Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/26/2003 08:36 AM FSH

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS                                                                                            
[Contains discussion of SB 143]                                                                                                 
Number 0070                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  191,  "An  Act relating  to  the Alaska  coastal                                                               
management   program  and   to   policies   and  procedures   for                                                               
consistency   reviews   and    the   rendering   of   consistency                                                               
determinations under  that program; relating to  the functions of                                                               
coastal  resource  service  areas;  creating  an  Alaska  Coastal                                                               
Program  Evaluation  Council;   eliminating  the  Alaska  Coastal                                                               
Policy  Council; annulling  certain regulations  relating to  the                                                               
Alaska coastal  management program; relating to  actions based on                                                               
private  nuisance;  relating  to  zoning  within  a  third  class                                                               
borough  covered by  the Alaska  coastal management  program; and                                                               
providing for effective dates."                                                                                                 
Number 0170                                                                                                                     
TOM IRWIN,  Commissioner, Department of Natural  Resources (DNR),                                                               
told  the  committee  that the  Murkowski  Administration  has  a                                                               
vision  for governing  Alaska.   [That vision]  is driven  by the                                                               
reality  of the  budget and  a  recognition that  in the  current                                                               
world economy,  Alaska must compete  for capital investment.   He                                                               
continued as follows:                                                                                                           
     Ours is  a world  where industry  analyzes the  time it                                                                    
     will take to get  through a permitting process, because                                                                    
     this time  is real money.   This affects the  large oil                                                                    
     and  mining  companies  and,  frankly,  where  time  is                                                                    
     money, it affects the smaller  companies, and it really                                                                    
     can affect  the "mom  and pop"  applicants who  have an                                                                    
     idea for  a business and  are attempting to  work their                                                                    
     way  through a  very complex  and uncertain  regulatory                                                                    
     process, regulatory system.                                                                                                
     Therefore,  we  have a  basic  goal  to streamline  and                                                                    
     consolidate  our permitting  functions,  and this  will                                                                    
     provide applicants  a faster  and more  certain review.                                                                    
     By a  certain review,  I mean that  the standards  of a                                                                    
     review will  be clear and  concise, and not  subject to                                                                    
     various  interpretation  of  the language  in  a  vague                                                                    
     We are  attempting to  do this by  three things:   One,                                                                    
     establish   a   project   coordination   office;   two,                                                                    
     identifying various regulatory  functions that might be                                                                    
     improved  by  clarified  standards and  processes;  and                                                                    
     three,  by changing  the  coastal management  program's                                                                    
     consistency review process.                                                                                                
     Currently,  the ACMP  [Alaska Coastal  Management Plan]                                                                    
     consistency  review process  is  very redundant,  using                                                                    
     local  enforceable policies  and  state standards  that                                                                    
     are  often a  reiteration  of  the regulatory  agency's                                                                    
     permit standards.                                                                                                          
Number 0318                                                                                                                     
COMMISSIONER IRWIN continued:                                                                                                   
     Our vision  is to  rely upon  the permit  standards ...                                                                    
     themselves   and  the   agency   staff  who   currently                                                                    
     implement  their permit  statutes and  regulations, and                                                                    
     not  to  require  a  separate   analysis  of  the  same                                                                    
     standards as part of a consistency determination.                                                                          
     However,  having said  that, I  will note  that at  the                                                                    
     last  [House Special  Committee on  Fisheries] hearing,                                                                    
     this administration  heard some  comments that  we have                                                                    
     taken  to heart.    As a  result,  we're continuing  to                                                                    
     review this  legislation and will  consider suggestions                                                                    
     from the coastal districts and  the general public.  We                                                                    
     will be  ready to discuss  these changes, if  there are                                                                    
     some,   and   provide    a   continuing   comprehensive                                                                    
     presentation  in   the  first  standing   committee  of                                                                    
     referral [the House Resources Standing Committee].                                                                         
COMMISSIONER  IRWIN noted  that  there were  people available  on                                                               
teleconference  from whom  he'd solicited  assistance because  of                                                               
their experience  and expertise  with "this  complex, regulatory,                                                               
and redundant process."  He continued as follows:                                                                               
     As  I've gone  through permitting  in the  Interior [of                                                                    
     Alaska], it can  be very complex.  Now  that I've spent                                                                    
     time  studying  how   the  coastal  management  program                                                                    
     works, you  can spend, literally, years  trying to work                                                                    
     your  way  through  the  system.    I'm  familiar  with                                                                    
     permitting.  I would presume  people who are not have a                                                                    
     very, very  hard time with  this.  But, again,  we want                                                                    
     to make  sure you  have the  best chance  to understand                                                                    
     what the system is now.                                                                                                    
Number 0561                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  stated that [Commissioner  Irwin] began                                                               
his discussion  by saying  that Alaska  has a  role in  the world                                                               
economy.    Conversely,  he  said   it  seems  that  the  world's                                                               
perception of how  Alaska does business is very  critical to [the                                                               
state],  particularly  given  the  amount  of  federal  land  and                                                               
resources that Alaska  relies on for its economy.   He noted that                                                               
he  sees  a  number  of  changes  going  on  and  questioned  the                                                               
administration's   consideration  of   the  federal   and  global                                                               
perception that  is being created  by changes such as  moving the                                                               
division  of   habitat,  eliminating  biologists,   the  sweeping                                                               
changes  being  made  to  the  coastal  management  program,  and                                                               
getting  rid  of public  interest  litigants  for resources,  for                                                               
example.  He continued as follows:                                                                                              
     It seems  to me  we're ...  extending an  invitation to                                                                    
     all the  environmental lawyers in  the country  to come                                                                    
     up  here, and  that's going  to impede  our development                                                                    
     significantly.   And we have a  perception problem, and                                                                    
     I  haven't  seen a  clear  demonstration  that this  is                                                                    
     going to lead  to the faster, more  certain review that                                                                    
     is the promise of the Murkowski vision.                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER IRWIN  responded that,  based on his  experience, he                                                               
feels  absolutely  confident  that  the  [proposed]  changes  are                                                               
appropriate, will in  no way compromise the  environment, and are                                                               
necessary for simplification of a  very complex system in Alaska.                                                               
He opined that Alaska needs  to move forward, saying that, "We're                                                               
very  clearly  making  a  statement  with  these  changes."    He                                                               
admitted that the process of  making changes can be difficult and                                                               
therefore  must be  managed; he  told the  committee that  he has                                                               
managed a lot of change in  his career and that he wholeheartedly                                                               
supports the changes [that the bill  proposes].  He said that the                                                               
basic goals are  not being undone, but rather that  the system is                                                               
being simplified  to work  more easily, so  that [the  state] can                                                               
move forward on resource development.                                                                                           
Number 0784                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  reiterated that  he is  concerned about                                                               
"the perception."  He continued as follows:                                                                                     
     I  don't   think  this   administration  has   done  an                                                                    
     effective job  dissuading those who  look at  Alaska as                                                                    
     an   environmental  haven.      I   don't  think   this                                                                    
     administration,  in  particular, has  credibility  with                                                                    
     those people,  or [has] done  a good job  in addressing                                                                    
     the  concerns  that  they  might have.    And  I  think                                                                    
     there's a  rush here cloaked  behind what I think  is a                                                                    
     very  Alaskan   antipathy  towards   bureaucracy,  then                                                                    
     regulation.   ...   We're  giving short  shrift to  the                                                                    
     impact this is going to have on a larger scale.                                                                            
Number 0832                                                                                                                     
COMMISSIONER IRWIN stated that he respectfully disagrees.                                                                       
Number 0854                                                                                                                     
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land  Manager, Central Office, Division                                                               
of Oil  & Gas,  Department of Natural  Resources (DNR),  told the                                                               
committee that  he would  give a summary  of the  current coastal                                                               
management program and the consistency review process.                                                                          
MR. GALVIN noted  that the coastal management program  is made up                                                               
of  statewide  standards  and local  enforceable  policies  under                                                               
which projects within the coastal  zone are reviewed before being                                                               
permitted by  the state.   He said  that statewide  standards are                                                               
found in the regulations at [6  AAC 80] and include the standards                                                               
for  coastal development,  habitat, airline,  and water  quality,                                                               
for example.  These standards  apply to all projects taking place                                                               
within the  state's coastal  zone.  In  addition, he  said, there                                                               
are local, enforceable policies that  are contained within the 33                                                               
local  coastal  district  plans,  and  these  policies  apply  to                                                               
projects that affect those particular districts.                                                                                
Number 1021                                                                                                                     
MR. GALVIN explained  that when a project is  proposed within the                                                               
state's coastal zone,  if it requires a state  or federal permit,                                                               
it must first be found  consistent with these statewide standards                                                               
and  any local  enforceable policies  before the  project can  be                                                               
issued a state  or federal permit.  Applicants  who have projects                                                               
in  the coastal  zone  must  first fill  out  a "coastal  project                                                               
questionnaire,"  which provides  information  on  other state  or                                                               
federal  permits  that  might be  required,  general  information                                                               
about  the  project, and  information  necessary  to decide  who,                                                               
within   the  state,   would   be   coordinating  a   consistency                                                               
MR. GALVIN  said that the  Division of  Governmental Coordination                                                               
(DGC),  currently  in  the  governor's  office,  coordinates  any                                                               
consistency review  needed for a  project that requires  either a                                                               
federal permit  or permits from more  than one state agency.   If                                                               
the project  only requires  permits from  one state  agency, then                                                               
that  state  agency would  do  the  consistency determination  as                                                               
Number 1130                                                                                                                     
MR. GALVIN stated that the  initial review of the coastal project                                                               
questionnaire  [is] to  determine  whether or  not an  individual                                                               
project review  is required.   He said there's an  opportunity to                                                               
determine whether  the project consists  only of  activities that                                                               
have,  basically, been  pre-approved, or  have been  found to  be                                                               
consistent  with the  coastal management  program.   That's  done                                                               
through  existing general  permits that  are issued  by (indisc.)                                                               
agencies,  as  well as  something  called  "the  ABC list."    He                                                               
explained that  it's a document  that contains a list  of permits                                                               
that are ruled out from  needing consistency reviews - because of                                                               
being  consistent with  coastal  management -  and of  activities                                                               
that are  found to  be "generally  consistent" -  as long  as the                                                               
applicant agrees  to certain  requirements; those  activities can                                                               
proceed without an individual review.                                                                                           
Number 1174                                                                                                                     
MR.  GALVIN  stated  that  if  a  project  requires  or  includes                                                               
activities  that do  not meet  the pre-approved  standards, there                                                               
has to  be an  individual consistency review.   That  process, he                                                               
noted, is  found in the regulations  at [6 AAC 50].   In response                                                               
to  Chair Seaton,  Mr.  Galvin  said that  his  testimony is  not                                                               
Number 1216                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said  that he had asked  for a flowchart                                                               
at  the last  hearing [on  HB  191], but  none was  given to  the                                                               
committee.  He  stated that he finds it a  little perplexing that                                                               
the administration is coming forward  asking [the legislature] to                                                               
change something when it hasn't  [provided] a written explanation                                                               
of what  it is  that would be  changed.  He  added, "I  think ...                                                               
it's a  poor performance that  makes it harder  for us to  do our                                                               
job as well."                                                                                                                   
Number 1298                                                                                                                     
MR. GALVIN  continued with his  testimony, telling  the committee                                                               
that the project needs to  have an individual consistency review,                                                               
which  will be  under either  a 30-  or 50-day  time clock.   The                                                               
consistency review  starts with a  public notice [and]  a project                                                               
review packet,  which includes the coastal  project questionnaire                                                               
and  applications for  state permits,  which is  provided to  the                                                               
local  district, the  resource agencies,  and any  member of  the                                                               
public who has requested information on the project.                                                                            
MR. GALVIN said that the  first period for the consistency review                                                               
is an  opportunity for review participants  to request additional                                                               
information of  the applicant, and  to get information  needed to                                                               
determine whether the project is  consistent.  In order to obtain                                                               
the information,  he said, someone  may need to "stop  the clock"                                                               
on  the  review.   Mr.  Galvin  explained  that during  a  30-day                                                               
[review], for example,  a person may stop the clock  on day 20 to                                                               
request additional information.                                                                                                 
MR. GALVIN  noted that the  next deadline usually is  the comment                                                               
deadline, a deadline by which  the resource agencies, the coastal                                                               
district, and  any members of the  public who wish to  comment on                                                               
the consistency  of the  project would  submit those  comments to                                                               
the coordinating agency.   That agency then  takes those comments                                                               
and prepares  a "proposed consistency determination,"  which will                                                               
either find the project, as  proposed, consistent or inconsistent                                                               
with all  the enforceable policies  and statewide standards.   If                                                               
it  is  inconsistent,  [the  agency]  will  likely  suggest  some                                                               
alternative  measures or  additional  changes to  the project  to                                                               
make it consistent with the coastal program.                                                                                    
Number 1489                                                                                                                     
MR. GALVIN noted  that at that point, the  resource agencies, the                                                               
coastal district,  or the applicant  could choose to  elevate the                                                               
proposed  consistency determination  up  to  the resource  agency                                                               
directors  and,   after  that  decision   is  made,  up   to  the                                                               
commissioners.   At  any point  during  this time,  he said,  the                                                               
applicant  may   choose  to  voluntarily   stop  the   clock  for                                                               
discussion  and negotiation  among  the  review participants,  in                                                               
order to attempt to settle any outstanding issues.                                                                              
MR. GALVIN  stated that at the  end of the elevation  process, if                                                               
there  is  one  or  five  days  after  the  proposed  consistency                                                               
determination,  the  coordinating  agency   will  issue  a  final                                                               
consistency determination.   He  said, "That will  generally find                                                               
the project  consistent, as long  as the applicant has  agreed to                                                               
those alternative measures  that I mentioned earlier."   When the                                                               
coordinating agency makes  its proposed consistency determination                                                               
and  offers   the  alternative  measures  to   make  the  project                                                               
consistent, the applicant must accept  those or suggest something                                                               
else  to  make the  project  consistent  and, ultimately,  get  a                                                               
consistency determination  from the coordinating agency  in order                                                               
for  the  state or  federal  permits  to  be  issued.   That,  he                                                               
concluded, would complete the process.                                                                                          
Number 1578                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON referred to the "ABC"  list.  He asked Mr. Galvin if                                                               
he  could estimate  what  percentage of  the  projects that  came                                                               
forward were pre-approved so that  they didn't have to go through                                                               
the 30- or 50-day process.                                                                                                      
MR. GALVIN answered that there  are no solid statistics regarding                                                               
Chair  Seaton's request.   He  stated that  most of  the projects                                                               
actually  wouldn't  get to  the  DGC,  because  it would  be  the                                                               
agencies that would  be reviewing them and finding  that they met                                                               
the  general concurrence  and then  issuing  permits "based  upon                                                               
Number 1626                                                                                                                     
MARTY  RUTHERFORD, Consultant  to the  Administration and  to the                                                               
Department of  Natural Resources  (DNR), testifying on  behalf of                                                               
the  administration, referred  to Chair  Seaton's question.   She                                                               
noted that  if a portion of  activity is outside the  [ABC] list,                                                               
then   it   automatically    triggers   an   entire   consistency                                                               
determination.  She  stated that DNR did not  keep data regarding                                                               
how   many  of   those  occurred   outside  of   the  consistency                                                               
determination process either.                                                                                                   
CHAIR  SEATON  clarified that  he  was  trying to  ascertain  how                                                               
extensive the [ABC] list is.                                                                                                    
Number 1673                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD  stated that there  are approximately  2,000 total                                                               
consistency determination  reviews per year.   Approximately 375,                                                               
on average, are  handled by DGC, which leaves  about 1,500 single                                                               
agency reviews.  She said that  while the [ABC] list is important                                                               
to applicants and the state  agencies, a great number of projects                                                               
actually go through a consistency medium.                                                                                       
MS.  RUTHERFORD,   in  response  to   Representative  Berkowitz's                                                               
previous statement  regarding having  asked for a  flowchart from                                                               
the  administration and  its failure  to provide  one, said  that                                                               
there  will  be a  flowchart  at  the [House  Resources  Standing                                                               
Committee].   She said that she  fully understands Representative                                                               
Berkowitz's desire to  have [a chart] to view;  however, she said                                                               
she  has  seen  and  participated   in  the  attempt  to  develop                                                               
flowcharts on the existing ACMP  program over the years, and must                                                               
say that  "it's going to  be somewhat  daunting in itself."   She                                                               
said  that [the  administration]  will  do the  best  it can  and                                                               
provide as much data as it  can to the [House Resources Standing]                                                               
Committee.   She added, "But,  in itself,  it will not  provide a                                                               
lot  more  clarification than  Mr.  Galvin  was able  to  provide                                                               
Number 1764                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:                                                                                  
     Could  someone tell  me,  since time  seems  to be  the                                                                    
     critical component,  ... how much faster  this proposed                                                                    
     method  would be  for a  couple of  different types  of                                                                    
     projects.  And  I guess typical projects  would be, for                                                                    
     example, oil exploration, or a  dock, or a log transfer                                                                    
     facility.   I'd like  to know how  much faster  this is                                                                    
     going to be.                                                                                                               
Number 1807                                                                                                                     
MS.  RUTHERFORD told  Representative Berkowitz  that she  was not                                                               
sure that  she could tell him  how much time a  new process would                                                               
take, compared with  the old process; however, she  said that the                                                               
new  program   will  rely  much   more  on   existing  permitting                                                               
authorities.   She noted that,  under the current  program, there                                                               
can be  no permits issued  until a consistency  determination has                                                               
been completed.  She stated that  there is at least a requirement                                                               
for a 50-day  permit review for most multi-permit  projects.  She                                                               
said, "It  is our hope  that, under the  new program, we  will be                                                               
able  to  begin  issuing  permits   as  the  regulatory  agencies                                                               
complete their  analysis as to  whether permits  are appropriate,                                                               
and what  stipulations will reside with  that particular permit."                                                               
She said that the profit  will be occurring more quickly, because                                                               
[the permitting] can be segmented.                                                                                              
Number 1870                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON stated  that as he understands the  new program, the                                                               
municipalities or  boroughs can adopt their  existing enforceable                                                               
policies as  ordinances.   He indicated  that there  is confusion                                                               
from the previous  hearing, when the committee was  told that the                                                               
permittee will  still have to  abide by the  enforceable policies                                                               
that are adopted in ordinance  by the municipalities or boroughs.                                                               
He continued as follows:                                                                                                        
     So, the confusion  here is that the  permittee is going                                                                    
     to come  to DNR  [and] is  going to  get a  permit, but                                                                    
     that  permit will  really  not let  them  do ...  their                                                                    
     project,  because  there's   no  longer  a  consistency                                                                    
     review that,  basically, includes the boroughs  and the                                                                    
     cities.  And so, then,  after the permittee has his DNR                                                                    
     permit, he's going  to have to ...  somehow live within                                                                    
     those enforceable policies, if  the borough or the city                                                                    
     adopts them.                                                                                                               
CHAIR   SEATON  asked   [Ms.  Rutherford]   to  explain   if  his                                                               
understanding  was correct,  and if  she could  explain how  that                                                               
would work under the new program.                                                                                               
Number 1946                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD replied, "That is  partially correct."  She stated                                                               
that  while  both  the  incorporated  and  the  coastal  resource                                                               
service areas  have enforceable policies  that must  be addressed                                                               
as part  of the state  consistency determination, the  reality is                                                               
that  certain  Title 29  municipalities  -  the North  Slope  and                                                               
Kodiak, for  example -  already have  permitting responsibilities                                                               
that the applicant  has to address.  She added,  "So, in reality,                                                               
it  doesn't  change  that  piece   at  all  and  it  doesn't  add                                                               
additional time."                                                                                                               
Number 1995                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON said that if  the enforceable policies are moved out                                                               
of  the DNR  process, the  permit would  not cover  any of  those                                                               
enforceable  policies,  but  the  permittee,  after  getting  the                                                               
permit, would still  have to work with the borough  on a separate                                                               
level  to fulfill  the project,  using  the enforceable  policies                                                               
that weren't  within the consistency  review anymore.   He stated                                                               
his  understanding that  this would  get  the consistency  review                                                               
over with more quickly, but said  that he is trying to figure out                                                               
whether that  will shorten  or lengthen the  time that  a project                                                               
will  take, since  "after  you  get the  one,  then  you have  to                                                               
proceed on to the other borough and municipality project."                                                                      
Number 2056                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD  stated her understanding  that a person  does not                                                               
have to  get the consistency  determination before  proceeding to                                                               
getting the municipal permit; one  is not a threshold requirement                                                               
for the other.   She said that  the new program will  not add any                                                               
additional time.   In response to a comment by  Chair Seaton, she                                                               
concurred that,  currently, all of  the enforceable  policies are                                                               
included  in  the consistency  review  permitting  process.   She                                                               
stated  that  what  happens currently  is  that  the  enforceable                                                               
policies are carried  on state permits; they  are not implemented                                                               
by  local ordinances.   She  said, "And  this requires  that they                                                               
begin  to implement  some  of those  on the  local  level."   She                                                               
added,  "They  already duplicate  the  local  permitting to  some                                                               
degree."    Ms.  Rutherford  noted  that  the  local  enforceable                                                               
policies are  sometimes quite duplicative  of state  statutes, as                                                               
they're  often a  reiteration.   She explained  that some  of the                                                               
confusion over the existing program  and some of the conflict has                                                               
been "trying  to sort out  who has  authority on a  standard that                                                               
isn't an  enforceable policy of  the district plan, when  in fact                                                               
it's just a reiteration of a state standard."                                                                                   
Number 2152                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON asked  Ms. Rutherford  to clarify  whether                                                               
the  new  process  [in  the   proposed  bill]  would  [eliminate]                                                               
MS. RUTHERFORD answered as follows:                                                                                             
     Many  times,  the  district  enforceable  policies  are                                                                    
     duplications of existing state  statutes.  What certain                                                                    
     municipalities, like North Slope  Borough, have done is                                                                    
     they  have  imposed their  own  local  land use  permit                                                                    
     requirements,  like  fill  permits or  zoning  permits.                                                                    
     So,  they  have  tended  to be  different  reviews  all                                                                    
     along.  But the changes  in the program, as entertained                                                                    
     in  HB 191  would  eliminate the  fact  that the  local                                                                    
     enforceable policies  that are part of  the consistency                                                                    
     determination are  no longer  repetitive, or sort  of a                                                                    
     restatement   of  the   state  standard.     And   that                                                                    
     consistency  [review]  process  would rely  upon  state                                                                    
     statutes   and  the   state   permitting  process,   to                                                                    
     determine consistency.                                                                                                     
     I think it's  really important to note  here that since                                                                    
     the ... ACMP  program was ... approved  by OCRM [Office                                                                    
     of Ocean and Coastal  Resource Management] in 1979, our                                                                    
     state  environmental  and  land use  laws  have  really                                                                    
     matured.   Basically, in  intervening years,  the state                                                                    
     statutory   framework   has  developed   substantially,                                                                    
     particularly  in  DEC's  [Department  of  Environmental                                                                    
     Conservation's] environmental  laws and DNR's  land use                                                                    
     laws.  So, frankly, the ACMP  filled a void when it was                                                                    
     implemented back  in 1979,  but it  has evolved  to the                                                                    
     point where it's quite duplicative.                                                                                        
Number 2300                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms.  Rutherford to share her feelings                                                               
on [the  proposed legislation] and  to tell the committee  if she                                                               
sees any loopholes in it.                                                                                                       
Number 2314                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that she  thinks the [proposed] legislation                                                               
attempts to keep the benefits  of the coastal management program;                                                               
it  focuses primarily  on the  ability [of]  the state  to affect                                                               
federal  activities  and  activities  on  the  outer  continental                                                               
shelf, and  at the  same time,  eliminate the  inefficiencies and                                                               
redundancies that  [are] inherent in  the existing program.   She                                                               
said  that she  thinks  [the language  of  HB 191]  significantly                                                               
clarifies the  standards that are  necessary for a project  to be                                                               
found consistent,  eliminates redundancies as  previously stated,                                                               
and streamlines the permitting  approval process by incorporating                                                               
the  consistency  determination   into  the  permitting  approval                                                               
MS. RUTHERFORD continued as follows:                                                                                            
     It is unarguable  that, in fact, it  does eliminate the                                                                    
     habitat standard.   And that  is something that  I feel                                                                    
     that the  legislature will have  to address  over time,                                                                    
     if it's  determined that  that is a  gap.   I've always                                                                    
     felt that the habitat standard,  which is a policy like                                                                    
     all the  enforceable policies are --  and, frankly, the                                                                    
     enforceable policies  were never  crafted as  laws, and                                                                    
     inherent  in   that  is  the  problem   with  sometimes                                                                    
     interpreting and  applying them.  But  I've always felt                                                                    
     that the habitat standard would  best be promulgated as                                                                    
     a  statute, with  associated implementing  regulations.                                                                    
     So, I  feel that  we've captured  most of  the benefits                                                                    
     that the  coastal management  program can  provide, and                                                                    
     that,  if  in fact  it  is  eventually determined  that                                                                    
     there  are  problems  associated   with  not  having  a                                                                    
     habitat  standard,  that  that  is  best  done  through                                                                    
Number 2416                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  asked,  if two  bureaucracies  would  be                                                               
doing what  one can  do, whether  there would  also be  twice the                                                               
chance  of  a  lawsuit  -  another chance  to  enter  in  at  the                                                               
appellate level  to, basically, fight  the same complaint  two or                                                               
three times.                                                                                                                    
MS. RUTHERFORD answered that her hope  is that a program could be                                                               
crafted that  would both be  responsive to the  environmental and                                                               
land use needs  of the state and sustain  both administrative and                                                               
judicial review.  She added that she is, of course, speculating.                                                                
Number 2464                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG stated  that he is curious  about what happens                                                               
when this statute goes into effect.   He indicated page 9 and new                                                               
regulations or  new ordinances that  the municipality  may adopt.                                                               
He asked, when a borough  or municipality has adopted its coastal                                                               
zone management  into its  zoning "in  its entirety,"  what would                                                               
happen  to  the  zoning  requirements that  duplicate  new  state                                                               
requirements "under this statute."                                                                                              
MS. RUTHERFORD  replied that [the borough  or municipality] could                                                               
still continue  to implement  its local  ordinances at  the local                                                               
level; however, she said that she  does recognize that there is a                                                               
bit of a challenge with  regard to how quickly the municipalities                                                               
"can  move to  do that."   She  stated that  this is  one of  the                                                               
issues being considered.   She added, "Obviously,  what they then                                                               
propose  to DNR  to  embrace  as part  of  the state  consistency                                                               
review would probably take a little longer."                                                                                    
Number 2550                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG clarified that he  wanted to know what happens                                                               
to the present  laws that would duplicate the state  laws that an                                                               
organized  borough or  city  has.   He asked,  "Do  they have  no                                                               
effect,  because the  state  has  that, or  do  the present  laws                                                               
create a duplication in the permitting process?"                                                                                
MS. RUTHERFORD answered as follows:                                                                                             
     To the  degree that  they've already [adopted]  them as                                                                    
     part   of  their   municipal   ordinances,  they   will                                                                    
     continue.  If  they have not, they  are eliminated from                                                                    
     the  state program,  except  those  standards that  are                                                                    
     particularly  called  out   ...,  which  are  primarily                                                                    
     marine ... mammal and  fisheries standards ... starting                                                                    
     on page 10.                                                                                                                
MS. RUTHERFORD  stated that  that has always  been the  intent of                                                               
the program.                                                                                                                    
Number 2630                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BETH  KERTTULA, Alaska State  Legislature, thanked                                                               
Mr. Galvin  and Ms. Rutherford  for being available.   She stated                                                               
that she is still hoping for  an overview in the [House Resources                                                               
Standing Committee] discussing why  the state has gotten involved                                                               
with the  program to begin with.   She said that  she thinks that                                                               
Ms. Rutherford  touched on  that, in  terms with  the interaction                                                               
with the  federal agency.   She  indicated "the  new legislation"                                                               
and said, "If you don't have  a state permit involved, you're not                                                               
going  to be  going  any further  in the  review  on a  federally                                                               
permitted  activity.   And if  you do  have a  state permit,  all                                                               
you're doing is  looking at the state  side of it.   Is that just                                                               
in this  drafting of  the legislation,  and can  you tell  me why                                                               
it's drafted that way?"                                                                                                         
MS.  RUTHERFORD responded,  "That is  not  in there.   They  will                                                               
still have to ... address  the regulatory standards of the state,                                                               
yes.  But one  of the things we do recognize is  that the goal of                                                               
the  program  is  to  affect  federal  activities,  and  we  have                                                               
provided for that within the bill."                                                                                             
Number 2710                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  about  the  federally  permitted                                                               
activities.   She added, "I  mean, we  aren't going to  be taking                                                               
them out if they take permits?"                                                                                                 
MS. RUTHERFORD said that is correct.   In response to a follow-up                                                               
question  from Representative  Kerttula, she  stated that  she is                                                               
not sure she  knows why.  She  said that she thinks it  is one of                                                               
the issues that is being  discussed.  She mentioned comments made                                                               
at the  previous [House Special Committee  on Fisheries] meeting.                                                               
She added, "But in the current  proposal, you are correct, it ...                                                               
does not  make that provision."   She said that when  there is no                                                               
state   statute,  generally   there   is  no   activity  of   any                                                               
Number 2749                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  said that she  is trying to think  of an                                                               
example, but is sure they exist,  where there is a federal permit                                                               
at stake, "and  somehow we don't have the state."   She said that                                                               
is something  she is  concerned about.   She  said she  has heard                                                               
that the  aim is  to maintain  all the  protections with  the OCS                                                               
[outer  continental shelf]  and with  the federal  actions.   She                                                               
said, "I think federal permits are right in there."                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  what happens  to the  unorganized                                                               
borough, to the coastal resource  service area that does not have                                                               
zoning authority and doesn't have  anything that could be adopted                                                               
to be enforced in those areas.                                                                                                  
Number 2784                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD, in response  to Representative Kerttula's initial                                                               
question,  noted that  the  state, generally,  has  some sort  of                                                               
certification when there's  any kind of activity  that requires a                                                               
federal permit.   She said that it's rare  and insignificant when                                                               
there's  no state  permit.   Even then,  she noted,  "We do  have                                                               
state certification on federal permits."                                                                                        
MS. RUTHERFORD, in regard to  the issue of the unorganized areas,                                                               
admitted  that this  is "a  difficult one."   She  said that  the                                                               
framers  of   the  [Alaska  State]  Constitution   intended  that                                                               
boroughs be  created.   She said  that she  thinks, as  the state                                                               
evolves, in areas  where there is some sort of  economic base, it                                                               
behooves  the   local  residents   to  embrace   the  authorities                                                               
associated  with boroughs  and,  through that  vehicle, they  can                                                               
then participate  in land use  planning and addressing  their own                                                               
issues.   Ms. Rutherford  also noted,  "The fisheries  and marine                                                               
mammal  standards that  are important,  many, many  times to  the                                                               
local residents,  are embedded  in this  legislation and  will be                                                               
affecting federal activities and [the] outer continental shelf."                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  stated that this argument  has been used                                                               
before in  the legislature to  quite a resistance from  the areas                                                               
themselves,  particularly  [from]  those   that  don't  have  the                                                               
financial  ability to  carry forward  with borough  organization.                                                               
She stated  that she thinks that  one of the beauties  of coastal                                                               
management has  always been  [the] voice  [of] the  local people,                                                               
particularly  in areas  such as  Northwest Arctic,  where without                                                               
the program, people would have no local say.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  continued  that she  agrees  with  [Ms.                                                               
Rutherford] completely  on the  standards issue.   She  said that                                                               
she thinks  it has been  the Achilles  heal of the  program since                                                               
its inception.   She  stated her concern  that by  losing habitat                                                               
standards, in particular  - which she said  she completely agrees                                                               
should have  been in statute -  along with the other  things that                                                               
are happening  in other  pieces of  legislation, "we"  are losing                                                               
our ability to review projects  that could have critical impacts,                                                               
particularly on [Alaska's] fisheries.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   asked  [Ms.  Rutherford]  if   she  is                                                               
stepping  back and  taking a  look  at what's  "dropping out"  if                                                               
everything   that's  being   proposed   happens   all  at   once.                                                               
Furthermore, she asked if [Ms.  Rutherford] is looking at whether                                                               
or not [the state] might be better  off taking a hard look at the                                                               
standards and writing them so  that everybody has certainty.  She                                                               
said that in the past "it's  been cobbled together to try to come                                                               
up with how to go forward."  She asked, "Is someone doing that?"                                                                
Number 2948                                                                                                                     
MS.  RUTHERFORD  stated   that  in  her  9-10   years  with  [the                                                               
Department  of] Community  and Regional  Affairs, she  has always                                                               
been a  strong advocate  for local  control and  local authority.                                                               
She continued as follows:                                                                                                       
     I've always,  however, felt that the  best authority is                                                                    
     embedded   in   incorporated  entities.   ...   They're                                                                    
     subdivisions  of  the  state;  there  are  very  strong                                                                    
     municipalities in the  state of Alaska.   And I frankly                                                                    
     think that the state has  moved away from providing any                                                                    
     incentives  for  people  to look  to  why  they  should                                                                    
     Having said that,  however, I would also  note that not                                                                    
     only do they  have the option in  the unorganized areas                                                                    
     to  forming  boroughs,  but  the  cities  within  those                                                                    
     unorganized areas can  still promulgate ordinances that                                                                    
     then  they  propose to  DNR  for  incorporation in  the                                                                    
     consistency reviews.                                                                                                       
     Regarding the,  sort of, cumulative  effect of  all the                                                                    
     changes, I  frankly think that  the only issue  that is                                                                    
     really substantive might be the  habitat standard.  And                                                                    
     as Representative Berkowitz  pointed out appropriately,                                                                    
     the policymakers are the legislators ....                                                                                  
TAPE 03-17, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2984                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ thanked  Ms.  Rutherford  for her  good                                                               
work and  added that he assumes  she is now on  contract with the                                                               
state [since  she is  writing for private  industry].   He stated                                                               
for  the record  that he  would  like to  have a  timeline for  a                                                               
couple of projects, so [the  committee] can know empirically what                                                               
the difference  is going to  be between the current  and proposed                                                               
methods.     He  noted  that   there  is  some   indication  from                                                               
Commissioner Irwin that other "fixes"  were going to be made, and                                                               
he  said  that Ms.  Rutherford  spoke  about "other  issues  that                                                               
they've been  discussing."  He  said he  would like to  know what                                                               
those issues  are and what  fixes are going  to be proposed.   He                                                               
stated,  "I've watched  these train  tracks long  enough to  know                                                               
when  a  train's  about  to  move,  and  it's  going  to  another                                                               
committee  and I'm  not on  that committee,  and I  want to  know                                                               
what's going  to be  happening in  [the House  Resources Standing                                                               
Number 2934                                                                                                                     
COMMISSIONER  IRWIN noted  that the  discussions are  ongoing and                                                               
the  information   requested  will  be  brought   to  the  [House                                                               
Resources Standing  Committee].   He respectfully  indicated that                                                               
he sees [the issue] opposite to  how it is seen by Representative                                                               
Berkowitz.  He explained, "What it  says is we're listening.  And                                                               
that's what I  would expect these committees would want  us to be                                                               
Number 2890                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to page  9, lines 14 - 15, indicating                                                               
that the commissioner  "may include local ordinances".   He asked                                                               
if there would be any  administrative-type standards by which the                                                               
department would be held accountable or  if this would be left to                                                               
the department's discretion.                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER IRWIN  responded that  in all cases,  standards will                                                               
ultimately have to be applied.   As the program is developed, the                                                               
first and most  important step is [ensuring  that] "it's similar,                                                               
it's parallel, it provides the  certainty that the program itself                                                               
has."   The goal  is to make  everything the same  so that  it is                                                               
more  functional.   He commented  that one  piece that's  missing                                                               
from this discussion, which he'd  like the committee to focus on,                                                               
is  to not  forget  the establishment  of a  project-coordinating                                                               
office.   He said the  goal of that  is to  get a team  of multi-                                                               
talented,  highly  specialized  people, with  their  own  strong,                                                               
technical  opinions,   along  with   bringing  in   the  affected                                                               
communities and  other commissioners.   He said there would  be a                                                               
lot  of  people  working  together,   where  people  are  working                                                               
together toward  a goal.   He said discussions have  already been                                                               
started  with the  BLM [Bureau  of Land  Management] and  the EPA                                                               
[Environmental Protection  Agency].   The goal  would be  to work                                                               
together  as  a team,  without  compromising  principles, but  if                                                               
there are  common goals, the  benefit of  such a group  effort is                                                               
how "you really get things done in this world," he said.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  if  the  federal government  had                                                               
been consulted on program approval,  and if so, what the response                                                               
COMMISSIONER  IRWIN   replied  that  those  discussions   are  in                                                               
progress, are  ongoing, and were  started when that  "very select                                                               
group worked  on it."   He  added that  both [Patrick  Galvin and                                                               
Marty Rutherford] had  been on the group  designing this program,                                                               
"from  day  one."    He  added that  all  the  pieces  have  been                                                               
approved, and the whole package is being evaluated.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  if  the  federal government  had                                                               
signed off on this package.                                                                                                     
COMMISSIONER IRWIN replied, "On  the individual items, they have.                                                               
Now that we're at this point, we're doing the whole package."                                                                   
Number 2677                                                                                                                     
DALE PERNULA,  Community Development Director, City  & Borough of                                                               
Juneau (CBJ),  testified that he  didn't have comments  about the                                                               
legislation  itself   because  the  legislation  had   only  been                                                               
received last Thursday and there  has not been the necessary time                                                               
to review  it or to  present it  to the local  elected officials.                                                               
He  did mention  that this  legislation could  potentially affect                                                               
some of  Juneau's waterfront  and therefore  requested additional                                                               
time  for  CBJ   to  review  the  material   to  provide  further                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked what timeframe would  be required so                                                               
that testimony could  be provided at the  next scheduled standing                                                               
committee meeting, which would probably be during the next week.                                                                
MR. PERNULA  said his  concern was  not so much  that of  a staff                                                               
review, but of getting the  materials to the elected officials to                                                               
give them time to prepare their comments.                                                                                       
CHAIR SEATON  confirmed that  there were  two more  committees of                                                               
referral,  the  [House  Resources  Standing  Committee]  and  the                                                               
[House Finance  Committee], noting that  it had been  waived from                                                               
[House  Judiciary  Standing  Committee].   He  then  referred  to                                                               
Juneau's  waterfront  area;  he  inquired  as  to  Mr.  Pernula's                                                               
familiarity with  the coastal  zone process  and asked  whether a                                                               
separate  permitting   process  by  the  municipality   would  be                                                               
different from the process that is currently being done.                                                                        
MR. PERNULA said, "We have  adopted ordinances dealing with those                                                               
policies,  they have  been adopted,  we are  enforcing them,  and                                                               
they would be  enforced after this piece of  legislation would be                                                               
CHAIR SEATON  rephrased his question  and said,  "Currently those                                                               
enforceable  policies  are  adopted  in  your  borough,  and  the                                                               
consistency review  takes care of  all those things to  make sure                                                               
they're all wrapped into the permit."                                                                                           
MR. PERNULA said, "right."                                                                                                      
CHAIR  SEATON  continued,  "And   they're  not  included  in  the                                                               
specific ones that go forward in  this bill.  So, then, you'll be                                                               
enforcing  those  separately  from the  consistency  review,  and                                                               
separately from the permitting process."                                                                                        
MR. PERNULA confirmed that this was his understanding.                                                                          
CHAIR SEATON  asked if that  process would be any  different from                                                               
the current  process, and if a  separate permit would need  to be                                                               
MR. PERNULA said, "That is my  understanding, that we would."  He                                                               
said, however,  that having  this bill  only since  last Thursday                                                               
hasn't allowed for a thorough analysis or testimony.                                                                            
Number 2480                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  said  that  currently a  lot  of  these                                                               
issues  "fall  out"  in consistency  determinations  -  municipal                                                               
zoning  issues.   She asked  if  these concerns  held by  coastal                                                               
districts would be taken care of in this process.                                                                               
MR. PERNULA said, "I believe, yes."                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  continued  that her  concern  was  that                                                               
without  the kind  of involvement  that  [Mr. Pernula]  currently                                                               
has, and  with being forced  to use  a separate process,  "it's a                                                               
little  more difficult  to come  forward."   She asked,  "Is that                                                               
something you could comment on?"                                                                                                
MR. PERNULA  said that it was  premature for him to  comment, but                                                               
that it would be a concern  that right now there is a coordinated                                                               
program in which  there are different levels  of government, with                                                               
different regulations, in  a coordinated process.   That's one of                                                               
the things that would be reviewed, he added.                                                                                    
Number 2418                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG  asked if Juneau had  habitat standards                                                               
built into its ordinances.                                                                                                      
MR. PERNULA affirmed this to be the case.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG referred  to adoption  of some  of the                                                               
"local ordinances" on  page 9, and commented that  there would be                                                               
orphaned ordinances,  similar to the habitat  standards and asked                                                               
if Mr. Pernula  thought he would be able to  coordinate this, and                                                               
would still be able to permit.                                                                                                  
MR. PERNULA  responded that regulations would  still be enforced,                                                               
independently of the state.                                                                                                     
Number 2363                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  said, "You  would  no  longer have  any                                                               
reach  into the  state unless  you had  your ordinances  adopted.                                                               
And  you  really  wouldn't  have   any  reach  into  the  federal                                                               
activities because they would all be gone.  Right?"                                                                             
MR. PERNULA said, "That's my  understanding.  However, we've only                                                               
had [the bill]  since Thursday and we need to  do a more thorough                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued, "That's  the beauty of coastal                                                               
zones, too, is  that it gives you that power  to comment and have                                                               
some authority over (indisc.)."                                                                                                 
Number 2326                                                                                                                     
HAROLD HEINZE  testified that  he was  representing himself  as a                                                               
citizen, and mentioned  that he was a former  commissioner of the                                                               
[Department  of Natural  Resources] in  the early  1990s, and  as                                                               
such,  offered  his  experience  working with  the  ACMP  at  the                                                               
decision-making level  within the executive branch.   He provided                                                               
the following testimony:                                                                                                        
     First  of all,  I clearly  am  in support  of what  the                                                                    
     administration is  trying to  do here.   I  believe the                                                                    
     impact of what  they're trying to accomplish  will be a                                                                    
     very positive one for the  state, and I believe it's an                                                                    
     absolutely   good  move   expected  by,   frankly,  the                                                                    
     citizens of  Alaska.  I  think the legislature,  to not                                                                    
     do this, would be counter  to where the citizens of the                                                                    
     state  want to  go, for  a couple  of reasons.   Number                                                                    
     one, I think that you're  going to get better decisions                                                                    
     out of this.                                                                                                               
MR. HEINZE continued:                                                                                                           
     Commissioner Irwin talked about  this a little bit, but                                                                    
     I think  it's very important  to realize that  the very                                                                    
     process that  you exhibited frustration over  trying to                                                                    
     understand - that  exists right now -  is an incredibly                                                                    
     bureaucratic process.   There is absolutely  nothing in                                                                    
     the   history  of   the   ACMP   that  indicates   that                                                                    
     bureaucratic process has  resulted in better decisions.                                                                    
     In  actuality,  I think  you  have  a long  history  of                                                                    
     commissioners of  natural resources who have  made good                                                                    
     decisions.  And the reason  they make good decisions is                                                                    
     because they do  go talk to local  communities, they do                                                                    
     involve people, and they listen  to the legislature and                                                                    
     they listen to a lot of  other folks.  And they balance                                                                    
     them properly, the constitutional  mandate to make sure                                                                    
     that the  resources of Alaska  are used to  the maximum                                                                    
     benefit of  all Alaskans.   That's a very  prime driver                                                                    
     of the decision  process - not a bunch of  forms, not a                                                                    
     bunch of things that don't necessarily relate.                                                                             
Number 2203                                                                                                                     
MR. HEINZE continued:                                                                                                           
     Secondly,  I  think this  is  a  classic example  of  a                                                                    
     program that  started out maybe  with some  very simple                                                                    
     ideas at  the federal  level.  Basically,  this program                                                                    
     came  about  because   the  federal  government  wasn't                                                                    
     listening  to local  people.   And so  it started  as a                                                                    
     federal  program.    And, frankly,  it  wasn't  to  fix                                                                    
     anything  in  Alaska;  there was  nothing  wrong  here.                                                                    
     There was  no reason  (indisc.) ...  in Alaska,  but it                                                                    
     was  necessary in  California  and  some other  places.                                                                    
     And it  happened that Congress  in their  wisdom passed                                                                    
     this; we  came under it.   It took a long  while for it                                                                    
     to get  implemented.  In  the [1990s] we were  still at                                                                    
     the tail  end of  the implementation of  the ACMP.   It                                                                    
     was still evolving.  But in  the last 10 years, all the                                                                    
     problems that existed  in the 1990s still  exist.  They                                                                    
     haven't been able to be  solved.  The idea of involving                                                                    
     local communities  in the decisions  made at  the state                                                                    
     level is a good one, and  it will occur with or without                                                                    
     this program.                                                                                                              
Number 2124                                                                                                                     
MR. HEINZE concluded his testimony:                                                                                             
     What I see happening  in this legislation is separating                                                                    
     out the  idea of a  separate office under  the governor                                                                    
     with  its   own  bureaucracy,  its  own   purposes  and                                                                    
     everything else, and basically  taking the function and                                                                    
     moving  it under  DNR  as part  of  a general  decision                                                                    
     process  that  we make  here  in  Alaska.   We've  been                                                                    
     willing to trust the commissioner  of the Department of                                                                    
     Natural  Resources   to  make  a  lot   more  important                                                                    
     decisions,  frankly,  than  what  we're  talking  about                                                                    
     here.   And I  don't see any  real problem  in trusting                                                                    
     that  to  happen.   Frankly,  the  better decisions  in                                                                    
     government  are   made  when   there  is   a  clear-cut                                                                    
     responsibility    and     authority    and,    frankly,                                                                    
     accountability  for those  decisions.   And that's  the                                                                    
     way it's  worked.  I  think that  should be one  of the                                                                    
     major focuses.  I think  this is a clear opportunity to                                                                    
     save  money.   I  think  it's  a clear  opportunity  to                                                                    
     streamline  government,  and  I   think  it's  a  clear                                                                    
     opportunity to make better decisions.                                                                                      
Number 2088                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  SEATON  said that  the  today's  discussion is  not  about                                                               
money,  but  is about  integrating  local  and state  management,                                                               
noting that he  wanted to "separate those out"  so that testimony                                                               
would be focused on HB 191 and not on EO 106.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA thanked  the  [former] commissioner  for                                                               
his testimony,  which mentioned federal concerns  and the state's                                                               
initial involvement with this program.                                                                                          
MR. HEINZE said that he wasn't  a lawyer but he believed that the                                                               
federal government,  under its own  law, was required  to consult                                                               
under  the (indisc.),  regardless of  the state's  position.   He                                                               
commented  that   the  state  could  neither   stop  the  federal                                                               
government  nor  require its  involvement,  saying  that "if  the                                                               
federal  government  is going  to  listen  to local  communities,                                                               
that's their  choice, not ours."   He  said his only  concern was                                                               
that the state make good decisions regarding its resources.                                                                     
Number 1978                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG   acknowledged  Mr.   Heinze's  unique                                                               
perspective  on this  issue and  asked if  he had  found anything                                                               
that could be considered as a definitive deficiency.                                                                            
MR.  HEINZE replied  that based  on his  experience, the  current                                                               
ACMP  process  is a  "total  minefield"  and  that it  impedes  a                                                               
commissioner's  ability to  make good  decisions.   He referenced                                                               
one  of  the  more  difficult  decisions he  had  to  make  as  a                                                               
commissioner, which was  the leasing of state land  east of Point                                                               
Barrow.   He said fortunately,  that contentious  decision didn't                                                               
have  to be  made through  the  ACMP, and  that "otherwise,  we'd                                                               
still  be trying  to  make  that decision,  I'm  convinced."   He                                                               
emphasized  that  his  argument  was   for  moving  away  from  a                                                               
bureaucratic  approach to  decision  making and  to move  towards                                                               
[locating  this]  within  the  executive branch.    He  told  the                                                               
committee  that he  gives this  administration  credit for  being                                                               
willing to do all the work  necessary to figure out how to change                                                               
and revise this process.                                                                                                        
Number 1874                                                                                                                     
PAT CARLSON,  Manager, Kodiak Island Borough,  testified that not                                                               
much  time  had  been  allotted  to analyze  the  material.    He                                                               
stressed that  thousands of  miles of coastline  and some  of the                                                               
richest  fishing   areas  of  the   world  lie   within  Kodiak's                                                               
jurisdiction, and  the concern is "related  to [Kodiak's] ability                                                               
to  interact with  federal  policies, through  the  state."   Mr.                                                               
Carlson referred to  a letter he had received  several months ago                                                               
from a state  bureaucrat indicating "the State of  Alaska did not                                                               
recognize local  zoning."  He  said, "If our ability  to interact                                                               
with the policies at the  state level, with state jurisdiction is                                                               
preempted by state jurisdiction,  then there's a serious conflict                                                               
and  this  may be  an  opportunity  to  straighten that  out  for                                                               
everybody  in  the  state."     He  said  his  other  concern  is                                                               
recognizing that  the legislature  acts as the  legislative body,                                                               
or assembly  equivalent, for the unorganized  borough ... [online                                                               
connection temporarily lost].                                                                                                   
Number 1763                                                                                                                     
MR.  CARLSON   continued  that  [Kodiak]  has   interacted  quite                                                               
cooperatively  through the  tri-borough agreement  and recognizes                                                               
the need for streamlining the  permitting process.  He said, "Our                                                               
big  concern is  that we  interface properly  and still  maintain                                                               
authority to recognize our local  needs and habitat concerns.  We                                                               
look forward to  providing some amendment language  after we have                                                               
the opportunity to further study  this with our peers and provide                                                               
what we hope are helpful suggestions ..."                                                                                       
CHAIR SEATON  said if  the desire  was to  incorporate amendments                                                               
from   existing  enforceable   policies  or   concerns  regarding                                                               
inclusion  of   the  statewide   habitat  standard,   then  those                                                               
amendments  should be  forwarded  to the  governor's office,  the                                                               
next committees of referral, and local legislators.                                                                             
Number 1672                                                                                                                     
OLIVER HOLM,  commercial fisherman, testified that  he has fished                                                               
in  the Kodiak  area for  about 40  years, and  said that  he was                                                               
concerned  about  maintaining  fisheries  protections  under  the                                                               
Alaska  Coastal  Zone Management  Act  and  how this  bill  would                                                               
affect those protections.  He  told the committee that it appears                                                               
that  the maintenance  of fisheries  protection would  not be  as                                                               
good, at least during the  interim period, and that many people's                                                               
livelihoods depend  on fisheries.   He said that the  other issue                                                               
pertains to  borough's and local government's  maintaining access                                                               
into the process; it appears that  HB 191 would allow boroughs to                                                               
enforce rules and create statutes  but that they'd lose influence                                                               
on federal waters outside of the three-mile area.                                                                               
MR. HOLM  pointed out  that a lot  of [Kodiak's]  fisheries occur                                                               
outside  of that  three-mile  area, and  because  the habitat  is                                                               
contiguous and  indivisible from inside the  three-mile area, the                                                               
result would  be a diminished  local involvement in  coastal zone                                                               
issues.    This  would  lead   to  an  increased  cost  to  local                                                               
governments to  participate because local governments  would have                                                               
to set  up their  own enforcement  and monitoring  efforts, which                                                               
are currently done through the state  process.  He noted that DNR                                                               
could  choose   to  embody  some   of  the  local   concerns  and                                                               
regulations, "but they  may choose not to."  He  stated that with                                                               
the adoption  of HB  191, some local  provisions in  coastal zone                                                               
management would disappear,  and he hoped that  local input would                                                               
be maintained.   He urged the  committee not to pass  HB 191, but                                                               
to further scrutinize the bill.                                                                                                 
CHAIR  SEATON  asked   if  Pat  Carlson  would   fax  the  letter                                                               
indicating that the state wasn't  complying with local ordinances                                                               
[letter referenced in his testimony] to the committee.                                                                          
Number 1477                                                                                                                     
GERALD R. BROOKMAN provided the following testimony:                                                                            
     First, I believe  that this bill would do  much to harm                                                                    
     Alaska's  fisheries, and  do  little,  if anything,  to                                                                    
     help them or their management.                                                                                             
     We need to  take a balanced approach  to the management                                                                    
     of Alaska's fisheries.   The ACMP, while  it may appear                                                                    
     cumbersome to  some people with  a limited view  of the                                                                    
     issues  involved  or  who are  only  concerned  with  a                                                                    
     single issue,  is a very  important tool to  assist the                                                                    
     state  in  achieving  balanced  management,  where  all                                                                    
     affected  parties have  an opportunity  to voice  their                                                                    
     concerns  and  have  them considered  by  an  impartial                                                                    
     body,  or one  that  is,  in theory  if  not always  in                                                                    
     practice, impartial.  To throw it out would be tragic.                                                                     
     HB 191  would deny  the public  an opportunity  to have                                                                    
     input into  issues that  affect their  vital interests.                                                                    
     It  would deny  local  communities  the opportunity  to                                                                    
     have  input   into  how  their  areas   are  developed.                                                                    
     Alaskans  have,  in  the  past,  criticized  management                                                                    
     decisions  made at  the  federal  level without  taking                                                                    
     into  consideration state  interests; ironically,  this                                                                    
     bill  would  transfer  management  decisions  from  the                                                                    
     local to state  level.  While the  final decision would                                                                    
     continue to be  made at the state  level, retaining the                                                                    
     ACMP  as it  is  presently constituted  would at  least                                                                    
     continue   to  allow   local  input   into  the   final                                                                    
     In  summary,  HB  191  is one  of  the  most  important                                                                    
     [bills] that  will be  considered by  this legislature.                                                                    
     Its effects  would be disastrous  to our fisheries.   I                                                                    
     urge that you vote against it.                                                                                             
Number 1357                                                                                                                     
JACK  CUSHING,  Mayor,  City  of Homer,  stated  that  he's  been                                                               
elected  to office  six times  and that  "in real  life" he  is a                                                               
civil  engineer and,  as such,  has had  to file  numerous permit                                                               
applications  through  DGC.   In  addition,  he's on  the  Alaska                                                               
Coastal Policy Council,  representing lower Cook Inlet.   He said                                                               
if this  bill passes, a  tremendous opportunity will be  lost for                                                               
the input of local knowledge into  projects.  He said that during                                                               
the time  he's been  on the Alaska  Coastal Policy  Council, he's                                                               
hardly  ever seen  a  project stopped  or slowed  down.   On  the                                                               
contrary, he's  seen a  tremendous amount  of input  received and                                                               
considered  in a  timely  manner, with  the  assistance of  local                                                               
knowledge brought into the projects.                                                                                            
Number 1207                                                                                                                     
REBECCA L. YATES said she  was representing herself, that she has                                                               
a law degree and an  environmental law certificate from Lewis and                                                               
Clark  Law  School  in  Portland,  Oregon,  and  has  extensively                                                               
studied riparian  zone issues.  She  said she is very  opposed to                                                               
HB 191, and reiterated others'  testimony that local knowledge is                                                               
vital  to  this process.    With  Alaska's strong  dependence  on                                                               
fisheries,  anything  that  has  the  potential  to  destroy  the                                                               
fisheries  should be  scrutinized.   She  emphasized  that it  is                                                               
extremely important  to maintain the  input of the public  and of                                                               
local knowledge into the process.                                                                                               
Number 1138                                                                                                                     
DANA L. OLSON provided the following testimony:                                                                                 
     I'm concerned about this bill  because 16 [U.S.C.] Sec.                                                                    
     1455(d)(11) was land and water  use, was the format for                                                                    
     the coastal management program,  and the state has been                                                                    
     actively doing  negotiated rule making under  the Clean                                                                    
     Air  Act.   There  was no  opportunity  for persons  to                                                                    
     apply.   I believe that  this would violate  the public                                                                    
     participation process, that it  would be, in effect, [a                                                                    
     violation].   I wanted to  say that the  1990 amendment                                                                    
     to  the coastal  zone  requires that  you consider  the                                                                    
     zone as a whole, and so  this would be in conflict with                                                                    
     the local  policy.   I wanted to  say that  a precedent                                                                    
     lawsuit  that  I  had   in  federal  court,  97-219-CV,                                                                    
     established that in the  Mat-Su Borough's Knik Fairview                                                                    
     Comprehensive  Plan,  [this]  was not  a  comprehensive                                                                    
     plan.  It was simply a zoning implementation plan.                                                                         
MS. OLSON continued:                                                                                                            
     Since   all   the   other  comprehensive   plans   were                                                                    
     implemented under  the same  authority, under  the same                                                                    
     manner, it can be inferred  that the Mat-Su Borough has                                                                    
     no local comprehensive plans;  they [are] simply having                                                                    
     zoning implementation plans not [being] implemented.                                                                       
     One of  the problems  that I find  in dealing  with the                                                                    
     coastal  management  program  is  that  I've  requested                                                                    
     numerous  times, for  public  meetings,  and I've  been                                                                    
     ignored by  Mr. Hudson (ph).   An issue comes  up; what                                                                    
     happens  when the  local government  doesn't take  your                                                                    
     input, as was articulated in  my federal lawsuit.  What                                                                    
     does the state do then,  and what is the administrative                                                                    
     process for that?                                                                                                          
Number 0962                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON asked if Ms. Olson had submitted written testimony.                                                                
MS.  OLSON  replied  that  she   had  already  submitted  written                                                               
testimony and  concluded by saying,  "I provided case law  to say                                                               
that,  'No, I  have  no  authority to  go  back  and revisit  the                                                               
provisions of law that were prior-approved.'"                                                                                   
Number 0930                                                                                                                     
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource                                                                     
Service Area (CRSA), provided the following testimony:                                                                          
     Of  the   listed  44  Cenaliulriit  villages,   15  are                                                                    
     traditional primary governments,  28 [are] second-class                                                                    
     cities,  and  1 [is]  first  class.   Cenaliulriit  and                                                                    
     AVCP, Association  of Village Council  Presidents, were                                                                    
     not notified  of these bills, nor  requested beforehand                                                                    
     for input prior to the introduction of these bills.                                                                        
     The  traditional governments  will  not  have the  same                                                                    
     ability under  Title 29, and  even if  the second-class                                                                    
     communities  are  set  up already,  they  do  not  have                                                                    
     ordinances  in place  for standards  and  how they  can                                                                    
     proceed  with development.    This  bill threatens  the                                                                    
     process it took  to meet with every  community to fine-                                                                    
     tune and streamline Cenaliulriit  policies for the last                                                                    
     18 years.                                                                                                                  
     Several  villages   rely  on  the  communal   and  vast                                                                    
     ancestral  areas both  in water  and  inland, and  even                                                                    
     wetlands.   Because  of the  wetlands (indisc.)  pretty                                                                    
     vast, and resource dependence, it  is documented by the                                                                    
     subsistence mapping  that we have been  collecting over                                                                    
     the last three years.                                                                                                      
     The rural communities are unique  from the urban areas,                                                                    
     having a  direct tie  [to] a  healthy balance  of those                                                                    
     resources.   Most  favor renewable  resources as  their                                                                    
     base  of  their  daily  sustenance  versus  destructive                                                                    
     development  that  may  have permanent  destruction  to                                                                    
     guaranteed  yearly   yields  and  harvest   for  future                                                                    
     generations.   But  we find  that local  participation,                                                                    
     using  this process  the way  it's  been going  through                                                                    
     right  now,  has  always proven  to  be  successful  in                                                                    
     providing   wise  mitigation   to   problems  that   we                                                                    
     encounter   in   planning  and   local   infrastructure                                                                    
     And  a lot  of  our projects  have  been reviewing  our                                                                    
     water  and sewer  projects, which  are  supposed to  be                                                                    
     putting  the  honey  bucket  into  the  museum,  as  an                                                                    
     example.  I see a  bunch of other projects always going                                                                    
     through my  table, and it's  been very  successful, and                                                                    
     we've been doing really good  with these projects.  And                                                                    
     there is  no duplication of effort,  I'm [reporting] to                                                                    
     this   committee,  on   the   part  of   Cenaliulritt's                                                                    
     permitting process,  due to this unique  setting of the                                                                    
     region.  And  it does not take years to  go through the                                                                    
     permitting process.                                                                                                        
Number 0638                                                                                                                     
MR. OSCAR continued:                                                                                                            
     This  new proposed  process will  do  the opposite,  by                                                                    
     forcing outside  interests to step in  [to] the process                                                                    
     instead.   Why should  we be  dictated [to]  by outside                                                                    
     interests both  in legal and by  environmentalists?  My                                                                    
     people prefer  a localized process rather  than someone                                                                    
     from outside.  In retrospect,  they fear that the state                                                                    
     DNR  might bulldoze  itself to  their livelihoods,  and                                                                    
     Cenaliulriit   had  to   work  hard   convincing  every                                                                    
     community  that  DNR  supports  subsistence  with  this                                                                    
     mapping  project.   These villages  are saying  that it                                                                    
     will   enable   the   state  to   begin   using   [the]                                                                    
     subsistence-mapping  project against  them.   They  are                                                                    
     also saying  that it makes  laws, similar  to treaties,                                                                    
     so that it can break  them.  With the habitat standards                                                                    
     gone and  with this new proposed  process, the distrust                                                                    
     has widened, quite vastly.                                                                                                 
     We question  how this will  affect the  federal coastal                                                                    
     zone requirement  and funding once the  local districts                                                                    
     are  eliminated.   The Cenaliulriit  villages are  very                                                                    
     concerned  they will  not have  access  to prove  their                                                                    
     dependence [on] a  resource in a given  area with these                                                                    
     bills, and we  are therefore opposed to  House Bill 191                                                                    
     and the companion, [SB] 143.                                                                                               
Number 0605                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  suggested, if there  were subsistence,  habitat, or                                                               
other standards that were desired to  be included in HB 191, that                                                               
Mr.  Oscar  identify  and  submit   those  for  consideration  as                                                               
Number 0578                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  said  that  Mr.  Oscar's  comments  had                                                               
greatly  concerned  her, saying,  "I  know  that perceptions  and                                                               
fears  can travel  very fast,  and particularly  when you're  not                                                               
able  to be  here  and watch  and see  compromises,  and see  the                                                               
process work.  I just want to  say that before the area feels the                                                               
terrible lack  of trust that  I feel starting already,  that what                                                               
you're  doing, and  what you're  doing by  involving your  people                                                               
through your comments, I think will have a great impact."                                                                       
Number 0484                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON said,  "Mr. Oscar might want to take  a look because                                                               
in his area,  subsistence doesn't have one of  the standards that                                                               
is  accepted  in  this bill.    So,  he  might  want to  have  an                                                               
amendment so that the subsistence priority is adopted."                                                                         
Number 0462                                                                                                                     
JEFFREY  D. CURRIER,  Manager, Lake  and Peninsula  Borough, said                                                               
that  most people  who had  testified had  mentioned concern  for                                                               
local control and  the consistency issue, so  he wouldn't belabor                                                               
those points.   He said that  there had not been  sufficient time                                                               
allowed  to  analyze the  materials  and  he requested  that  the                                                               
process slow down  to allow time for  increased understanding and                                                               
to give  those who don't  have a  large staff sufficient  time to                                                               
react  to  the  bill.    He said  [Lake  and  Peninsula  Borough]                                                               
strongly supports  the concept of streamlining,  saving time, and                                                               
promoting projects,  but mentioned that  the major concern  is to                                                               
maintain local control and have local input.                                                                                    
Number 0225                                                                                                                     
TOM COLLOPY,  citizen, testified that so  far, the administration                                                               
has presented no  evidence that the process  being suggested will                                                               
be more  efficient than the  current process.   He noted  that it                                                               
would,  however,   remove  any  responsibility  with   regard  to                                                               
habitat, and for that reason, he was opposed to HB 191.                                                                         
Number 0157                                                                                                                     
MARY FRISCHE, citizen, testified that  although she has only been                                                               
in the area for approximately  two years, she strongly opposes HB
191.  She  said it dismisses a process that  gives local people a                                                               
voice in government,  a voice that's needed to  determine how the                                                               
land, shores,  and coastal  waters are  managed.   She emphasized                                                               
that coastal resource protection policies  need to remain open to                                                               
local public input.                                                                                                             
Number 0080                                                                                                                     
R.J. KOPCHAK, commercial fisherman, testified  that he has been a                                                               
fisherman  for 28  years,  and was  previously  the coastal  zone                                                               
coordinator  for the  City  of Cordova  as a  city  planner.   He                                                               
stated that  he would  like to  make a couple  of points.   [Tape                                                               
TAPE 03-18, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0049                                                                                                                     
MR. KOPCHACK continued his testimony as follows:                                                                                
     The  bill  effectively  cuts  the  public  out  of  the                                                                    
     process and,  I think,  neutralizes a program  that has                                                                    
     been  an  important  component in  maintaining  vibrant                                                                    
     salmon habitat  throughout the state.   The  salmon and                                                                    
     the subsistence resources within  the state, of course,                                                                    
     deserve  all  of  our  protection.    And  one  of  the                                                                    
     difficulties  in  deconstruction  of the  coastal  zone                                                                    
     management  program is  that it  further places  stress                                                                    
     within  the  capacity  to  administer  these  important                                                                    
     resources  and  the  habitats they  depend  on.    This                                                                    
     deconstruction is unwarranted.   There is absolutely no                                                                    
     evidence  at  this  particular   point  that  the  ACMP                                                                    
     program is  broken.  No one  has made the point  in any                                                                    
     of  the debate  I have  listened to  in your  committee                                                                    
     that,  in  fact,  ACMP  is   broken  and  needs  to  be                                                                    
MR. KOPCHACK continued:                                                                                                         
     As a matter of fact, this  particular bill is part of a                                                                    
     suite of  bills that,  in my  opinion, are  designed to                                                                    
     deconstruct protections of salmon  habitat in an effort                                                                    
     to   bring  rapid   and   accelerated  development   of                                                                    
     nonrenewable  resources,  and  again  puts  our  salmon                                                                    
     habitat in  jeopardy.  We  won't see those  impacts, of                                                                    
     course, for a  few years.  The  cumulative impacts from                                                                    
     the  deconstruction  of  these  particular  checks  and                                                                    
     balances  will  be  the burden  that  my  children  and                                                                    
     grandchildren will  have to  carry with  them.   All of                                                                    
     those  who  support  these  particular  bills  will  be                                                                    
     taking vows  at how  well they've  done, now,  and they                                                                    
     won't be  held accountable  in 20  years when  the full                                                                    
     impact of this  deconstructive effort is upon  us.  You                                                                    
     need to have  balance; I speak for balance  and you are                                                                    
     deconstructing balance.                                                                                                    
Number 0220                                                                                                                     
BILL  SMITH, Chair,  Homer Advisory  Planning Commission,  noting                                                               
that  he  is a  former  member  of  the Kenai  Peninsula  Borough                                                               
Planning  Commission,   said  that  he  has   observed  that  the                                                               
consistency reviews conducted  by the borough are a  great aid to                                                               
developers,  especially  local  developers, and  he  offered  the                                                               
following testimony:                                                                                                            
     They  have aided  projects in  getting the  consistency                                                                    
     reviews  and the  coordination with  state and  federal                                                                    
     agencies.  Eliminating this  process will create delays                                                                    
     for local development projects.   In addition, the idea                                                                    
     that  local  zoning  regulations   can  be  adopted  to                                                                    
     replace the  enforceable policies is really  not at all                                                                    
     accurate.   The Title 29 municipalities  cannot enforce                                                                    
     any of their  policies with regard to the  state or the                                                                    
     federal  government.    HB  191  would  completely  cut                                                                    
     municipalities   out  of   being  able   to  have   any                                                                    
     enforceable policies except on private lands.                                                                              
MR. SMITH continued:                                                                                                            
     I  don't think  that's  the proper  process, if  you're                                                                    
     going  to do  something  about  the coastal  management                                                                    
     program.   Even if the state  were to adopt all  of the                                                                    
     local policies,  it still wouldn't  give a  local voice                                                                    
     regarding federal  and state properties.   Right now we                                                                    
     have a  seat at the table,  and this takes it  away.  I                                                                    
     don't  think we  should eliminate  the locally  adopted                                                                    
     policies  without  going   through  a  local  political                                                                    
     process.   I've  spoken with  a  lot of  people at  the                                                                    
     borough - the mayor's  office, the planning department,                                                                    
     and the assembly  - and none of them  were consulted by                                                                    
     the state  administration about what policies  to adopt                                                                    
     and  which ones  to  get rid  of.   I  suggest that  we                                                                    
     really need to engage  in [the] local political process                                                                    
     before we  destroy what we  have built over  the years,                                                                    
     with that process.                                                                                                         
Number 0458                                                                                                                     
ALAN PARKS, commercial fisherman, testified on his own behalf                                                                   
and said that he has been a commercial fisherman since 1975.  He                                                                
provided the following testimony:                                                                                               
     All  Alaskans   whose  (indisc.)  and   economies  have                                                                    
     benefited  from  the  ACMP   because  of  the  process,                                                                    
     consistency review,  and local  involvement.   I oppose                                                                    
     HB 191.   HB  191 undermines  local control  over local                                                                    
     resources.  HB 191 will  essentially cut out the public                                                                    
     from  their process.   HB  191 is  meant to  streamline                                                                    
     government  but  in fact  will  create  more red  tape.                                                                    
     Alaska's   fish   and  subsistence   resource   deserve                                                                    
     protection, as they have since  statehood.  There is no                                                                    
     legitimate evidence that the system  is broken.  HB 191                                                                    
     will  remove the  balance between  fish protection  and                                                                    
     coastal development.   I urge you to oppose  HB 191 and                                                                    
     to  give  local   communities  another  opportunity  to                                                                    
     address the issues  and concerns that they  have.  It's                                                                    
     obvious  from the  testimony  from the  representatives                                                                    
     from Kodiak and Lake  [and Peninsula Borough] that they                                                                    
     haven't had an  opportunity to review it  and get input                                                                    
     from their  local officials.   As a fair  minimum, hold                                                                    
     another hearing.   As an optimum result,  oppose it and                                                                    
     kill this HB 191.                                                                                                          
Number 0630                                                                                                                     
ANNE WIELAND, fisherman, testified that  she has been a personal-                                                               
use  fisher in  Kachemak  Bay for  28 years,  and  said that  she                                                               
strongly  opposes HB  191.   She stated  that it  would take  the                                                               
local public out  of what should be public process  and in effect                                                               
disfranchise  the  stakeholders.   She  continued  that  removing                                                               
state  and local  enforceable policies  is a  very short  sighted                                                               
proposal,  and if  this bill  passes,  it will  end up  degrading                                                               
fisheries  and  other  coastal resources  that  have  provided  s                                                               
livelihood and subsistence resources  for generations.  She urged                                                               
that  HB 191  not be  passed and  also that  the current  ACMP be                                                               
Number 0692                                                                                                                     
DeWAINE TOLLEFSFRUD,  representing himself, said that  as a proud                                                               
member of  an Alaskan coastal  community, he strongly  opposes HB
191.   He  stated that  local management  of coastal  policies is                                                               
critical to maintaining the health  of Alaska's coastline and its                                                               
inhabitants,  and  HB  191 would  undermine  local  control  over                                                               
important resources and "take the  teeth out" of regulations that                                                               
have  been  locally  determined  to  be  detrimental  to  coastal                                                               
resources.   He told the  committee that there are  many negative                                                               
aspects  to HB  191, but  in the  interest of  brevity, he  would                                                               
leave those comments to others.                                                                                                 
Number 0819                                                                                                                     
ERIC  JOHNSON,  Association  of  Village  Council  of  Presidents                                                               
(AVCP), provided the following testimony:                                                                                       
     This  bill  would  get  rid  of CRSAs.    There  is  no                                                                    
     substitute  for  the  role that  CRSAs  play  in  rural                                                                    
     Alaska;  they  are  the   only  regional  planning  and                                                                    
     project  review  voice  with  any  real  authority  and                                                                    
     ability to steer the process  out here.  Municipalities                                                                    
     with  Title  29  zoning  and land  use  powers  are  no                                                                    
     substitute for  a true regional  voice in  the process.                                                                    
     People in  communities out here are  affected by things                                                                    
     that occur well outside their  city boundaries.  As far                                                                    
     as   the  option   of   forming   boroughs  goes,   the                                                                    
     legislature   called  for   an   LBC  [Local   Boundary                                                                    
     Commission]  study, I  believe, just  last year,  which                                                                    
     found  that  the  area out  here  is  not  economically                                                                    
     suitable for borough formation.                                                                                            
MR. JOHNSON testified:                                                                                                          
     I don't  think that waiting  until the region  out here                                                                    
     is  economically suitable  for borough  formation is  a                                                                    
     very  good reason  to strip  people out  here of  local                                                                    
     control  over coastal  zone resources.   The  deference                                                                    
     that  coastal  districts  receive in  interpreting  and                                                                    
     applying their  plan is  a very  important part  of the                                                                    
     current  ACMP.   It provides  local people  with a  lot                                                                    
     more  than just  agencies listening  to them.   Without                                                                    
     deference, and this bill  would strip coastal districts                                                                    
     of  their  deference,  coastal districts  cannot  steer                                                                    
     planning  in  their  regions.    The  people  in  their                                                                    
     regions would not  need to be listened to  by state and                                                                    
     federal agencies.                                                                                                          
Number 0947                                                                                                                     
MR. JOHNSON continued:                                                                                                          
     CRSAs are  not environmental impediments to  the Alaska                                                                    
     economy.   They are not  environmental special-interest                                                                    
     entities.  Their district plans  are designed with full                                                                    
     local community involvement.   CRSAs boards are elected                                                                    
     by  the  people  of  their   regions.    They  are  not                                                                    
     impediments  to desired  development in  their regions.                                                                    
     I  would  challenge  the  governor  to  point  to  what                                                                    
     evidence  he  has that  there  are  worthy projects  in                                                                    
     rural  Alaska that  have somehow  been  stopped or  are                                                                    
     unreasonably  delayed by  CRSA  review.   What this  is                                                                    
     about is local  control, and that is  an Alaskan value.                                                                    
     Former DNR  Commissioner Heinze testified  earlier that                                                                    
     the ACMP  was needed  because the  [federal government]                                                                    
     "wouldn't listen to the local people."                                                                                     
MR. JOHNSON concluded:                                                                                                          
     That's just  what this legislation  would do;  it makes                                                                    
     it so that state and  federal agencies wouldn't have to                                                                    
     listen to  local people  out here.   We  believe that's                                                                    
     bad  policy.   We  believe that  the  Alaskan value  of                                                                    
     local  control  and  regional   input  and  control  on                                                                    
     resources is  critical and that we  shouldn't replace a                                                                    
     process  that   currently  allows   for  bottom-up-type                                                                    
     input,  and replace  it with  a  top-down system  where                                                                    
     large agencies can just run amuck over people.                                                                             
Number 1050                                                                                                                     
ALLEN JOSEPH, Vice President of Operations, Association of                                                                      
Village Council of Presidents (AVCP), testified as follows:                                                                     
     My position on HB 191 is  that I oppose it.  The reason                                                                    
     I oppose  it is because  it will take away  the ability                                                                    
     of our villages to work  together to manage our coastal                                                                    
     zones,   since  this   bill   would  limit   management                                                                    
     decisions  to   municipalities.    We  all   know  that                                                                    
     municipalities, their  authorities are limited  to what                                                                    
     you  would  call  city  limits,   and  in  the  overall                                                                    
     picture, municipalities  and the lands they  manage are                                                                    
     tiny dots on the landscape.   One example that might be                                                                    
     worth  mentioning   is,  in   our  region   that's  now                                                                    
     (indisc.), one  of their  programs is  the subsistence-                                                                    
     mapping project.   John Oscar  mentioned it  earlier in                                                                    
     his  testimony.    The people  of  our  region,  acting                                                                    
     through Cenaliulriit  (indisc.), identified subsistence                                                                    
     as one of the most  important uses of the coastal zone.                                                                    
     The  mapping  project  relies  on  local  knowledge  to                                                                    
     identify  those areas  of  high  subsistence value  for                                                                    
     planning purposes.   This bill  would not only  do away                                                                    
     with Cenaliulriit but also do  away with our reasonable                                                                    
     subsistence policy entirely.                                                                                               
Number 1192                                                                                                                     
CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director, Coastal District Coordinator,                                                                   
Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA), testified                                                                  
in opposition to HB 191 and provided the following testimony:                                                                   
     House  Bill  191 eliminates  CSRAs,  and  CSRAs are  an                                                                    
     important  governmental function  in our  region.   Our                                                                    
     region goes  from Shishmaref on  the north side  of the                                                                    
     Seward  Peninsula   to  Little  Diomede,   Gambell  and                                                                    
     Savoonga,  and on  the south  side,  Saint Michael  and                                                                    
     Stebbins.   Our CSRA  has the highest  land in  use for                                                                    
     subsistence.   Subsistence is a  historic, traditional,                                                                    
     and customary  practice.  It's  an ancient  economy and                                                                    
     it's  recognized, and  it still  works.   Our CSRA  was                                                                    
     established in  1980.   It's a  service area,  and it's                                                                    
     the lowest form of regional  government in the state of                                                                    
     Alaska.   I  urge you  to  keep the  Bering Strait  Sea                                                                    
     Authority  and the  other  sea authorities  functional.                                                                    
     Local knowledge is  a very important part  of the ACMP.                                                                    
     The projects  that are reviewed  and the  policies that                                                                    
     are  applicable  to  each  project  are  determined  by                                                                    
     location.   Location  is  an  important factor  because                                                                    
     under  this bill  you are  taking away  local knowledge                                                                    
     and all of the efforts  that local people have put into                                                                    
     living in those communities.                                                                                               
Number 1334                                                                                                                     
DOUG  HILL,  longtime Alaska  resident,  urged  the committee  to                                                               
reject HB  191, saying that  the due deference afforded  to local                                                               
decision making  will be stripped away  in order to allow  DNR to                                                               
make  faster resource  decisions.   He  said he  was not  against                                                               
development but  that he supports development  that involves some                                                               
stewardship.  He stated that  local governments and citizens will                                                               
lack a  consistent basis  upon which to  comment on  projects and                                                               
that  coastal uses  that require  only  a state  permit will  not                                                               
require an  ACMP consistency review under  HB 191.  He  said that                                                               
repeatedly "they tell us that  they can provide fish and wildlife                                                               
and  habitat  protection,"  and yet  on  numerous  occasions  the                                                               
details  or mechanics  of  what's being  promoted  have not  been                                                               
provided.   He  urged the  legislature to  ensure that  Alaskans,                                                               
especially  Alaskans living  a  rural  or subsistence  lifestyle,                                                               
have a  firm understanding of HB  191 and all of  the initiatives                                                               
that decrease  industry and governmental accountability  and also                                                               
decrease public participation in government.                                                                                    
Number 1430                                                                                                                     
ROBERT  ARCHIBALD testified  that he  has been  in Alaska  for 25                                                               
years and has seen  the good and the bad, and is  not in favor of                                                               
HB  191 because  currently,  the statewide  standards are  pretty                                                               
good and protect  33 different areas that are  site-specific.  He                                                               
stated that with the [Division  of Habitat and Restoration] being                                                               
moved from the Alaska Department of  Fish & Game (ADF&G) and with                                                               
the [Forest Resources  and Practices Act] "up in  the air", there                                                               
is a need for  stewardship in the state, and HB  191 might not be                                                               
the best  action to take  right now.  He  said that the  ACMP has                                                               
been a good  plan and that perhaps it's time  to determine how to                                                               
best  streamline  the  process  instead of  doing  away  with  it                                                               
Number 1508                                                                                                                     
NINA FAUST  began her  testimony by  stating, "Redundancy  is not                                                               
always  bad  nor  is  it  always failsafe."    She  continued  by                                                               
offering the following:                                                                                                         
     Having both  state and  local oversight  of enforceable                                                                    
     standards provides two perspectives  on a project - one                                                                    
     that will  provide local knowledge valuable  to protect                                                                    
     local resources.   Developers  say that time  is money,                                                                    
     but protecting our natural resources  is money as well.                                                                    
     Damages that could broadly  affect local economies have                                                                    
     to  be considered.    I  don't think  it's  wise to  go                                                                    
     backwards  on our  standards, particularly  by dropping                                                                    
     the  local  habitat  standard.     We  need  the  local                                                                    
     knowledge;  it's   essential  and  must   be  retained.                                                                    
     Development   projects   that   receive   the   careful                                                                    
     oversight  provided by  the  ACMP  are probably  better                                                                    
     projects  in   the  end.     Discovering  environmental                                                                    
     problems beforehand saves money  and can make a project                                                                    
     much more  welcome within a  community.  By  being open                                                                    
     to the  scrutiny provided by  ACMP and  fixing problems                                                                    
     beforehand, a  company demonstrates its  willingness to                                                                    
     be a good neighbor within a coastal area.                                                                                  
MS. FAUST continued:                                                                                                            
     I oppose both of these bills  [HB 191 and SB 143] and I                                                                    
     am also wondering if some  of these major changes might                                                                    
     end up costing  the state quite a lot  of money because                                                                    
     perhaps NEPA  [National Environmental Policy  Act] will                                                                    
     require  environment impact  statements because  of the                                                                    
     sweeping changes.   I urge you to  allow communities to                                                                    
     continue  in their  local stewardship  for the  sake of                                                                    
     their economies and the sake of their local resources.                                                                     
Number 1606                                                                                                                     
ROBERTA  HIGHLAND, President,  Kachemak Bay  Conservation Society                                                               
(KBCS), an  organization with a  membership of  approximately 100                                                               
people,  said the  organization strongly  opposes HB  191 and  SB
143.    She  said  that many  coastal  communities  have  adopted                                                               
enforceable  policies   to  protect  the   important  sustainable                                                               
resources and  that local  communities have  come to  expect that                                                               
projects  affecting local  natural resources  will be  consistent                                                               
with  the existing  state and  local enforceable  policies.   She                                                               
stated that  KBCS respectfully urges  that HB  191 and SB  143 do                                                               
not  pass, adding  that the  ACMP has  been implemented  by local                                                               
communities  and is  working.   She said  KBCS strongly  supports                                                               
balance  and asks  that a  good system  not be  dismantled.   She                                                               
emphasized  that protection  of  coastal  communities, local  and                                                               
statewide economies,  and Alaska's natural resources  deserve the                                                               
best stewardship possible as well as continued public oversight.                                                                
Number 1668                                                                                                                     
MARVIN  R. SMITH,  Community  Development  Coordinator, Lake  and                                                               
Peninsula Borough, provided the following testimony:                                                                            
     I am  the coastal  management person  for the  Lake and                                                                    
     Peninsula Borough, and I'll  reiterate what the borough                                                                    
     manager said.   We just  recently got this  and haven't                                                                    
     had  a   chance  to  present   this  to   our  planning                                                                    
     commission  nor   to  our   assembly.     Our  planning                                                                    
     commission  acts  as   our  coastal  management  policy                                                                    
     group, and  we'd like  more time ....   There  are some                                                                    
     specific  things  in it  that  inhibit  our ability  to                                                                    
     operate.    One of  those  is,  if they  eliminate  the                                                                    
     ordinances  that  are in  effect  today,  which is  our                                                                    
     coastal policy  program, that  would basically  gut our                                                                    
     program, especially the habitat section.                                                                                   
MR. SMITH continued:                                                                                                            
     We also  think that just  because a federal  project is                                                                    
     considered consistent,  that it's considered  locally -                                                                    
     it's not; I  have examples that show that it's  not.  I                                                                    
     think  that local  policies and  local  input, as  I've                                                                    
     heard many people  say, have got to be  considered.  We                                                                    
     appreciate that  the ACMP  program has  been beneficial                                                                    
     for the Lake  and Peninsula Borough.   We have recently                                                                    
     been  doing   a  mapping   project,  and   the  funding                                                                    
     basically  came from  the ACMP  program.   That mapping                                                                    
     project, with  a partnership with the  State of Alaska,                                                                    
     [Department of  Community & Economic  Development], ...                                                                    
     is identifying  many natural resources  and subsistence                                                                    
     use areas.   That mapping project started  with a small                                                                    
     amount of funds that we  got from the ACMP program, and                                                                    
     we're mapping  16 villages in the  boroughs through the                                                                    
     ACMP  program.   Those maps  are replacing  20-year-old                                                                    
     maps, and it  all occurred because of the  program.  We                                                                    
     appreciate comments but think  that we need [more time]                                                                    
     to look  at this.  This  program, as it is  now, is not                                                                    
     appropriate  and we'd  consider looking  at it  closer.                                                                    
     We  appreciate the  governor's  attempts to  streamline                                                                    
     and   think  that   possibly   there   might  be   some                                                                    
     streamlining [to be] done.                                                                                                 
Number 1818                                                                                                                     
JEFF LEPPO, Attorney, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),                                                                    
provided the following testimony:                                                                                               
     Alaska Oil  and Gas  Association was involved  from the                                                                    
     beginning, in 1977,  with the adoption of  the ACMP and                                                                    
     has  been very  active  in the  last  several years  in                                                                    
     regulatory-reform initiative.  Just  as a background, I                                                                    
     personally   have   been  involved   in   environmental                                                                    
     permitting  in Alaska  for over  22 years  and directly                                                                    
     involved in the ACMP process  for a number of completed                                                                    
     and  ongoing  projects  like the  recent  TAPS  [Trans-                                                                    
     Alaska Pipeline  System] reauthorization of  the right-                                                                    
     of-way.  Since we only have  a short time here, I would                                                                    
     like  to  touch  on  three points,  quickly:  one,  why                                                                    
     statutory reform  of the ACMP  is imperative;  two, the                                                                    
     key benefits and advantages of  HB 191 over the current                                                                    
     program;   and   three,   the  potential   sources   of                                                                    
     misunderstanding or misinformation about HB 191.                                                                           
MR. LEPPO testified:                                                                                                            
     Why  reform the  ACMP?   From  the  perspective of  the                                                                    
     development  community, which  are the  businesses that                                                                    
     invest in new development  in Alaska and therefore need                                                                    
     to  obtain federal  and state  and  local permits,  the                                                                    
     ACMP  process has  become the  single most  problematic                                                                    
     regulatory   hurdle  to   responsible  development   in                                                                    
     Alaska.  It really bears  repeating in light of some of                                                                    
     the  earlier testimony.   It  is, in  fact, the  single                                                                    
     most  problematic  regulatory   hurdle  to  responsible                                                                    
     development  in  Alaska.    It is  a  major  source  of                                                                    
     uncertainty for  new projects, and  it results  in real                                                                    
     serious chilling effects on  the economic investment in                                                                    
     Alaska.   Why?  Because  there are vague  standards for                                                                    
     where the  ACMP applies  and to  what projects  or what                                                                    
     portions  of  projects  it  applies   to.    These  are                                                                    
     applicability and scope issues.                                                                                            
MR. LEPPO continued:                                                                                                            
     Second,  there's a  lack of  schedule discipline.   The                                                                    
     schedule and the timeframe for  the ACMP process cannot                                                                    
     be   diagramed.     I  appreciated   the  comments   of                                                                    
     Representative  Berkowitz  early  in  this,  about  his                                                                    
     frustration  that  he  had not  been  provided  with  a                                                                    
     diagram  with the  existing program.   The  problem is,                                                                    
     and Mary  Rutherford alluded  to this  point -  that it                                                                    
     essentially can't  be diagramed.  That's  not a failing                                                                    
     of the  administration.  It  is a very  serious failing                                                                    
     of  the current  system.   I appreciate  how frustrated                                                                    
     the Representative  is, but imagine the  frustration of                                                                    
     someone who  is trying to  permit a project  who cannot                                                                    
     diagram what he or she needs to go through.                                                                                
     This  program   has  been   a  significant   source  of                                                                    
     litigation.  The program is  uncertain in terms of what                                                                    
     restrictions apply.   So, why reform it?   Because it's                                                                    
     the  single  most confusing,  delay-prone,  litigation-                                                                    
     prone, and uncertain  program in Alaska.   What are the                                                                    
     key  benefits?   This bill  provides for  the use  of a                                                                    
     specific  mechanism   identified  in  Section   13,  in                                                                    
     46.39.010(d), that  federal law says is  an appropriate                                                                    
     way  to  go about  organizing  a  state program  called                                                                    
MR. LEPPO offered one more comment about a misunderstanding and                                                                 
testified as follows:                                                                                                           
     There has  been a lot of  talk about the local  role, I                                                                    
     think,  that genuinely,  people  misunderstand how  the                                                                    
     local role has  been preserved.  This  statute, HB 191,                                                                    
     preserves  federal   grant  monies  to   local  coastal                                                                    
     districts   for   research   training   and   technical                                                                    
     assistance.   That's in  AS 44.33.781.   It  contains a                                                                    
     specific provision  for including  municipal ordinances                                                                    
     as  enforceable  policies,  and  it  expressly  applies                                                                    
     those   to   federal   and  OCS   projects.      That's                                                                    
     46.39.010(e)  and (f),  page 10  of  your statute;  and                                                                    
     there, [pages] 9 and 10,  it specifically applies these                                                                    
     local  ordinances to  federal and  OCS projects  and it                                                                    
     adopts,  on   page  10,  a  number   of  the  (indisc.)                                                                    
     enforceable policies.                                                                                                      
CHAIR  SEATON   interjected  that  these  have   previously  been                                                               
reviewed,  and due  to time  constraints,  Mr. Leppo's  testimony                                                               
would need to be curtailed.                                                                                                     
Number 2102                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ   requested  that  Mr.   Leppo  provide                                                               
concrete examples of projects that  have been derailed because of                                                               
the existing  ACMP and  also examples of  projects that  would be                                                               
able  to  go  forward  under  the  new  system.    Representative                                                               
Berkowitz pointed  out that it  was not mandatory  that municipal                                                               
ordinances  be  adopted;  it's   permissive  under  the  proposed                                                               
language in the bill.                                                                                                           
Number 2130                                                                                                                     
BOB SHAVELSON,  Executive Director, Cook Inlet  Keeper, said Cook                                                               
Inlet Keeper  was a nonprofit organization  that pursues separate                                                               
functions:   training citizens to collect  credible water quality                                                               
data that  helps the state  comply with  the Clean Water  Act and                                                               
commenting on water  quality and habitat issues.   He offered the                                                               
following testimony:                                                                                                            
     First,  as  many  people  have  noted,  there's  not  a                                                                    
     documented  problem  here.     We've  heard  a  lot  of                                                                    
     hyperbole,  but  the  rhetoric  does  not  support  the                                                                    
     facts.   I'd like  to review  some statistics  from the                                                                    
     DGC and their  project reviews.  This data  is from the                                                                    
     last five  years of reviews.   The average length  of a                                                                    
     50-day  review, with  extensions,  is 53.2  days.   The                                                                    
     average length of a 30-day  review, with extensions, is                                                                    
     28.2 days.  The percent  of reviews extended at request                                                                    
     of the  applicant [is] 38  percent.  The number  of oil                                                                    
     and gas  projects on  the North  Slope that  have taken                                                                    
     more  than one  year in  the  ACMP review:  zero.   The                                                                    
     number of oil and gas  projects on the North Slope that                                                                    
     have taken  more than six  months: one.  The  number of                                                                    
     mining projects  that have taken  more than  six months                                                                    
     to review:  zero.  The  number of mining  projects that                                                                    
     have taken more than one year:  zero.                                                                                      
     That's in response to some  of the comments made at the                                                                    
     last hearing, from the  development community, that the                                                                    
     ACMP added a  year or more to a variety  of projects on                                                                    
     the North Slope.   I'd also like to note  that the bill                                                                    
     goes   much  further   than  eliminating   duplication.                                                                    
     Instead,  it erases  important  and unique  substantive                                                                    
     protections.   Ms. Rutherford  earlier referred  to the                                                                    
     gap  that  would  be  created by  the  removal  of  the                                                                    
     habitat standard.   The habitat standard  has been used                                                                    
     as a tool by resource  managers to look outside streams                                                                    
     to protect  salmon habitat.   (Indisc.) [Title]  16 has                                                                    
     been used simply to look at instream effects.                                                                              
     The  zero fiscal  note -  and the  commissioner already                                                                    
     noted  that  they  have been  talking  to  the  federal                                                                    
     officials that [there  is a] need to approve  of this -                                                                    
     there  is  definitely  going  to  be  an  environmental                                                                    
     impact statement that  is going to cost a  lot of money                                                                    
     and a lot  of time to go through.   So, in our opinion,                                                                    
     this  is  certainly  not efficient  government,  as  we                                                                    
     already have a program in place that is not broken.                                                                        
Number 2257                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  referred to  the zero fiscal  note, and                                                               
said that  from what [Commissioner Irwin]  had indicated, perhaps                                                               
the zero fiscal ought to be reviewed.                                                                                           
CHAIR  SEATON  stated  that the  committee  would  appreciate  an                                                               
updated fiscal note.                                                                                                            
Number 2298                                                                                                                     
KEITH BETTRIDGE,  City Administrator,  City of  Hoonah, testified                                                               
that  Hoonah  is a  coastal  district  limited  by its  own  city                                                               
limits, and  therefore the  coastal reviews  over the  past three                                                               
years have been minimal, as few have impacted the city limits.                                                                  
Number 2352                                                                                                                     
PAULA TERRELL, Alaska Marine Conservation  Council, said that the                                                               
council's  major concerns  are  fisheries  and conservation,  and                                                               
that  its   membership  comprises   many  commercial   and  sport                                                               
fishermen.    She  reinforced   several  points,  beginning  with                                                               
Representative   Berkowitz's  comment   about  the   adoption  of                                                               
enforceable  policies.    She  said that  all  of  a  community's                                                               
enforceable policies are not adopted  and that it's completely up                                                               
to the  state to decide whether  or not policies are  going to be                                                               
adopted.    This  takes  it  out of  the  realm  of  the  coastal                                                               
communities, and  therefore really  eliminates the  due deference                                                               
that  local  communities have.    She  suggested that  these  are                                                               
multiple  permits that  do take  more time  because of  involving                                                               
federal as well as state agencies.                                                                                              
MS.  TERRELL  emphasized  that  nothing should  be  done  to  the                                                               
habitat standard, which allows ADF&G  to comment on projects that                                                               
involve  "out of  the stream  beds" -  that Title  16 was  in the                                                               
stream, and  that this is out  of the stream.   She said it  is a                                                               
very important  tool, and since it  is such a complex  issue, she                                                               
suggested that that a group  of involved stakeholders composed of                                                               
industry, state, federal,  and so forth, work on  the details and                                                               
present  those refinements  to  the legislators.    She said  she                                                               
thought that some  refinements need to be done with  the ACMP but                                                               
in  this case,  "the  baby  is being  thrown  out  with the  bath                                                               
Number 2490                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE  moved to  report HB  191 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
Number 2498                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected, saying  that although there is                                                               
room to improve  upon the ACMP, the product  before the committee                                                               
-  by  the  administration's  own  admission  -  is  a  "work  in                                                               
progress."    He  stated  that one  of  the  responsibilities  of                                                               
legislators  is  to  ensure  that  bills  are  as  good  as  [the                                                               
committee] can  make them, noting  that, clearly, there  was room                                                               
for improvement on HB  191.  He said that a  lot of testimony had                                                               
been taken  but, in essence,  the issues had not  been addressed.                                                               
He said  that insufficient empirical  evidence had  been received                                                               
to support,  in good conscience,  the changes recommended  by the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ   urged  the  committee,   rather  than                                                               
actually voting  at this time,  to hold  the bill, do  more work,                                                               
and at  the appropriate time, to  act together to move  the bill.                                                               
He noted  that the [House Resources  Standing Committee] wouldn't                                                               
be meeting today and that there  was still an opportunity for the                                                               
administration  to  produce  evidence  to support  HB  191.    He                                                               
restated that he was willing to  be persuaded to be supportive of                                                               
the  bill, but  at this  point, because  enough evidence  had not                                                               
been  presented,  it  was  riding   on  a  "trust  me,  anecdotal                                                               
information"   approach   in   a  situation   where   there   was                                                               
overwhelming  public testimony  in opposition  to the  bill.   He                                                               
emphasized that  the committee needed  to listen to  the public's                                                               
expression of desire that "this bill should not move."                                                                          
Number 2593                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  suggested that  a more  appropriate venue                                                               
would be  the [House Resources  Standing Committee].  He  said he                                                               
grew up in  a coastal community and he  understands the expressed                                                               
concerns of  the coastal community.   He noted that the  bill was                                                               
far from  the House floor  and had  a long road  ahead, including                                                               
three committees of referral from this point.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   BERKOWITZ  confirmed   that  there   were  three                                                               
committees of referral  in the [House] but only  one committee in                                                               
the [Senate].                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  said he  would vote to  move the  bill to                                                               
the next committee of referral; he  also said that there would be                                                               
stumbling blocks  ahead, and  "we will all  be there  watching to                                                               
make sure that the local communities are heard from."                                                                           
Number 2637                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG  said the  case had  not been  made and                                                               
noted that a  lot of communities had been  heard from, indicating                                                               
an overwhelming amount  of distrust, perhaps due  to confusion or                                                               
from  misinformation.    He  suggested   that  the  committee  do                                                               
additional  work  on HB  191,  but  if  not,  he hoped  that  the                                                               
commissioner  would take  to heart  the requests  and information                                                               
that had  been supplied.   He  noted that  the committee  had not                                                               
received  flowcharts   or  detailed  information,  as   had  been                                                               
requested.    He highlighted  that  the  public had  revealed  an                                                               
overwhelming desire  to provide  input into the  coastal process.                                                               
He  mentioned  that some  but  not  other ordinances  were  being                                                               
adopted, noting  that Juneau currently  has a  habitat ordinance.                                                               
He  asked where  the  preponderance of  responsibility was  being                                                               
placed, saying  that a lot  of questions  had been asked  but had                                                               
not yet been answered.                                                                                                          
Number 2740                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE suggested that the  heart of the matter was                                                               
that  there was  no way  to obtain  the requested  flowchart; she                                                               
referred to  a former commissioner's  statement of  the situation                                                               
being "a  minefield" and said  that the permitting  process needs                                                               
to  be  streamlined.    She  indicated that  the  bill  could  be                                                               
"tweaked and adjusted"  as it moves forward; she  stated that she                                                               
was in support HB 191.                                                                                                          
Number 2774                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   WILSON  said   she  was   concerned  about   the                                                               
redundancy in  the current  process.  She  stated that  the basic                                                               
goals  were  not  being  undone; rather,  the  objective  was  to                                                               
streamline  the process.   She  said the  commissioner had  taken                                                               
notes, and that she believed he  was willing to be responsive [to                                                               
what  was heard  in committee].   She  suggested that  the [House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee]  would have a lot of work  to do on                                                               
the bill; she stated that she would vote to pass the bill out.                                                                  
Number 2820                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  expressed concern  that a lot  of changes  had been                                                               
identified as being  necessary to the process, and that  a lot of                                                               
testimony from individual districts  and villages and other areas                                                               
were indicative  of problems and concerns  with HB 191.   He said                                                               
that  he hoped  the  commissioner  would incorporate  information                                                               
that had  been heard in committee.   Chair Seaton said  that as a                                                               
general policy,  he didn't  want to move  bills out  of committee                                                               
until the  work had been done,  because if a bill  moved out with                                                               
"amend"  on  it,   but  wasn't,  in  fact,   amended,  then  [the                                                               
committee's] responsibilities were not  being fulfilled.  He said                                                               
he hoped  that the other  committees of referral would  amend the                                                               
bill because  sufficient concerns had been  expressed, indicating                                                               
that amendments were needed.                                                                                                    
Number 2900                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said the  committee had not  heard from                                                               
ADF&G,  and  fisheries  issues such  as  habitat  standards  that                                                               
should  have  been  addressed  by this  committee  had  not  been                                                               
addressed.  He  said although the administration  had indicated a                                                               
flowchart couldn't  be made, his  own office staff had  devised a                                                               
flowchart that at least provided  assistance in understanding the                                                               
process; he  emphasized that  the administration's  not providing                                                               
the requested flowchart "said something" to him.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  urged the  committee to hold  the bill,                                                               
acknowledging  that  it's  not   easy  to  "buck  the  governor."                                                               
Referring to  a Legislative Council suit  against former Governor                                                               
Knowles being argued  in front of the supreme court,  he told the                                                               
committee he'd backed the suit because  it was the right thing to                                                               
do.    He  stressed  the importance  of  legislature's  not  just                                                               
putting a "rubber stamp" on what the governor does.                                                                             
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Heinze, Samuels,                                                               
Ogg, Wilson, and  Seaton voted in favor of reporting  HB 191 from                                                               
committee.  Representatives Berkowitz and Guttenberg voted                                                                      
against it.  Therefore, HB 191 was reported out of the House                                                                    
Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects