Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/11/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 105 | ||
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1:49:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska
coastal management program; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and
providing for an effective date."
1:49:55 PM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from the following written
testimony [original punctuation provided]:
Usually when I make a presentation to a Committee
about the results of an audit - I cut right to the
meat of the matter.
However with the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP) I'm going to spend a little more time going
through the Background portion of the audit, which
should give some context to conclusions and
recommendations in the report.
The foundation of the program starts with the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This program is
intended to promote the effective management,
beneficial use, protection and development of the
coastal zones. States participating in this program
have the right to review federal agency and federally
permitted activities occurring in or affecting the
coastal zone. This act encourages but does not
require participation of local governments.
The Alaska Coastal Management program began in 1977.
In 2003 statutory changes substantially modified the
ACMP.
· It transferred the development and implementation
of the ACMP from the Coastal Policy Council to
the Department of Natural Resources.
· revised statewide standards
· removed DEC from the consistency review
· required coastal resource districts to rewrite
their district coastal management plans.
The cornerstone of the ACMP process is the consistency
review. So what is that?
A consistency review determines if the proposed
activity is consistent with the statutes and
regulation of the state's resource agencies (DNR,
ADF&G and DEC); whether it is consistent with
statewide standards (which are found in AS ); and
if the activity is consistent with the coastal
district's enforceable policies. These criteria are
collectively referred to as ACMP's enforceable
policies.
The folks participating in the consistency review
include resource agency staff or any other state
agency requesting participation, the affected coastal
resource districts, the applicants and any interested
members of the public.
The process of a consistency review starts with:
· a public notice
· Then DCOM [Division of Coastal and Ocean Management]
distributes the consistency review packets to the
review participants
· Collect comments regarding consistency from the review
participants and then distribute those comments to the
applicant and other review participants
· facilitate discussion among review participants to
achieve consensus
· render a proposed consistency determination with
alternative measures as necessary.
· render a final consistency determination
(Exhibit 3 on page 12 of the first report identifies
the consistency review timeline) (Exhibit 4 on page
13 gives an example of a project that needed a
consistency determination)
1:53:58 PM
MS. DAVIDSON added that key is the criteria used in determining
whether the activity is consistent or not. She clarified that
it's whether the activity is consistent with the resource
agencies' authorities, statewide standards, and the coastal
districts' enforceable policies. She then returned to
paraphrasing from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
As bureaucratic processes go it sounds relatively
simple. The complexity and the associated controversy
come into play with the establishment of the statewide
standards and the enforceable policies that the
coastal districts can establish.
Going through the conclusions one-by-one:
1. We found that the regulatory changes in 11 AAC
112 and 114 are within state law and legislative
intent. (Legislative intent is found on page 23
and 24 Part 1) and they have limited the ability
of coastal districts to establish enforceable
policies.
Since the new regulations have been established,
coastal districts have submitted 490 enforceable
policies and only 210 have been approved. Many of the
denials are based, at least in part, because
· The coastal district has not sufficiently
documented that a matter of local concern is not
already adequately addressed by a state or
federal law.
· The coastal district could not provide a map that
met the written scientific evidence requirement
to support an area being designated as an
important habitat area.
1:56:11 PM
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, clarified that she
is working from the first audit report [dated November 26, 2010]
and is currently discussing the report conclusions that begin on
page 19. In response to Representative P. Wilson, Ms. Davidson
agreed to inform the committee from which page in the audit
report she is working.
1:56:46 PM
MS. DAVIDSON then directed attention to page 20 of the audit
report, which discusses the changes in the number of enforceable
policies. Prior to the 2003 and 2005 changes there had been
over 1,300 enforceable policies. However, since that time 490
enforceable policies have been proposed of which 210 have been
approved. She attributed that substantial decrease to the fact
that there was a reduction in the number of participating
coastal districts and a change in the law. The change was to
have the enforceable policies as clear, concise, and non
duplicative as possible. Some of the duplication was in regard
to a coastal district with an enforceable policy that was the
same as state statute, regulation, or federal law. Another area
of duplication was with coastal districts with enforceable
policies for federal land, although they don't have authority
for such. The first audit report focused on the reasons the
enforceable policies hadn't been approved. The audit report
found that there might be multiple reasons why a coastal
district's enforceable policy had been denied. The denial
could've been because the enforceable policy had already been
addressed by a state or federal law and didn't have additional
scientific evidence to meet the designated area.
1:59:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his understanding that Coastal Resource
Service Areas (CRSA) can still submit areas for consideration.
MS. DAVIDSON confirmed that they can propose them, but it's part
of the division's responsibility to review them and ensure they
don't duplicate a state authority or standard. In further
response to Co-Chair Feige, Ms. Davidson also confirmed that the
ability to amend is always available.
2:00:02 PM
MS. DAVIDSON pointed out that page 22 of the first audit report
provides a comparison by region regarding the number of proposed
district plans and the number of approved district plans. She
then returned to paraphrasing from the following written
testimony [original punctuation provided]:
Those thresholds for designated areas which require
scientific evidence are difficult and expensive.
(During the reevaluation process DCOM proposed in
draft form for informal public to eliminate the
designated area requirements)
In its evaluation of the ACMP process, the National
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's Office (NOAA)
suggested that DNR revisit the requirements for
designated areas especially those related to important
habitat and subsistence use.
MS. DAVIDSON said that although DCOM does provide some funding
to the coastal districts, scientific evidence and creation of
the maps is more expensive than the grant funds provided.
2:00:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether there is any
reason why local communities can't hire their own consultant
with the grant money. She opined that it would be much better
if the community could hire its own consultant.
MS. DAVIDSON explained that the second audit report, dated
December 29, 2010, expressed the division's recommendation that
consultants be allowed to represent the coastal districts. Many
of the coastal districts are political subdivisions and it isn't
within the authority of a department to make determinations
regarding what a political subdivision can do in operating its
own entity. While the agency is trying to foster good
participation in the program by the stakeholders of the
community, the division believes they overstepped by trying to
prohibit the coastal districts from using consultants.
2:02:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if there is a reason why so many of the
enforceable policies were rejected when they were based on
guidance provided by the division for the development of the
plans. He then inquired as to the background of the rejections.
MS. DAVIDSON said that she didn't have a direct answer because
the division didn't review all of them. The rejected
enforceable policies that were reviewed had a common theme of
establishing that matter of local concern and duplicity. In
discussions with the coastal districts, it was determined that
the lack of a regulation doesn't mean an issue hasn't been
adequately addressed. Therefore, if there's a state statute
that says an entity is responsible for something but no
regulations defining how that responsibility will be addressed
are in place, the issue is deemed as already being addressed
when it comes to the coastal districts' ability to write
enforceable policies about that issue. The coastal district,
she explained, can't fill in the gaps when there is no
regulation.
2:05:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised then that the state ignored the word
"adequately" and determined that if it could be addressed by an
agency, it has been adequately addressed even if the coastal
district has concerns.
MS. DAVIDSON responded that Co-Chair Seaton's remarks are a good
paraphrase, but she couldn't recall whether the term
"adequately" is in statute. She recalled that the language was
that [the enforceable policies] "can't be duplicative of an
authority of the state agency." Therefore, it's deemed to have
been addressed if it's in statute. For example, with DEC
regulations for spills and spill containment, DEC expects a plan
in place from the entity proposing an activity if the spill is
over 5,000-10,000 barrels. A coastal community can't decide
that it would like a plan that addresses a spill of only 1,000
barrels because DEC already has a requirement, and thus the
local districts can't have an additional requirement.
2:08:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to page 22, exhibit 8, footnote
28, asked if the audit delved into the details of footnote 28.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that exhibit 8 is a chart illustrating
proposed versus approved designated subsistence and important
habitat areas. The reason the northwest is so low is because a
management plan must be in place and approved prior to being
able to have the enforceable policies approved. The lack of
approved management plans was the reason why those enforceable
policies weren't approved as opposed to there being an issue
with the policy itself.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the audit tried to determine why
those management plans weren't approved.
MS. DAVIDSON specified that one management plan had been in the
commissioner's office and had asked that its determination be
suspended, but she couldn't recall the reason for the others.
2:11:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if Representative Herron would like the
committee to pursue that information.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied yes.
2:12:12 PM
MS. DAVIDSON directed attention to page 25 of the first audit
report, and continued paraphrasing from the following written
remarks [original punctuation provided]:
2. As intended by the legislature, the DEC carveout
has excluded air, land and water quality permit
issues from ACMP reviews.
One of the provisions of Ch 24 SLA 03 was to remove
air land and water quality permits issued under DEC's
authority from the ACMP consistency review process.
This removal or "carveout" did two things.
· First it allows for DEC to conduct its
permit review process concurrently rather
than consecutively as the ACMP review
process. Since some of DEC's permits take
an extended period of time, industry,
particularly likes the concurrent permitting
aspects of the DEC carveout.
· The DEC carveout also functionally
eliminated the opportunity for any coastal
district to develop enforceable policy
related to air, land and water quality
permit issues under the authority of DEC.
The ACMP process allows the local coastal
districts to have a say - through
enforceable policies on projects going
through the consistency review process.
However this voice has essentially been shut
down by the DEC Carveout for air, land and
water quality permit issues. Also in its
2008 reevaluation project one of the
proposals was to eliminate the DEC carveout.
2:14:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the second to last
paragraph on page 25, which relates the industry's belief that
the DEC carveout has reduced delays in the consistency review
process. He asked if the audit reviewed whether that was
correct.
MS. DAVIDSON recalled that when the division reviewed the
projects, it didn't review whether it was delayed. However, it
was apparent that with the DEC permits proceeding concurrently,
the consistency review started earlier and thus should result in
an earlier completion. She related her understanding that the
air quality permits can take an extensive period of time to
obtain. Therefore, merely overlapping the processes allowed for
better efficiency. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms.
Davidson explained that the end of the consistency review
process can be reached and knowledge gained in terms of whether
there are any alternative measures or other enforceable policies
prior to the DEC process. Whereas when the DEC process was part
of the consistency review process, both pieces had to be
complete prior to a determination regarding whether the project
was going to be consistent or not. Ms. Davidson clarified that
a project must still obtain all of its permits, but there is the
opportunity to know the results of the non DEC issues prior to
the completion of the DEC process.
2:17:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding then that a project
may complete the consistency review process prior to DEC,
although DEC may have been at the table with other agencies.
MS. DAVIDSON replied yes. Therefore, upon completion of the
consistency review process, an applicant will know whether the
project's activity is in accordance with state standards and
whether it's within the enforceable policies of the ACMP.
Therefore, an applicant will know of any issues that need to be
mitigated if it's a DEC permit that takes an extended length of
time.
2:19:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised that other agencies will be able to
consult on issues that impact DEC permits.
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that DEC will follow its own regulations
for issuing permits and if that requires consultation with other
resource agencies it would do so. Additionally, the public
comment process for general permitting activities is available.
Coastal districts have the opportunity to go through the public
comment process with regard to the issuance of DEC permits.
However, under ACMP an enforceable policy is given due
deference, which means [the applicant/project] needs to be in
compliance with the enforceable policy. On the other hand, if a
coastal district has a comment on a DEC permit issue, it's a
public comment issue and isn't given due deference.
2:21:36 PM
MS. DAVIDSON, referring to page 27, continued paraphrasing from
the following written testimony [original punctuation provided]:
Determining if the revised statewide standards have
limited the ability to meet the ACMP objectives is
subjective and difficult to measure.
Many of the changes clarified the standards and eliminated
duplicate authorities. For example the wetlands definition
was redefined to match the federal definition.
While DNR believes that ACMP objectives can still be met
through comprehensive application of state resource agency
statutes and regulations, plus state standards. Some of
the resource agencies expressed some doubt, particularly in
the area of habitat standards. During NOAA's review they
encouraged DNR to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
standards in protecting coastal habitat (by monitoring) how
the standards are implemented through permitted projects.
NOAA can't tell DNR to change the state standards, but they
are suggesting that the outcomes of the standards bear
watching.
2:23:10 PM
MS. DAVIDSON directed the committee's attention to page 29 and
continued paraphrasing from the following written remarks
[original punctuation provided]:
3. And the final conclusion in this first report is
that the changes to the ACMP process have not
diminished the State's rights under the federal
[Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972] CZMA
program.
The state still has rights with regard to federal
agencies or federal permitted activities within or
outside the coastal zone that affects the coast zone
of Alaska.
The state has the rights to evaluate the consistency
of those federal activities with the State's
enforceable policies.
However to the extent the state has limited the
development of enforceable policies and designated
areas by coastal districts it has also then generally
limited its extent to comment on federal activities
for those same issues. The one exception is that
regulations do allow DNR to designate areas for
subsistence and important habitat areas during a
consistency review. So even if a designated area has
not been developed by a coastal district the state can
still establish that as a designated area during its
consistency review of federal activity.
That concludes the issues from the first report.
2:24:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that coastal
districts do have the right to evaluate a decision. When the
coastal districts evaluate a decision, they meet with the
commissioner in an informal meeting that occurs within 45 days.
Whereas DEC's appeals process is a formal process that usually
involves a hearing officer and can be lengthy. She asked if Ms.
Davidson is suggesting that the coastal districts evaluation
process should be done within 45 days also.
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that the point is to identify the effect
of the DEC carveout. Coastal districts don't have enforceable
policies on water, land, and air quality permit issues as those
are under DEC's authority. If a coastal district believes that
a consistency determination has been made and it disagrees with
that determination and doesn't believe its enforceable policies
have been given sufficient due deference, the coastal district
can elevate that determination to the DNR commissioner. The
aforementioned is resolved within 45 days and is more of an
informal process. In comparison, a coastal district can't write
enforceable policies that are given due deference and can only
provide public comment on DEC permit issues. If the coastal
district moves through the aforementioned process and tries to
appeal a DEC decision to issue or not issue a permit, the
process for elevating is different in that it's a more formal
process with a hearing officer. Ms. Davidson explained that the
audit attempts to compare the voice of the coastal districts
under DEC permitted activities versus those that go through the
consistency review process.
2:26:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the audit reports that
the two processes aren't equal, and therefore she inquired as to
how it should be changed.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that the audit points out the impacts of
the DEC carveout and questions whether the legislature remains
satisfied with the DEC carveout. The audit isn't determining
whether the DEC appeals process is good or bad compared to the
elevation process in the ACMP, rather "when you're evaluating
whether or not the DEC carveout is working as the legislature
intended, that's one of the impacts of it."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that it may not be an either-
or situation. Perhaps, there could be a compromise to reach a
more "livable" situation. Therefore, there's room for work.
2:29:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether an enforceable policy is a local
law.
MS. DAVIDSON responded, "For the most part, no." She explained
that Alaska's process for developing coastal districts'
enforceable policies is an alternative to entities, most of
which are political subdivisions, from developing local
ordinances. These enforceable policies gain enforcement because
they've been accepted and approved as such under the ACMP.
2:30:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that when the changes were implemented and
districts feared they would lose the ability to make enforceable
policies, a number of districts incorporated their enforceable
policies in borough municipal ordinances. He asked if in such a
scenario, the project developer would proceed through the
consistency review and in a separate action would have to obtain
a permit from the borough.
MS. DAVIDSON pointed out that page 18 of the audit compares
Alaska's program with four other states. There are two ways in
which to do this. Alaska has primarily allowed local
governments to participate in reviews and the comments of the
local governments, to the extent the enforceable policies are
given due deference. However, in reviewing California, Florida,
Louisiana, and Texas, many of their local enforceable policies
aren't included in the state coastal plan, which she attributed
to the fact that those states have more experience and well
developed local governments. These states are dealing with this
at the local level with local laws and ordinances. Since the
audit report didn't delve that far into the details, Ms.
Davidson wasn't sure how much is being done at the local level
in Alaska.
2:33:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the audit report reviewed how many of
the municipal districts adopted their enforceable policies as
local codes so that those permits are required.
MS. DAVIDSON replied no, but she directed attention to a map on
page 6 of the first audit report that identifies the coastal
districts and which aren't currently participating in the ACMP.
2:34:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if under the DEC carveout, the process is
such that a coastal district or municipality going through the
administrative hearing process would proceed to the superior
court if there's disagreement.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that although she knows that through the
formal appeals process there is an avenue that leads to court,
she didn't know all the steps.
2:35:15 PM
MS. DAVIDSON moved to the second audit report dated December 29,
2010. She then paraphrased from the following written remarks
[original punctuation provided]:
The next report has additional conclusions as well as
recommendations.
We found that while the ACMP is operating openly and
transparently there are certain areas where this
openness is lacking. For example
1. There are no recordings or minutes taken for
working group meetings.
2. DNR limits the distribution of consistency review
materials
3. DNR has not kept participants actively informed
about the status of the ACMP reevaluation process
that started in 2008.
MS. DAVIDSON clarified that the audit report isn't addressing
whether the Administrative Procedures Act is being followed,
rather it's reviewing whether there's good flow of information.
The consistency review process requires a lot of active
participation, which means that communications are essential.
The comments are with regard to whether the ACMP is operating in
an open and transparent fashion. She then returned to
paraphrasing the following written remarks [original punctuation
provided]:
DNR's policy of not allowing a district consultant to
represent the district on a consistency review
disregards the autonomy of the coastal districts. You
have to remember that many of the coastal districts
are political sub-division; cities and boroughs. We
believe that having a state agency tell another
governmental unit what can and cannot be delegated is
overstepping.
2:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to the reaction of the ACMP
participants to the areas sited where openness is lacking, such
as the lack of recordings or minutes for working group meetings.
MS. DAVIDSON pointed out that the Division of Legislative Audit
reports contain the agency's response. Generally, the agency
disagreed with the audit's observations.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON commented that it strikes him as unusual
that the department operated to the letter of the law, but not
within the spirit of the law.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated her agreement with
Representative Herron's comments, but added her belief that
DNR's disagreement was purely because it felt attacked.
2:40:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled receiving comments that not only did
DNR fail to record the meetings, people were told that they
could not record the meetings themselves. He asked if Ms.
Davidson received similar comments from district participants.
MS. DAVIDSON replied yes.
2:41:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his assumption that the entire purpose
of the consistency review and the enforceable policies was to
have a coordinated action. He mentioned the prohibition of
consultants in the ACMP. He then inquired as to whether there
was any explanation as to why there was a prohibition of
recording the meetings in order to share them with the other
participants in the coastal district.
MS. DAVIDSON recalled discussions about the consultant issues,
but didn't recall much discussion about the recording of
minutes. The discussion about the consultants addressed the
goal of the agency to have members of the coastal districts
actively participate rather than delegating the participation.
Ms. Davidson said that the division's view is that it's still up
to the coastal district to determine what it wants to do.
2:43:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he has heard frustration from coastal
districts regarding the inability/prohibition of recording the
conversation to share with people within the community.
MS. DAVIDSON confirmed that the division heard similar comments.
She opined that in many of these areas it seems actions and
intent are at cross purposes. In order to have a dynamic
process, people have to be able to participate, which means it
has to be made as easy as possible to participate and
understand.
2:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the division had the opportunity
to talk with project applicants about their experience with the
process before and after the changes.
MS. DAVIDSON replied yes, but noted from her auditing experience
that more unsatisfied people talk to the division than satisfied
people. Furthermore, the audit request drives the review as
well.
2:46:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to language in the audit that
specifies DCOM maintains two distribution lists for project
reviews, inquired as to the purposes of the two distribution
lists.
MS. DAVIDSON said that the audit was trying to explain who is
getting more say and more material, rather than relating a
compare:contrast issue.
2:47:23 PM
MS. DAVIDSON, returning to her presentation, continued
paraphrasing from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
In analyzing the organizational placement of the
Alaska Coastal Management Program we found that ACMP's
missions is aligned with any of the three resource
agencies - DNR, DFG or DEC. Also because the program
coordinates activities among departments the other
agency that could manage ACMP could be the Office of
the Governor. So our conclusion is that DNR is one of
the appropriate agencies to administer the ACMP
program.
We found that the changes in Chapter 24, SLA 03 have
centralized decision making in the DNR Commissioner's
Office and have lessened some of the consensus-
building aspects of the ACMP consistency reviews.
Some of the changes which contribute to the lessening
of the consensus building aspects include:
1. elimination of the Coastal Policy Council
2. reduction in the number of district
enforceable policies
3. transferring the program from the Office of
the Governor to a resource agency may have
strained relationship among program participants
4. And, DEC is not as strong a participant since
DEC permits have been carved out of the
consistency review process.
Finally we conclude that the legislature should
reauthorize the ACMP program. This program gives the
state [the ability] to formally influence federal
decisions regarding the coastal zone. Additionally it
coordinates permitting and consistency review for
projects and developments [which] aides both state
agencies as well as private businesses in dealing with
the state bureaucracy. The Legislature could simply
repeal the repealer section of uncodified law; or if
the Legislature prefers further evaluation of the
program it could modify the repealer section and reset
the sunset date to July 1, 2015 (4 years)
2:49:57 PM
MS. DAVIDSON continued:
This report contains to two recommendations.
First that DNR allow the coastal districts to
designate their own representatives.
And secondly DNR should complete its two ongoing
regulatory projects.
The first project is to revise the ABC list which is
already 3 years past the deadline set out in Ch 31,
SLA 05. (The importance of the ABC list is that it
identifies categories and description of uses and
activities that may impact the coastal zone. It is
these categories and descriptions that define what
level of consistency review is necessary - see page 17
for a description of an A, B and C activity)
The second project is to complete the program
reevaluation project that DNR started in 2008. While
this project has no statutory deadline, there has been
a substantial investment of time and resources into
this project and the statutory and regulatory changes
should be finalized and the respective public process
should be completed.
2:51:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to the magic of the four year
extension.
MS. DAVIDSON related that the division believes the two
regulatory projects, the ABC List and the completion of the
reevaluation project are important. There has been a lot of
work done and the agency needs to complete them. If it's going
to take another 12-24 months to complete and implement those
projects and another couple of years to operate underneath those
programs, then four years would allow for the aforementioned and
the return for an evaluation.
2:53:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON relayed that there has been some question with
regard to the ACMP being in DNR and its lack of focus on the
ACMP in comparison to other projects. He asked if the division
received testimony from agencies as well as individual coastal
districts regarding where the ACMP would be most effectively
housed.
MS. DAVIDSON responded that the division received a lot of
comments regarding the way the ACMP used to be and how it is
now, but didn't receive a lot of specific organizational
information. In terms of the best location for the ACMP if the
program fits within the mission, it is an appropriate placement.
When the ACMP was located in the Office of the Governor it was
difficult for it to get attention. She pointed out that DNR,
ADF&G, and DEC all have a lot of issues going on as well as hot
button issues that come and go. Therefore, one would need to
review the strength of the division and whether the management
is moving it forward. The division, she related, tried to find
out where the ABC List and the re-evaluation projects died, but
there was no clear answer. She acknowledged that the
aforementioned are difficult issues on which to obtain
consensus, but expressed the need to make decisions. Placing
the deadline for the ABC List in statute indicates the need to
build consensus as well as make a decision.
2:57:22 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON questioned whether it's worth placing in statute
again if it was ignored in the past. From the audit, Co-Chair
Seaton surmised that DEC was somewhat segregated and less
involved than in the past because it wasn't included in the
consistency review. He asked if the audit found the
aforementioned to be a detriment to the consistency review
process or was it simply that they were on their own track.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that she didn't recall that there were
delays because of the DEC carveout. However, it did factor into
the lessening of the consensus building. Although there's
nothing prohibiting DEC representatives from attending and
participating in the meetings, there's no incentive for them to
do so either. Again, the DEC carveout has lessened the
consensus building aspect of the consistency review process.
[HB 106 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|