation that was discharging large amounts of
sediment from an upland location into the creek, that
would probably also now fall into our jurisdiction.
There's other jurisdictions that are already dealing
with that, DEC has programs that prevents inputted
sediments, there's [inaudible] water prevention
program, also requires them to try to ensure that the
inputted sediment doesn't come from uplands into
anadromous water bodies; again, that would be
something that we would have to further define if this
was to move forward in regulation or some kind of
guidelines that would basically further define what
exactly we would need to do to implement that
particular section.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed significant adverse effects as
follows:
I asked the Department of Law this, it goes to the
"significant adverse effects." The first thing they
say is that the potential for significant adverse
effects that in combination with other factors may
impair or degrade any habitat characteristic, and then
it goes back to the habitat protection standards and
it seems to me like you would have to write a whole
book on what any habitat characteristic would be under
the definitions given under section 2.
MR. BENKERT answered as follows:
That's what it says, I think that the language in the
initiative kind of speaks for itself. We don't have an
opinion on which way that would go, but obviously it
would take an awful lot of thought and effort for us
to grapple with that if the initiative was to move
forward.
2:48:38 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked Mr. Benkert to address the division's
permitting process. He inquired how long do the permits have and
how often are permits renewed.
MR. BENKERT answered that the division typically does not issue
permits longer than five years and that two years was typical.
SENATOR WILSON asked what the percentage was for permit renewal.
MR. BENKERT replied that he would get back to the committee with
information. He noted that the division does a lot of amendments
with DOT&PF to extend expiration dates due to delays to avoid
having to start projects over.
SENATOR WILSON noted that new projects would have to go back if
the initiative passed. He asked if a current permit was amended
if the permit would come under the initiative.
MR. BENKERT explained that the initiative indicates that an
amended permit would have to public notice as well.
2:51:03 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted his discussion earlier in the hearing with the
Alaska Department of Law regarding grandfathered permits. He
asked to verify that Mr. Benkert was saying that if the permits
were to come up for renewal or amended that the permits would
fall under the initiative.
MR. BENKERT answered as follows:
As the Department of Law indicated, Red Dog is a good
example, they are currently planning an expansion of
that facility, they have their current permits, so
they wouldn't be affected by that if they wanted to do
nothing else, but under the initiative if they wanted
to conduct an expansion of the facility they would
need new permits to expand that facility which if this
would pass it would be evaluated under a new
permitting regime under what was required by the
initiative.
CHAIR MEYER thanked ADF&G for enlightening the committee on the
major impact that he said appears would occur to the department
if the initiative passed.
2:52:36 PM
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Juneau, Alaska, commenced the
department's presentation with an overview as follows:
• DOT&PF Mission and Policy:
o Our mission at DOT&PF is to "Keep Alaska moving
through service and infrastructure".
o DOT&PF employs 3,000 Alaskans who collectively
strive to serve all Alaskans and provide them
with efficient and reliable access to goods and
services.
o DOT&PF is committed to environmental stewardship,
we work towards maintaining healthy salmon
populations and maintaining fish habitat as we
accomplish our mission. We want to ensure healthy
populations of salmon for future generations.
• DOT&PF Core Values:
o Integrity: Doing the right thing even when no one
is watching. Doing what you say you are going to
do.
square4 DOT&PF implements commitments made to the
public and agencies with regard to projects
that require work in fish habitat.
o Excellence: Commitment to continually improve.
square4 DOT&PF conducts research, collects
monitoring data, and works with others to
improve our processes to ensure that our
impacts to fish habitat are minimized and
that mitigation efforts are successful.
o Respect: Positive regard for customers,
stakeholders, investors and colleagues.
square4 DOT&PF works with the public, resource
agencies, as well as local governments and
watershed councils during project
development to ensure that impacts to fish
habitat are minimized while still allowing
Alaska's much needed infrastructure to be
developed.
2:53:56 PM
BEN WHITE, Statewide Environmental Program Manager, Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Juneau,
Alaska, addressed his presentation, "Ballot Measure 1-Potential
Impacts to DOT&PF" as follows:
The proposed Ballot Measure 1 Stand for Salmon
Initiative introduces changes to the way that ADF&G
regulates development within fish habitat and modifies
Title 16. This proposal will have a direct impact in
the time and cost it takes a project to be developed
and put into construction.
It is anticipated that this proposal will require an
additional 8 positions within the Department at a
total annual increase of $953,900; this figure does
not consider the services and commodities costs of
each position; e.g., office furniture, phone service,
IT service, computers and other office supplies.
MR. WHITE referenced "DOT&PF Activities in Fish Streams" as
follows:
• There are several ways that DOT&PF projects involve work
within and near fish habitat:
o Culverts (New);
o Culverts (Improvements);
o Culverts (Maintenance);
o Bridges (New);
o Bridges (Replacements);
o Bridges (Maintenance);
o Roadway Embankment Protection (Riprap Armoring);
o Stream Realignments Temporary and Permanent (Airports,
Roadways);
o Mitigation, Restoration, Enhancement (Habitat
creation).
2:56:15 PM
He addressed "The proposed language could restrict or prohibit"
as follows:
• Culverts with inverts;
• Riprap for erosion protection and scour counter-measures;
• Channel maintenance (alluvial systems);
• Temporary construction activities, diversions, and water
use.
He addressed "The presumption that a naturally occurring
'permanent or seasonal water body' is anadromous" as follows:
• Most critical aspect of the proposed changes to current
fish-habitat regulations the assumption of anadromous
fish would lead to extra resource demands for DOT&PF (staff
time, funding, etc.), and project delivery time would
increase.
• Delay in project delivery: The proposed language requires
applicants to prove fish do not exist for all work in
Alaska waters.
• Design for fish passage everywhere: This will require more
technical design time and generally larger hydraulic
structures.
• Example: new scour risk.
MR. WHITE summarized that the initiative will increase the
delivery time of the division's projects. He said one of the
options the department has is to design everything for fish
passage, an option that will require more technical design and
effort. He said the department will have to design large
hydrological structures for passing fish rather than just
passing water. He summarized that larger structures will require
more maintenance and monitoring on a regular schedule.
2:58:38 PM
He addressed the "Use of the term 'significant adverse effect'
and vague terms like 'reasonable period' and 'habitat-dependent
connections'" as follows:
• Under NEPA a "significant adverse effect" would require
either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIP). Currently most of our minor
maintenance projects fall under a Categorical Exclusion
(CEs):
o CE development time: 6-12 months;
o EA development time: 1-3 years;
o EIS development time: up to 5 or more years.
He summarized that the ballot measure has the potential to
increase the amount of time if takes for the department to build
up its environmental document.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if his significant adverse effect overview
was a "term of art" for triggering an environmental assessment.
MR. WHITE answered as follows:
Significant adverse effect as defined in NEPA the act,
we are not allowed to do categorical exclusions on
anything that has a significant impact.
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
So just us putting this in statute would drive you to
an environmental impact study on most anything that
had that kind of an impact?
MR. WHITE answered that there was a potential for it to cause
that.
SENATOR COGHILL replied that he did not know that.
3:00:22 PM
MR. WHITE addressed the "Two-step public notice process" and the
"No timelines established for 'major' fish habitat permits" as
follows:
• Two-step public notice process:
o The proposed language indicates that there are two
public notice steps in the process: the application
and initial determination as well as a draft permit.
• No timelines established for "major" fish-habitat permits:
o Most of the work accomplished by DOT&PF would be
processed under a "major" permit.
o Without established timelines there is uncertainty in
project delivery, and delay causes increased costs or
potential loss of funding.
He addressed "Potential conflict between engineering/safety
requirements and habitat requirements" as follows:
• DOT&PF Engineers are responsible for safeguarding the
traveling public.
• Risks related to scour vulnerability, reduced flood
resiliency, and adverse impacts to adjacent properties
could increase.
3:03:01 PM
He addressed "Reconsideration determinations, automatic denial
if the commissioner fails to make a determination" as follows:
• There is no mention of "good standing" for someone that has
participated in the permit process (public notice).
• Reconsideration determinations will require additional work
from both the applicant and permitting agency.
• Reconsideration determinations result in automatic denial
if there is failure to address.
MR. WHITE summarized that reconsideration determinations creates
uncertainty for the department in project development and is
difficult to build into their construction projects.
He addressed "Mitigation required for all 'significant adverse
effects'" as follows:
• The proposed language now makes mitigation required for all
significant adverse effects.
• The proposed language states that a fish-habitat permit
"may not be granted for an activity that will cause
substantial damage to anadromous fish habitat."
He asserted that the department has done a fairly good job in
creating a lot of fish habitat where there was not fish habitat
before. He disclosed that the department has actively worked
with ADF&G to remove fish-passage-problem culverts.
He addressed "Limitation on mitigation options" as follows:
• The proposed language indicates that permit conditions or
mitigation measures "may not offset the activity's adverse
effects" in another water body or portions of the same
water body. This proposed language requires mitigation to
occur on-site.
• On-site mitigation for airports causes other wildlife
hazards.
He explained that the proposed mitigation language will not
allow for upstream or offsite mitigation, a proposal that will
pose a problem with airport projects regarding runway safety
areas.
3:06:53 PM
He addressed "DOT&PF Public Process" as follows:
• DOT&PF has a robust public process for the development of
our infrastructure projects:
o During initial planning:
square4 Highways: Statewide Transportation Implementation
Plan (STIP).
square4 Aviation: Airport Improvement Plans.
o During project development:
square4 Public Involvement Plans/NEPA.
square4 Public comment periods, meetings, workshops.
o During the permit process:
square4 Public review and comment on permit process.
square4 Section 404/10 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
3:08:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that Mr. White had done a good job of
pointing out that the initiative would create delays,
duplication, and increased cost to the department's projects. He
asked if there were road projects that may not be able to get a
permit under the initiative.
MR. WHITE answered that there may be projects or activities that
are difficult to get a permit for. He continued as follows:
I think at the end of the day we have to get the roads
constructed, we have to get the airports built, and we
will work diligently with our other agencies to do the
mitigation and to make these things happen. I hesitate
to say that the project itself would stop, but I think
there are aspects of the project that we will be
forced to redesign and restructure, so we will have to
use our engineers and get creative and come up with
another alternative.
CHAIR MEYER opined that projects on the Seward, Glenn, and
Sterling highways would be impacted by the initiative.
SENATOR WILSON asked what percentage of the 242 airports that
DOT&PF operates may be affected by the initiative.
MR. WHITE answered that he would have to get back to the
committee with the information.
SENATOR WILSON replied that he just wanted to remind folks that
DOT&PF does more than just roads. He noted that the new
definition in the initiative does not really have boundaries of
where the waterways go and asked what the impact might be on the
Alaska Marine Highway System.
MR. WHITE answered as follows:
We currently have a few projects specifically in
Ketchikan where we are looking at ferry terminal
improvements and there are going to be some situations
where we've got anadromous fish streams and fish
habitat nearby at some of marine terminals, so we
would have to evaluate that to see exactly what the
impact will be.
3:10:42 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if Mr. White could provide the committee
members in the future with a "ballpark number" of construction
projects.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that he appreciated the department
addressing "significant impacts" and how that might affect the
NEPA implementation, something that is important. He continued
as follows:
It's also true that in Alaska almost everything we do
outside of our existing roads is a green-field
operation. I'm thinking in the Fairbanks area we have
actually used some of the roads as flood mitigation
and this would stop any of that I would take it
because if it's going to impact the floodplain,
building a road across it that would probably not
work. So, would that be your take in this particular
situation, this initiative?
MR. WHITE answered that he believed so.
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
My guess is most of the work you do has places where
public comment would generate attention and bring it
to a litigation, so whenever there is tension like
that the clarity of definitions is probably a little
better for you. So, the ambiguity you brought up I
think is going to be important for us to understand
because I think what you've just highlighted was
places where litigation certainly will happen because
of the ambiguity, so I appreciate that.
3:12:28 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed the potential for DOT&PF delays as
follows:
On page 9 you talked about the potential delays in the
projects, extending from 6 months to more than 5
years, but then I look back on page 4 and I don't know
that you actually called out what you estimate the
total annual cost being of approximately $1 million,
you only counted in that the 8 positions it looks like
and what you really outlined here is delays could not
only add cost but possible compromise even grant
funding from the federal government, things like that,
it sounds like $1 million might be a rather
conservative estimate.
MR. WHITE confirmed that the $953,000 was an estimate on just
the amount of positions required to do the work. He said he is
not aware of the department doing a cost analysis from the
impact of project delays.
SENATOR GIESSEL accepted that the cost could be greater, but the
coast has not been quantified. She addressed DOT&PF maintenance
as follows:
You talked about possibly being prohibited from using
ripraps around bridge abutments to protect the bridge,
the road, etcetera. What about road sanding and road
plowing? You go over bridges and over culverts and
snow of course is diverted into those waterways the
culvert passes through, there will be sand in that
snow, certainly some chemicals to decrease icing, it
sounds like those will be implicated as well. Are you
going to have to protect somehow preventing the snow
from falling into that stream? You could have chemical
implications.
3:14:23 PM
MR. WHITE answered that DOT&PF works diligently with ADF&G to
capture sediment that is coming off structures. He said the
final regulation from ADF&G will dictate the total impact to the
department's maintenance and operations crew.
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed riverbank erosion in the Mat-Su Valley
and continued as follows:
I know DOT&PF has to do considerable work to protect
the roads that are there and even homes from flooding,
sounds like this initiative could affect your work in
that realm, certainly if you had to apply for a permit
that could delay it and it may be a moot point by the
time the river erodes. Is that a possible
ramification?
MR. WHITE answered that Senator Giessel's question is a
possibility. He reiterated that the department works diligently
with ADF&G to find a way to streamline the permit process, but
the initiative would have an impact on the way DOT&PF can work
in fish habitat.
SENATOR WILSON concurred with Senator Giessel on the delays of
road projects. He noted that a Mat-Su Valley road project was
delayed one year, and the project increased over $2 million from
the delay. He thanked the commissioners for their culvert work
in the Mat-Su Valley for fish passage but noted that water must
be stopped for a period of time to put the new culverts in and
the initiative would not allow the water to be stopped. He said
he was worried about some of the culvert replacements within the
Mat-Su Valley's streams and roadways. He remarked that the
culvert work that was done to improve the fish habitat and
increase the amount of fish has been wonderful and suggested
that committee members look at the new culverts.
CHAIR MEYER announced that the next department is the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He conceded that all
departments will be impacted by Ballot Measure 1 but remarked
that he anticipated DNR would have the most impact.
3:17:20 PM
ANDREW T. MACK, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, referenced the department's
mission and what the department does as follows:
Our mission: develop, conserve, and maximize the use of
Alaska's natural resources consistent with the public
interest. Public interest is something that is a common
theme that runs through virtually every decision we make
and if you look at the criteria that comes to water
authorizations and land-use plans, the public interest is
always an important question that we answer.
What we do: manage the state's land, water, and mineral
resources on behalf of Alaskans. We have a land portfolio
of 105 million acres and a water portfolio of 45 million
acres, a total of 150 million acres; this is a very
important, perhaps the most important responsibility. We
also have some really important understandings that go
along with our responsibility to all Alaskans, one of the
most important is that we have an important trust
relationship between the State of Alaska and Alaska native
corporations.
COMMISSIONER MACK explained that the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) passage in 1971 entitled 44 million acres
to the native corporations. He noted that implied in ANCSA was
that there would be development, on the North Slope there would
be a pipeline system built, and there also would be an
opportunity for those entities to develop their land; for
example, the development at the Red Dog Mine, a project that now
has the opportunity to extend into state land. He said the
department expects to work cooperatively with the native
corporations that own land in the Red Mine area as well as
looking to the native corporations for their guidance and their
perspective on the initiative issue as well.
3:21:00 PM
He referenced "DNR Roles & Responsibilities" as follows:
• DNR provides for the protection of fish and wildlife
habitat in its land management plans and land and water-use
authorizations/permits.
• DNR manages the use and diversion of water on all lands in
Alaska.
• DNR works with ADF&G and ADEC on specific management plan
guidelines and authorization/permit conditions related to
fish and wildlife resources.
He summarized as follows:
The general gist of our ownership interest is that we
would develop that land for the benefit of Alaskans,
and it is really a forward-meaning statement and it's
a forward-meaning law which indicates that as general
principle we look to develop our lands responsibly.
3:23:01 PM
KYLE MOSELLE, Associate Director, Office of Project Management
and Permitting, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Anchorage, Alaska, referenced "Impact of Initiative on DNR" as
follows:
• The initiative focuses primarily on Title 16 fish-habitat
permits and ADF&G statutory authorities.
• However, if passed into law, the initiative may constrain
DNR statutory authorities to appropriate water (AS 46.15).
• DNR water authorizations/appropriations are used for:
o Transportation projects:
square4 Ice roads to access oil and gas projects;
square4 Airports/docks;
square4 Highways.
o Mining/industrial projects:
square4 Operations and diversions;
square4 Disposal of hard rock and coal mine tailings.
o Pipelines
o Residential/commercial construction projects
o Municipal:
square4 Water and sewer;
square4 Schools and other municipal buildings/projects.
o Many other smaller projects
MR. MOSELLE continued as follows:
When you are talking about water it's everywhere, it's
ubiquitous in our state, but it's held in common under
Title 8 of the Alaska Constitution. DNR manages that
water and we have to determine what is the best use of
that water in our permitting, that's really where the
initiative is going to start to affect what we do
potentially.
3:25:01 PM
He referenced the "DNR Water Authorizations" categories as
follows:
• Reservation of Water:
o The statutory purposes for a reservation include the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration,
and propagation (AS 46.15.145)
• Traditional Water Rights:
o AS 46.15.080 Public Interest Criteria includes:
square4 The effect on fish and game resources and on
public recreational opportunities;
square4 Permit and certificate can include conditions
requiring fish protection.
• Temporary Water Use:
o Must consult with ADF&G and ADEC prior to issuance;
o Includes conditions which protect ecosystems (fish and
wildlife).
He addressed "Large Project Coordination" as follows:
• The DNR Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)
may coordinate the review of larger scale projects in the
state, such as transportation, oil and gas, mining, and
alternative energy projects.
• OPMP facilitates multidisciplinary agency teams to review
project plans and inform individual agency decisions.
MR. MOSELLE emphasized that the initiative only modifies the
authorities of ADF&G in Title 16 with fish-habitat permits and
continued as follows:
When you are talking about a larger project or a
complex project, hopefully what the committee is
starting to see now that we are three or four
presentations in here is that a relatively simple
activity, let's say a culvert, it's not just a single
permit, it's a fish-habitat permit, it's a temporary
water-use authorization to temporarily divert the
stream so that the culvert can be installed, so it's
multiple permits. When you start to scale that up to a
dam project that would impound water, yes it requires
a fish-habitat permit which would be affected by the
changes that the initiative proposes and the
authorities of Fish and Game, but then there are also
other agencies, DNR has to consider a certificate to
construct that dam, to operate that dam, it's a
jurisdictional dam under DNR's authorities as well.
So, you start to have overlapping jurisdictions, but
to be clear the initiative only amends or modifies the
authorities of Fish and Game, so it's Title 16.
In our presentation and in the affidavit submitted by
Mr. Dave Schade, [Chief of the Water Resources
Section, Alaska Department of Natural Resources],
there is this consideration though of does that allow
DNR to consider the best use of that water if the
activity is unable to be approved by Fish and Game.
3:28:31 PM
He referenced a diagram on the inter-agency coordination that
demonstrated the extensive coordination between state and
federal agencies for a large mine project:
• Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
• Alaska Department of Revenue,
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
• Alaska Department of Health and Social Services,
• Alaska Department of Law,
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
3:30:46 PM
CHAIR MEYER commented on resource development as follows:
As you know, a lot of times projects are started and
then they expand as they go forward with their
production or their mining.
If a project is permitted now and they want to expand,
it's my understanding that they would have to fall
under the new initiative if they want to expand that
project. Is that your understanding as well?
MR. MOSELLE answered that Chair Meyer's observation and query
would essentially be his understanding. He explained that
authorizations by all agencies define the scope of the activity
that can occur. He specified that an expansion of scope
currently approved would require a minimum of an amendment of
current approvals, if not a new permit entirely.
CHAIR MEYER noted all the streams that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS) had to go over. He asked how the governor's
proposed gas pipeline through the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC) would get permitted under the initiative.
COMMISSIONER MACK answered that he believed AGDC is on record
saying that the initiative would make it nearly impossible to
permit the proposed gas pipeline.
3:33:02 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
As I recall, AGDC has commented that they cross over
600-stream crossings and we've heard how difficult it
is for DOT&PF to protect those banks. I know that TAPS
actually has bridges that carry that pipeline and so I
would assume the gas pipeline would have something
similar.
She addressed the inter-agency diagram and noted the public
notice requirements. She asked how long the public comment
periods are and if the comment periods occur simultaneously or
in sequence.
MR. MOSELLE noted that the inter-agency diagram's key references
as follows:
• Formal authorization;
• Advisory role;
• Public notice required;
• Courtesy public notice.
MR. MOSELLE detailed that the diagram shows when public notice
is required by statute or regulation for an authorization. He
noted that each permit has different governing statutes and
regulations. He said public notices are variable, but most are
30 days.
He noted that the diagram shows that fish habitat does not have
a requirement for public notice; however, the initiative does
require a public notice that is multi-tiered, a requirement that
is more complicated than what is indicated in the diagram.
He pointed out that the diagram references coordination for a
major mining project with an assumption that the fish-habitat
permit would be a major fish-habitat permit that would fall
under the public notice requirements outlined in the initiative.
3:35:57 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked to clarify that present public notice is a
30-day period in which the public can comment by submitting
their comments to the various departments.
MR. MOSELLE replied that he would have to refer back to the
initiative.
SENATOR GIESSEL responded that she was addressing present public
notice and noted that the department presently has public
notice.
MR. MOSELLE answered as follows:
For example, the waste management permit, there is a
public notice requirement in DEC's statutory
authorities, I don't know it off the top of my head.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether DEC accepts public comment.
MR. MOSELLE answered yes, public comment is accepted for the
waste-management permit process.
SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows:
What I'm trying to establish is do we accept public
comment now for permits or authorizations or would
this be a whole new thing we've never allowed public
comment before?
MR. MOSELLE referenced the inter-agency diagram and answered
that the departmental activities noted within red boxes accepts
public comment as part of the public notice.
SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows
Many of the departments who have spoken so far have
pointed out that they would have to be writing new
regulations. Regulatory projects that come out of
departments also have a public notice which allows a
30 day, generally, public comment period and actually
I believe if I'm not mistaken, those departments have
to take into consideration that public comment before
they actually solidify those regulations. Is that also
your understanding?
3:37:24 PM
MR. MOSELLE concurred with Senator Giessel.
SENATOR GIESSEL explained that her intent is to understand the
current public comment process where citizens can speak up and
participate in the process. She noted that she mentioned earlier
that an area in her district must use water tenders to haul
water for fighting fires. She referenced Mr. Moselle's
presentation on "DNR Water Authorizations:"
• Reservation of Water:
o The statutory purposes for a reservation include the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration,
and propagation (AS 46.15.145)
• Traditional Water Rights:
o AS 46.15.080 Public Interest Criteria includes:
square4 The effect on fish and game resources and on
public recreational opportunities;
square4 Permit and certificate can include conditions
requiring fish protection.
• Temporary Water Use:
o Must consult with ADF&G and ADEC prior to issuance;
o Includes conditions which protect ecosystems (fish and
wildlife).
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that the water tenders she previously
referenced would fall under the "public interest criteria" for
"traditional water rights." She continued as follows:
I'm not sure where these tenders can withdraw water
from water bodies that are nearby. Is there
authorization required now? Would it become more
complicated with the initiative?
MR. MOSELLE replied as follows:
I'm not familiar with that specific example that you
are asking about but in general terms, yes, if
somebody or an entity or individual is using water on
a sustained basis they would need a water right and in
the statute cited there, there is some thresholds
identified, so if it's over a certain gallon-per-day-
type use then it moves you from a temporary water use
to a water right needing. Generally speaking, yes,
water for somebody's well system or collecting water
from any surface waterbody for use in their home, that
would be a water use that you would need to have a
right for if you are over the limits that are
identified in the statute.
The second part of your question was how might that
change with the passage of the initiative and I will
read a statement from Mr. Dave Schade's affidavit that
speaks to that, he concludes in his testimony that,
"Enactment of 17FSH2 would deprive the Department of
Natural Resources of authority to determine that the
use of anadromous fish habitat as defined in the
initiative would best serve the public interest by use
for many large projects such as mines, dams and
pipelines." So, I think that he is speaking about
water use there and the department's need to define
the public interest and the best use of that water as
part of our appropriations process and he's concluding
that the enactment of that would deprive the
department of the ability to do that.
3:40:41 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed TAPS and noted that Alyeska Pipeline
has 60 to 80 permits a year to continue operating TAPS regarding
crossing water bodies and going through riparian areas. She
asked how the initiative would affect Alyeska's permit renewals.
She pointed out that grandfathering is not permanent.
MR. MOSELLE answered as follows:
I think generally speaking, any long-linear project is
going to face challenges with the ability to maintain
their fish-habitat permits and the example you are
giving is an existing permitted activity that might
require maintenance or might require adjustment in
scope of their activities, and as you've heard
previously in testimony that those would be amendments
to or revisions of their current fish-habitat permits
and so I would expect those to then fall under
provisions of the new law if this were to pass.
3:42:11 PM
COMMISSIONER MACK commented as follows:
One of things that we've tried to evaluate but has
been difficult to understand the implications is in
the case of an existing pipeline and TAPS is the most
notable example, but all across the North Slope and in
Cook Inlet there are hundreds of pipelines that are
common-carrier pipelines and they all fall under the
State Pipeline Coordinator's Office which is part of
DNR, and most of them have long existing right-of-ways
that have been established and we've been trying to
assess what access are to those rights because even
though sometimes they are 50-year easements or 50-year
right-of-ways, they do expire and then they have to be
renewed and in many cases there is a review of the
right-of-way and what the terms are and it's very
difficult for us because we've not been able to pin
point the impact on the renewals of existing
pipelines.
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
In reading the initiative it looks to me like the
commissioner of Fish and Game is prohibited from
issuing a permit unless you come up with a mitigation
plan because it says, "Major commit to an applicant
may be made only if," and then it gives 5 conditions
and one of those conditions is the mitigation issue
which it looks to me like the permit conditions and
mitigation measures have about 14 different criteria
including even the use of "overburden" which I think
would probably, if they're not even allowed to issue a
permit if "overburdened" is used at all anywhere near
a possible impact of a stream or a water body that
could impact the stream, sounds to me like the
"overburden" issue would be the key point that would
say, "The issue cannot be permitted under this
proposal." Is that the way you read it? The section
I'm looking at is "section 885" which is under (e),
"The commissioner may issue a major commit to an
applicant only if," and then it gives the 5
conditions, one of those conditions is the mitigation
measures, not withstanding the other measures, and the
mitigation measures have about 14 different criteria,
"overburden" being one of them.
3:45:06 PM
COMMISSIONER MACK answered as follows:
It's a very important question because overburden in
Alaska is almost the first issue that you deal with
when you open up a materials site, when you want to
engage in plaster mining, if you want to build some
sort of larger scale process. People do forget though
on the North Slope the first thing you have to do when
you build facilities is remove the overburden, then
you get to business of getting a pour permit which
allows you to place spill, gravel on the tundra, and
then you start building additional parts of your
project.
So, I would agree with your interpretation of this,
Senator Coghill, in that not allowing offsite
mitigation and not allowing somebody to mitigate their
project in different ways, in creative ways, will
limit the ability of an applicant in all of those
settings, materials site, DOT, or it could be a
private landowner who wants to exploit the gravel-
mineral resource I mentioned. Alaska native
corporations in many cases, they are a gravel owner
and they are providing material to build community
infrastructure, roads and playgrounds. Plaster miners
who are small mom-and-pop operations to larger. Look
at Fort Knox for instance which just had some really
fantastic news where they now have a clear path to
extend the life of that mine past 2030, they continue
to employ 600 from Fairbanks, the average wage is
$100000 a year, the first thing they will have to do
into that new area is to deal with the overburden
issues, it makes it very, very difficult for them, and
there are many settings where this takes place.
3:47:13 PM
SENATOR COGHILL claimed that the issue turns into an exclusive
right question, which is a constitutional question. He
referenced Article 8, Section 13 regarding water rights for fish
and water, and read the following:
All surface and subsurface waters reserved for the
people for common use except mineral and medicinal
waters are subject to appropriation. Priority of
appropriation shall give prior right, except for
public water, supply and appropriation of water shall
be limited to stated purposes and subject to
preferences among beneficial uses, not exclusive uses,
concurrent or otherwise as prescribed by law and to
the general reservation of fish and wildlife.
He commented as follows:
So, we are supposed to protect our fish and wildlife,
but it's not exclusive and I think that is one of the
things that we need to continually remind ourselves of
is it's a balance between what in our constitution
says we are supposed to be able to do "mineral;" in
fact, it says, "The policy is encouraged settlement of
its land and development of its resources." So, that
is the balance we are continually trying to catch and
I think those people who brought this initiative
forward have one view in mind and that is an exclusive
right and it just appears to me as we go through this
law that's exactly what they want to do, and I don't
blame them, fish are very important, but not
exclusively important, they are just very important. I
think we've done a pretty good job of it and I just
wanted to make the point that if you can't get a
permit to use water in Alaska because if anything from
the overburden to this NEPA process which would be
devised by significant impacts then it becomes an
exclusive right and I think that would be the
challenge we would have to go forward on.
3:49:29 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that a lot of Alaskan communities like Juneau
have hydro as their main source of energy and noted previous
testimony that doing a major hydro project under the initiative
might be impossible. He asked if repairs, modifications or
expansions to existing hydro projects would fall under the
initiative.
COMMISSIONER MACK asked to go back to Senator Coghill. He
referenced Mr. Schade's affidavit, [Chief of the Water Resources
Section, Alaska Department of Natural Resources], regarding the
issue of water-rights permits that says the following:
Will issue a water-right permit if not unduly affected
the right of prior appropriated proposed means of
diversion of construction are adequate, proposed use
of water has been official and proposed appropriation
is in the public interest.
He noted that the previous statement was a statutory public
definition. He continued to address the criteria for "public
interest" as defined in AS 46.15.080 (b) as follows:
Sec. 46.15.080 (b), criteria for issuance of permit,
in determining the public interest, the commissioner
shall consider:
(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from
the proposed appropriation;
(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting
from the proposed appropriation;
(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on
public recreational opportunities;
(4) the effect on public health;
(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water
that might be made within a reasonable time if not
precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;
(6) harm to other persons resulting from the
proposed appropriation;
(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to
complete the appropriation;
(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public
water.
COMMISSIONER MACK continued as follows:
My point in reading these eight criteria that are laid
out in statute is to say that we've thought about
these things, the Legislature has put those words on a
piece of paper, we take them very seriously and we
considered those issues, and it is a very difficult
process, and we as a state have the ability to make
determinations and when we see concerns being
expressed we can highlight those concerns. When we see
a project where we can safely mitigate and the vast
majority of the projects we see are well within that
category, many of them mentioned here today, we can
move forward with those decisions, but public interest
is well covered in statute and it is a balance between
our appropriating the water and a whole list of
criteria laid out in the affidavit.
3:52:16 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if existing hydro projects that require
modifications, changes or repairs would fall under the
initiative. He inquired if the department has heard from
communities regarding the impact from the initiative, even
villages that need to replace culverts.
MR. MOSELLE replied as follows:
I think it is similar to the questions that have been
asked about an existing project that then would come
under the purview of the new law if the initiative
were to pass. I think the answer remains the same that
if the action expands beyond the scope of what is
currently permitted it's the understanding that the
law would be under the purview of the law to review
those expansions under an amendment for the fish-
habitat permit. So, if the activity required a fish-
habitat permit and currently has one and they expand
the scope of their activity they would need to go back
to the department for an amended or new fish-habitat
permit if the law is the initiative at that point that
would be the law that ADF&G would have to follow to
adjudicate that.
CHAIR MEYER reiterated that his question was if Mr. Moselle
believed that the communities and municipalities know what
impact the initiative would have on the projects he previously
noted.
MR. MOSELLE replied that he did not have the information that
Chair Meyer requested.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that the communities and municipalities are
not asking.
3:54:18 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked what the difference was in the Title 46 and
Title 16, and if the new initiative changes Title 16. He
continued as follows:
Right now, DNR has the authority under sort of the
docks or some of the highways and airports. How does
that change? What is the trigger point for them to
comply with the new Title 16 changes which sort of has
[inaudible] authorities in Title 46?
COMMISSIONER MACK replied as follows:
I think there's really a greater issue at play and
here is the issue, we have an obligation as a state to
responsibly develop our resources. We take very
seriously our obligation to make sure that the
resources we were given access to at statehood are
developed, and if there's another agency which
frustrates or bars our ability as a resource state to
continue to maximize the value of those resources,
then we have in my mind colliding authorities and
those colliding authorities could have a significant
impact on Alaska.
To try to answer how long it will take to put together
a "reg" package, I don't know. The "regs" would be at
the Department of Fish and Game, we would be looking
at this and evaluating all of the permutations. We
would be trying to answer questions about rights-of-
ways and things like that, but at its core if the DNR
is not meeting its mandate and we are not leasing
property or companies to go and explore for oil, if we
cannot for instance move in and get the permits that
we need to develop or explore then ultimately develop
[ANWR 1002 Area], then I have some serious concerns
about that area right now based on this, then we
really have to sit down and think hard about what we
are doing as a state.
3:56:46 PM
CHAIR MEYER stated that he appreciated all four commissioners
being at the committee meeting. He said he did not recall the
Senate State Affairs committee having four commissioners at one
of its hearings. He opined that the appearance of the four
commissioners show the importance of the initiative to the
administration and to the State of Alaska.
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
What is also striking, and I appreciate the
highlighting, how these departments work together and
have been working together collaboratively to make
sure everybody is doing their part to protect all our
resources, most effectively fish.
3:58:05 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview of the
department's duties as follows:
DEC's duties and authorities to set water quality
standards and to issue permits authorizing the
discharge of waste water into the waters of the state
are found in Title 46 of the Alaska statutes, and
similar to the testimony you heard from DNR, even
though the initiative wouldn't change provisions in
Title 46, it's limited to certain provisions in Title
16, it would however affect DEC's exercise of its
duties under Title 46, and it could do these in ways
that would also impact our operating budget as
detailed in the cost statement that we prepared for
the initiative.
We understand that the committee of course is also
interested in what potential cost impacts the
initiative might have on our permittees so people who
have waste water discharge permits from us, that's
harder for us to estimate for several reasons. First,
it could impact people that get permits in the future,
we can't really forecast who might come in for a
permit, what their project might look like, what the
requirements of that permit might look like. Second,
it could impact people who have permits now. Our waste
water discharge permits have a life of five years,
typically, they come up for renewal every five years
and so when that permit comes up through renewal
similar to DNR's testimony, we would be applying the
current law in looking at the renewal of that permit,
and if the initiative passed we would look at what new
requirements might have to be put into that permit as
a result of the initiative provisions and that could
then impact permittees and they would have to either
perhaps adjust their discharge or add treatment or
something like that.
So, we don't have a detailed cost estimate or cost
estimates for that, but in our testimony, we will try
to describe some circumstances where that could arise.
4:00:38 PM
ANDREW SAYERS-FAY, Director, Division of Water, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska,
commented on how Ballot Measure 1 will affect departmental
activities as follows:
In making the connection to how this initiative will
affect activities that DEC is responsible for and then
for people who apply for permits or authorizations
from DEC, the main connection is through the
connection with or water quality standards and fish
protection, and then that plays out with this
authorization. So, I will start with a description of
our water quality standards to give you that
background.
He addressed page 2 in his presentation, "Alaska Water Quality
Standards (WQS)" as follows:
• Protect public health and the environment through:
o Designation and protection of water uses, such as
growth and propagation of aquatic life;
o Establishing acceptable levels of pollutants (known as
water quality criteria);
o Enhanced review for high quality waters.
• Set through a public process with review by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• EPA leads consultation on endangered species, fisheries
issues under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and with tribes.
• Used to prevent polluted water, identify polluted waters,
and recognize clean water.
• Identified at 18 AAC 70.
4:04:22 PM
MR. SAYERS-FAY addressed page 3, "National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Framework" as follows:
• Clean Water Act & Amendments:
o Established the NPDES Program (Section 402):
square4 Point sources of wastewater discharging
pollutants into waters of the United States
require a NPDES permit.
o Authorization of State Programs.
He addressed page 4, "Primacy Transfer and APDES Framework" as
follows:
• The State's wastewater discharge program under the Clean
Water Act is called the Alaska Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (APDES) Program.
• Statutory authority is provided in Alaska Statute 46.03.
• Implementing regulations are provided in 18 AAC 83.
He addressed page 5, "APDES Permit Development Process" as
follows:
• Receive complete permit application.
• Evaluate potential impacts to receiving water quality from
the proposed wastewater discharge:
o Consider pollutants, flow, seasonality, and fish
presence;
o For discharges to freshwater, review ADF&G's
Anadromous Waters Catalog to determine if the
waterbody is listed:
square4 Consult with ADF&G and applicant on spawning
determination if discharge is to an anadromous
waterbody.
He addressed page 6, "Fish Spawning Determination-Impacts" as
follows:
• In fish spawning areas, wastewater discharge not eligible
for mixing zone per Alaska water quality standards:
o Mixing zone is a limited area in the waterbody where
wastewater is allowed to mix with the ambient water
before meeting water quality criteria.
• Without a mixing zone, state water quality criteria must be
met at end of discharge pipe.
MR. SAYERS-FAY referenced a diagram on page 6 that provided an
example of mixing zones for aquatic life in a lake. He explained
that the diagram showed the outfall from a discharge pipe had
two areas, the noted initial "Acute Aquatic Life Criteria Met,"
and the "Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria Met" and detailed the
requirements for the two mixing areas.
He summarized that whatever is discharged for the pipe that
exceeds the water quality criteria as it goes into the water
must mix rapidly and appropriately so that it is not going to
have an effect on the water bodies.
4:08:14 PM
He continued as follows:
The key significance of this initiative is that
there's a connection between our water quality
standards which say we can't authorize a mixing zone
if it's a spawning area and our reliance on the
anadromous water catalog to say is this an anadromous
water therefore you can't have a mixing zone and the
applicant will have to do more work to clean up what
they are discharging and the significance of the
potential implications for them later, but that's the
issue.
Earlier there was a discussion about potential
overlapping authorities between some of the agencies
that were here today. DEC is setting standards for the
water quality. DNR is setting standards and
requirements if you want to take water out or use it
and they obviously want to do that in a manner that
does not affect water qualities today, but ADF&G may
notify DEC; and ADF&G obviously has the fish
protection prospective and , in fact and they have
much more expertise in that, so that is why DEC is
relying upon them.
So, a change to how ADF&G operates saying under this
initiative that all waters are anadromous means that
essentially all waters can no longer have mixing zones
from DEC's prospective for this water permit.
He addressed page 7, "Standard Provision in an APDES Permit" and
referenced as follows:
• Permit is a legal document like a contract.
• Limitations (numeric and narrative) on discharge.
• Best management practices or operational plans.
• Monitoring and record keeping requirements.
• Reporting under penalty of perjury.
• Standard conditions:
o Duty to comply,
o Duty to allow DEC on-site for inspections.
MR. SAYERS-FAY referenced page 8, "APDES Permit Document
Reviews" as follows:
• Preliminary draft permit shared with permittee and state &
federal agencies for 10-day review period.
• Draft permit and supporting documents are public noticed
for a minimum of 30-days:
o Major permits are public noticed in a newspaper of
local circulation;
o Public meetings and hearings may occur.
• Proposed final permit shared with permittee and state &
federal agencies for 5-day review prior to issuance.
He referenced page 9, "APDES Permit Issuance and Administrative
Appeal" as follows:
• Wastewater discharge permit issued for a term up to five
years.
• Upon issuance, permits may be administratively or
judicially appealed.
4:11:21 PM
He referenced page 10, "Compliance with APDES Permits" as
follows:
• During the permit term, DEC will periodically:
o Inspect the treatment facility and discharge site;
o Review on-site records and submitted monitoring
reports.
o Permittees are required to timely notify DEC of
noncompliance events that potentially threatens public
health or the environment.
o DEC can reopen, modify or terminate a permit.
He referenced page 11, "Fiscal Impacts to DEC Relating to the
Potential Passage of 17FSH2" as follows:
• Rebuttable presumption that all waters in Alaska are
anadromous, and therefore no mixing zone per State water
quality standards (WQS).
• DEC statutorily required to review all existing permits
with mixing zones in freshwater.
• For new systems, or at renewal for existing, would need to
meet water quality standards at the end of discharge pipe:
o Increased complexity for engineering plan review;
o More stringent permit limits.
• Cost statement includes a new permit writer and new
engineer.
4:14:02 PM
MR. SAYERS-FAY commented as follows:
One of the key questions about the initiative is its
unknown right now what kind of schedule we could allow
for an existing facility to come into compliance and
we would have to consult with the attorney general on
things like that.
For a new project if they are not one that is going to
startup right away, if they are a year or two down the
road with statutory requirements that change, they
have some opportunity to work with ADF&G, see if they
can get a site-specific review, it may or may not
really be anadromous, there might be time to do that.
If they are a new project that is an immediate need
then they are just going to have to assume that it is
anadromous and that's going to affect them in the cost
and design of their project.
We don't have a sense right now as to what ADF&G's
process would be. Proving the negative that there's
never anadromous fish there is much harder than going
out to see if they do occur, so that's something they
would have to develop. We don't know whether we have
the discretion on a renewal to delay and allow ADF&G
to do a proper analysis which DOT talked about, it
takes several years, those two-time frames might not
[inaudible].
As a result, most applicants either new or if they are
up for renewal is probably going to have to assume
that they now need to meet water quality standards at
the end of the pipe, and for a lot industries that's a
very dramatic change of how business is operated right
now and that would have a cost for them and that would
have time for them to investigate how that would
occur.
4:15:49 PM
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Hughes called in a question
regarding how often water-sewer facilities must be renewed. He
recalled that renewal was typically five years and a renewal
that came up after the new initiative passed would have to meet
the new initiative's standards.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER asked Mr. Sayers-Fay to address private homes that
are not on public-water systems and rely on septic tanks. He
asked if the new initiative would affect private homes with
septic tanks that can leech into the ground.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that there is a subset of private homes
with septic tanks that could be affected by the initiative. He
specified that the most immediate effect would be if the private
home had a direct discharge to a surface-water body and that
would come under the APDES program; a domestic home that has a
septic tank would not have that kind of coverage, so that home
would not be affected. He continued as follows:
What could come up would be is if you have, and there
are a lot of areas in the state where there's a lot of
connection between shallow ground water and surface
water bodies, and if there is some measured impairment
in that water body, that is the type of contaminants
that would be in the septic system, and if that
particular contaminant is something that ADF&G is
concerned about for anadromous fish habitat
protection, I think that the language in the
initiative would cause ADF&G to take a broader look at
those types of issues and it might lead to saying, "We
can't have anymore added to this potential problem of
septic systems in a shallow groundwater system that
seems to be having [inaudible] about it." So, I would
say it would be a much smaller universe, but the
potential is there.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the initiative could affect landfills.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that some landfills could be affected by
the initiative and detailed as follows:
Landfills have a different series of permits. The
Division of Water does issue solid waste permits in
relationship to mines. There's a different division
that deals with your more typical landfill operation,
but if that landfill operation, as many do, have a
leachate collection system where water is percolating
through the landfill if it's not lined and that water
is collected and then has a discharge to a surface
waterbody, they would need an APDES permit and so they
could become affected by this initiative.
4:18:41 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that the initiative has a broad reach.
SENATOR WILSON noted that there are a couple of waterways in the
Mat-Su Valley where people are arguing about water quality due
to septic tanks. He asked how many mix-water-zone entities there
are that have permits currently in the state.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that he would have to get back on the
exact number. He noted an earlier question regarding septic
systems and reiterated that septic systems would not have mixing
zones.
SENATOR WILSON asked how the initiative would affect the cruise
ships' water discharge.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered as follows:
Our understanding of the initiative, and it's subject
to going back and reading the language because it is
fairly broad, is that it is intended to apply to fresh
waters and so that would not affect the cruise ships
operating in marine waters; but, the language of the
initiative is, there is brackish waters when you have
that transition and if you are in a port and you a
stream coming in and things we would have to double
check just to make sure that is the case.
SENATOR WILSON replied as follows:
But if the language is broad enough as the Department
of Law said that there is no determination of how far
in the termination of the water definitions and that
could be so that cruise ships could be potentially
stopped from discharging waste water within Alaska
waterways, all Alaska waterways.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered as follows:
My recollection is the references that I'm referring
to under the water-quality standards about the mixing
zones are specifically for freshwater environment,
that's where we are referring back to saying that you
cannot have a mixing zone in a spawning area and so we
don't have the same kind of language in the marine
environment and I can double-check that. So, although
the [Department of Law] has said the initiative's
scope may be marine waters, it's the scope of our
water quality standards that makes the intersection
with the initiative and so I think that's different.
4:21:17 PM
SENATOR COGHILL addressed rainwater discharge as follows:
One of the things we have done over the last number of
years is rain water discharge, mitigation improvements
and up in the Interior all of water runs off into the
Chena or the Tanana River, but we've done quite a bit
of work on trying to make sure that sediment and other
things are taken care of. How would this impact that
because I have four or five streams that would be
impacted by any rainwater discharge and those have
some impact, and this just raises a question from me,
it will impact fish probably, minimally, but I know
that we've gone through quite a process on doing that.
Are we gauged by city size? Are we gauged by economic
capacity on rain water discharge?
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered as follows:
There are a couple of elements to the answer, first of
all, ADF&G within the language of the initiative would
have a pretty broad requirement to consider whether
that is causing any impact, so their fish-habitat
permits may very well come into play there.
For DEC, there's a distinction in the Clean Water Act
between what is called non-point sources and point
sources, so in a simple way if you have a water
treatment facility with a pipe coming out, you can
think of that as a point source, but the boundaries
are blurred, so if you have a construction site
because that's a human activity that you have control
over during the building site and you have the ability
to manage the water runoff, that is actually
considered a point source, though when you consider
all of the rain flowing off of people's rooftop
houses, that's considered a non-point source. For our
water-quality standards for the type of permit you
would need where the mixing zone question comes up,
that would only be for a point source. So, in general
that would not occur, but there are, when you get to,
as you alluded to, when you get to a certain size of a
community, so Anchorage and Fairbanks you would have
what is called a municipal-stormwater-separate-sewer
system, you end up sort of at a scale that is deemed
to be that you can have enough influence on the
discharge of things like stormwater, so then you do
need a permit and then it would be subject to whether
or not you would have a mixing zone.
4:24:00 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
You take for example Nenana, which I grew up in, we
are not going to be a municipal although they have a
water system, they don't have the discharge system, or
Tanana or Fort Yukon. We live right on the streams of
migrating fish and the impacts would be something. I
would think that small communities might want to be
aware of what they do from dumping snow into the river
to rainwater run-off, or irrigation ditches for small
farms, things like that. I just think that the
presumption creates a huge definition problem.
SENATOR GIESSEL referenced slides 9 and 10 in the DEC
presentation. She noted that on slide 9, "APDES Permit Issuance
and Administrative Appeal," and specified that the bullet point,
"Upon issuance, permits may be administratively or judicially
appealed." She asked Mr. Sayers-Fay to explain what the previous
statement meant and to confirm that the statement was what was
presently being done by DEC.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered yes and explained as follows:
There are a number of public-comment periods of
different lengths where different people are allowed
to comment at that stage in the process, but by the
time you get to issuance, if you've been participating
in that public process there are two opportunities for
you to appeal the decision. There is an informal
appeal to the director of the division, which in this
case is myself. There is also a more formal appeal
process to the commissioner of the department, which
would be Commissioner Hartig, but there is a question
of standing and so you have to have raised the issue
that you feel was not adequately addressed and in the
permit you would have to have commented on that
through the process and you have to have participated,
then depending on which path you are on there's
different regulations about the timing and how that is
resolved. If it is at the formal level the
commissioner can make a determination as to whether or
not things like it gets sent back to the division for
adjustment or there's an adjudicatory hearing on the
topic or there's a decision about, "Four issues were
raised and two issues were not previously raised so
they are not pertinent, one not appropriate, but one
still needs to be resolved," so it can go a number of
different directions.
4:26:39 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows:
What I'm wanting to call out here is the fact that
there actually is lots of opportunity for the public
to engage in this permitting process. So then as I
look at slide 10, the last bullet says, "DEC can
reopen, modify or terminate a permit." So, it sounds
like what you are saying on this slide is that you
continue to monitor and inspect, and if there's
violations you take action. Is that accurate?
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered as follows:
Yes, that is accurate. We often refer to what we call
an escalating enforcement response, we would start
with compliance assistance, we would help put their
documents in order, make sure that they understand
that we take a sample to see if it's not contaminated
so that we understand the result is accurate, all the
way up to pursuing civil penalties and other things,
and or going through some of these items that are
mentioned in the last bullet about reopening,
modifying the permit, and there are formal steps to
that and opportunities for the public to comment if we
are changing a permit.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that DEC is constantly updating their
regulations pertaining to fish and protecting fish. He noted
that he had heard that the state is using regulations that are
over 60 years old and asked for Mr. Sayers-Fay to comment.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered as follows:
I think it is a better question for ADF&G but one
thing I will mention is that through the Clean Water
Act various new information comes up about what is an
appropriate water quality criteria and EPA is
constantly issuing recommended criteria and then
states have a period of time in which to review and
figure out how they are going to apply that in their
state and if they don't act within a certain window
then EPA can come in. So, revisions to the water
quality standards either to protect human health or
other uses beyond fish or for fish, they do get
updated over time.
4:28:55 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked to address representatives from ADF&G. He
noted that the fish-habitat rules have not been updated for a
long time and that was the reason for the initiative. He pointed
out that during the meeting the fish-habitat's rules were noted
as having been strengthened on an ongoing basis. He asked ADF&G
to confirm his previous statement.
MR. BENKERT answered as follows:
Yes, although [AS 16.05.871] hasn't changed since 1962
it's not like we are permitting the same way that we
were in 1962. We've continuously evolved our process
over the years, some examples of that are I mentioned
blasting, we just blew up the Eklutna Dam. We have
sent folks out in the field, our Juneau office has
done a really good job of developing new blasting
standards up to modern standards, they went out and
measured a bunch of blasts, they developed a new
criteria as to what is allowable so that we can
protect incubating eggs and juvenile fish in a water
body so there are certain distances and it's a fairly
technical thing but that was recently updated and
that's a new standard that we utilize to inform our
permitting decisions.
Another good example is working with [DOT&PF], we have
an MOU with them for culvert designs, that MOU is a
little bit old now, but we are currently updating that
MOU to modern standards; those are the types of things
that we've developed to help inform our permitting
decisions utilizing the best available information and
the most modern information possible. We have lots of
technical reports, we go out there and conduct
research to determine what impacts are, we've done
research on impacts of plaster mining for instance, we
go out and look at the turbidity plume coming out of a
plaster-mining operation, how it also kind of feeds
into the DEC presentation where we see how far down
that turbidity plume goes and see how much it impacts
anadromous fish or even resident fish. Anadromous fish
streams they supposed to have zero discharge, but
those are just some examples. We also have working
guidelines that we use for our permitters to help
inform their permitting decisions, so it's kind of our
manual as to how we go about issuing permits on
certain situations.
So, it's an ever-evolving thing, when we get new
information, we try to incorporate that into our
working guidelines so that we are meeting the most
modern standards that are available. We are looking
all of the time to improve the process and obviously
we do not permit today the same way we did in 1962, we
take a lot more things into consideration as the
knowledge in the field continues to develop.
4:32:28 PM
CHAIR MEYER remarked that salmon is very important in Alaska and
is something that ADF&G takes very seriously, as everyone does.
He asked if ADF&G considered Alaska as a leader as it pertains
to fish and habitat management.
MR. BENKERT answered yes. He provided examples of the
department's use of Pacific Northwest and worldwide research
that is used in Alaska's projects. He added that the previously
noted culvert assessment program is an example of a
collaborative effort with federal and state agencies for fish
passage in the Mat-Su Valley.
CHAIR MEYER reiterated that the committee's meeting is unusual
where four commissioners are in attendance and commented as
follows:
I think we are realizing how important this initiative
is, not only to the state but our municipalities,
villages and homes, perhaps.
He asked committee members for their closing statements.
4:35:50 PM
SENATOR WILSON commented as follows:
This topic has sort of opened up sort of the large
impact it has for a lot of industries, a lot of folks
just think it is oil and gas, mining type of piece of
legislation but it really affects what I see as sort
of local municipalities, airlines, housing
developments, harbors, tourism, highway projects, and
fish improvement projects, and this is just a wide
spanning ballot initiative that I hope folks take a
closer look at overall together.
4:36:32 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
One of the things that a lot of times we hear from the
public is "Oh, state government, those people don't
know what they are doing," I think today we really saw
an example of some very knowledgeable commissioners
but frankly, some even more knowledgeable division
directors and specialists in their departments who
really know these subject and are working hard to make
Alaska's standards the highest in the U.S. I just want
to thank all of you for your hard work. Commissioner
Hartig of course has been in his position for coming
on 10 years, pretty impressive, certainly gathered a
lot of knowledge in those years. So, I just want to
thank all of the commissioners and division directors
and folks that spoke today.
4:37:20 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
One of the things that we found out today was there's
a lot of breadth or broadness in this initiative and
ambiguity in some of the definitions, that is a place
that the courts will end up having to define because
it will be two years before we can even look at them
which means the departments will have to implement
things that they will end up in the courts with before
the Legislature really can take a look at it and I
think that speaks to why a legislative process is
better in some of these more technical, very highly
protective important parts of our habitat issues.
I think the people of Alaska hopefully will get a look
at the fact that the legislative process is a little
better at asking how and why, and if you are going to
go to court, the court will come in and look at what
did you mean when you said that, at this particular
point it is a wide open discussion on what did they
mean because you don't have them in front of you.
I think today we got a good indication of how we would
implement if it comes your way and what some of the
issues are, but for me as a legislator the ambiguity
is striking and many times, we have to make
compromises that create ambiguity but at least we've
had the debate in public on what that question really
is. Probably as the judiciary chairman I probably fall
into that litigation problem, but the reality is in
Alaska any project is going to face litigation and the
more ambiguity you have in this law or the more
breadth you have in it, the more open to
interpretation it is and contention. So, that's the
way I take it today, but I do want to thank the
department, I think they are facing into this very
deliberately.
4:39:21 PM
CHAIR MEYER commented as follows:
I too want to thank everyone for coming out today and
I certainly have learned a lot and I've been doing
this for a while. Hopefully the public as well has
learned that your process is a very public process and
very open and one that you take very seriously, and we
appreciate that too. We all live here in the state and
we all love our fish and our salmon.
4:40:04 PM
SENATOR EGAN thanked those that testified and noted that he
enjoyed the overview.
CHAIR MEYER announced that the committee does not have any other
meetings planned and the committee will wait and see what occurs
in the courts and go from there.
4:40:26 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee at 4:40
P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SSTA Agenda 7.20.2018.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 17FSH2 Bill Initiative.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 17FSH2 Title and Ballot Language.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| LAA Legal Services Memo 7.11.2018 RE 17FSH2 Initiative.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| ADFG Presentation 7.20.2018.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOT Presentation 7.20.18.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DNR Presentation 7.20.18.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DEC Presentation 7.20.18.pdf |
SSTA 7/20/2018 1:30:00 PM |