Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/04/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HB186 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2:06:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final 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."
2:06:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related that he, Co-Chair Seaton, Representatives
Herron and Joule, and Deputy Commissioner Balash have spent a
great deal of time trying to address all of the issues with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The group has tried
to take into consideration all the wants, needs, and concerns of
the coastal districts while accommodating the governor's four
requirements. The group, he said, believes it has achieved
success through the forthcoming packet of amendments that adjust
the program while still maintaining its focus. He then directed
attention to the summary sheet of amendments, saying they will
be addressed in the order listed on the summary sheet.
2:08:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.27, Bullard, 4/3/11, which read:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
RETROACTIVITY AND REVIVAL. (a) The amendment to
AS 44.66.020(a)(5) made by sec. 3 of this Act is
retroactive to January 1, 2011.
(b) If, under AS 01.10.070(c), sec. 3 of this Act
takes effect on or after July 1, 2011, sec. 3 of this
Act is retroactive to July 1, 2011, and sections
repealed by sec. 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005, are revived. If
a revived section is amended by this Act, it is
revived as amended by this Act. The revived sections
are subject to repeal under sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005,
as amended by sec. 3 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:08:56 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that there is a legal memorandum
attached to Amendment 7. Amendment 7 provides for a drop dead
date of June 30 in the case of an unforeseen delay. Therefore,
retroactively reviving the statute wouldn't be a violation of
state law.
2:09:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that the amendments the
committee will consider today are to HB 106 as it has already
been amended.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied yes.
2:10:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee of its desire to review
each item rather than considering a large committee substitute
(CS). These amendments are offered to the original bill and all
amendments will be wrapped into a CS that can be reviewed prior
to moving the legislation out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection.
2:11:11 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
2:11:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE informed the committee that Amendment 8 requires
an annual report on the progress the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) has made in drafting and adopting ACMP
regulations.
2:11:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 8,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.28, Bullard, 4/2/11, which read:
Page 2, following line 53:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39.010 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) Not later than January 20 each year, the
department shall prepare an annual report summarizing
the department's efforts to draft and adopt
regulations under this chapter and AS 46.40 during the
prior calendar year. The department shall notify the
legislature that the report is available and shall
also post the report on the department's Internet
website."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
There being no objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.
2:12:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved on to Amendment 9, which:
Provides that the Department shall provide planning
and consistency review data and information to members
of the governing body of a coastal resource district
or coastal resource service area. States that if the
department provides funds to implement or amend a
coastal district plan along with a restriction on the
use of the funds, they will specify the state statute
or federal regulation or statute that authorizes the
restriction.
2:12:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 9,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.30, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the duty of the Department of
Natural Resources to provide data and information to a
coastal resource district or area; relating to funds
provided to coastal resource districts; relating to
regulations adopted by the department regarding
persons authorized to participate in and to receive
materials relating to a consistency review;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39.040 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.39.040. Duties of the department. In
conformity with 16 U.S.C. 1451 - 1464 (Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972), as amended, the department
shall
(1) develop statewide standards for the
Alaska coastal management program, and criteria for
the preparation and approval of district coastal
management plans in accordance with AS 46.40;
(2) establish continuing coordination among
state agencies to facilitate the development and
implementation of the Alaska coastal management
program; in carrying out its duties under this
paragraph, the department shall initiate an
interagency program of comprehensive coastal resource
planning for each geographic region of the state;
(3) assure continued provision of data and
information to coastal resource districts and coastal
resource service areas to carry out their planning and
management functions under the program; in providing
data and information to a coastal resource district or
area under this paragraph, the department shall
provide the data and information to each member of the
governing body of the coastal resource district or the
board of the coastal resource service area and to
other persons as may be designated by the district or
area.
* Sec. 3. AS 46.39.040 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) If the department provides funds to a
coastal resource district or area to implement or
amend a coastal resource district's or area's coastal
management plan and the department provides a
restriction on how the funds may be used by the
district or area, the department shall specify the
state statute or federal statute or regulation that
authorizes the restriction.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.096(c) is amended to read:
(c) The regulations adopted by the department
under this section must, in an affected coastal
resource district, permit the members of the governing
body of the coastal resource district, the district's
coastal management plan coordinator, and the
district's community planner to participate in the
consistency review, and the regulations must require
the department or reviewing entity to provide the
persons described in AS 46.39.030(3) materials
relating to the consistency review. The regulations
must also include provisions for public notice and
provide the opportunity for public comment.
Regulations relating to public notice and public
comment [THE REGULATIONS] adopted under this
subsection may make distinctions relating to notice
based upon differences in project type, anticipated
effect of the project on coastal resources and uses,
other state or federal notice requirements, and time
constraints. However, a notice given under this
subsection must contain sufficient information,
expressed in commonly understood terms, to inform the
public of the nature of the proposed project for which
a consistency determination is sought, and must
explain how the public may comment on the proposed
project. Notices described in this subsection shall be
published on the department's Internet website. In
this subsection,
(1) "coastal management plan coordinator"
means the person designated, by a coastal resource
district, with development, maintenance, and
implementation of the district's coastal management
plan;
(2) "community planner" means the person
designated, by a coastal resource district, with
helping to formulate plans and making decisions
relating to the development of the district's natural
resources and community assets and the protection of
the district's water, land, and air."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:13:08 PM
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, directed attention to page 1, line 23, of Amendment
9. He expressed the need to be sure the "continued provision of
data and information to coastal resource districts and coastal
resource service areas" is available electronically. In some of
the reviews a C-plan will be submitted by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) as part of the information
supporting the project. It's not unusual for a C-plan to fill
four three-inch binders, which is costly in terms of copying and
mailing. Therefore, providing this information electronically
would go a long way.
2:14:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said providing the information electronically
would be totally appropriate. In fact, he said it's his intent
to allow the department or agencies to provide this information
by electronic means. He questioned whether the department is
comfortable with the discussion on the record or whether an
amendment to Amendment 9 would be necessary.
MR. BALASH responded that so long as there is a public record,
the department will be comfortable providing the information by
electronic means and won't reflect a higher cost [for the
distribution of the information] in the fiscal note.
2:15:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether the districts
involved are comfortable with receiving the data by electronic
means.
MR. BALASH clarified that the issue for the department is
whether it can send a thumb drive or CD; the information does
not have to be delivered in an e-mail.
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that allowing the data to be provided via
a CD and thumb drive is going to be adequate if that is
considered an electronic means and would satisfy everyone's
goals.
2:17:16 PM
MR. BALASH then directed the committee's attention to the
following language on page 2, lines 26-28, of Amendment 9:
"Notices described in this subsection shall be published on the
department's Internet website". The state maintains a public
notice website where all public notices from all state agencies
are noticed. Therefore, the requirement in Amendment 9 would be
new and reflected in a fiscal note. In practice, the state
avoids duplicate notices. Therefore, he suggested that the
department could provide a link on its website to the state
public notice website.
2:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised, though, that the department
will still contact a district personally, rather than expect the
district to keep checking the website.
MR. BALASH replied yes, adding that during the pre-review
process the department provides the costal district notification
prior to the completion of the application. Once the
application is deemed complete, all the information is noticed
and constitutes day one of the review.
2:19:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether it would make sense to
substitute "state's" for "department's" on page 2, line 27, of
Amendment 9.
2:19:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that unless the information is
categorized by subject matter, it would be less available to
those following the coastal management issues. However, he
opined that a link on DCOM's website to the notice of the
[coastal zone management information] would adequately meet [the
requirement].
2:21:24 PM
MR. BALASH said that this discussion helps, but pointed out that
the language on page 2, lines 26-28, of Amendment 9 would mean
the entirety of the notice would be placed on the department's
website. Therefore, the department wants to be sure it
understands what is to be accomplished in order that's it's done
correctly and the committee understands exactly what it's
requesting of the department. If a link would satisfy the
desire, then changing the term "published" to "posted" or some
other comparable word would be appropriate.
2:22:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised then that Mr. Balash is suggesting
changing the language of Amendment 9 so that the department can
place a link on its website to the already existing published
notice.
MR. BALASH confirmed that is his suggestion.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 to
Amendment 9, such that on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 the
term "published" would be replaced with "posted".
2:23:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referenced Representative Gardner's earlier
suggestion of replacing the term "published" with "available
through".
2:23:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Amendment 1 to Amendment 9. He then
moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment 9, which
would on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 replace the term
"published" with "made available".
2:24:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE withdrew Amendment 2 to Amendment 9. He then
moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3 to Amendment 9, which
would on page 2, line 27, of Amendment 9 delete "published on"
and insert "made available through". There being no objection,
Amendment 3 to Amendment 9 was adopted.
2:25:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4
to Amendment 9, which would on page 2, line 2, of Amendment 9,
as amended, following the term "information" insert
"electronically or by mail if electronic means do not exist".
2:25:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion. He then asked if the
department believes Amendment 4 to Amendment 9 will allow the
mailing of a digital copy rather than a paper copy.
MR. BALASH replied yes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON withdrew his objection.
2:26:16 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 to Amendment 9 was
adopted.
2:26:28 PM
MR. BALASH directed attention to Section 4 on page 2 of
Amendment 9, as amended. Section 4 makes a distinction between
who is involved and to what degree in a review versus who may
receive information. Although it's not a big deal, it's
important to reference because in the review process the
department wants to maintain that link between the locality, the
communities, and the participation in the review of projects.
2:27:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that the intent of Amendment 9, as
amended, is to include the management of the coastal district
and the coastal resource service area board in the process. The
goal is to avoid a situation in which a consultant designated by
a district is doing all the interaction with the department and
not keeping the folks in the coastal district aware of what is
happening. Requiring the information is provided to those folks
in the coastal district and members of the coastal resource
service area board attempts to keep as many people in the loop
as possible without infringing on the freedom of the board or
the district to designate the people they want to represent
them.
2:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the department would prefer in
Section 4(c) of Amendment 9, as amended, to have a numerical
listing of the following: members of the governing body of the
coastal district, coastal management plan coordinator, and
community planner.
MR. BALASH deferred to the lawyers.
2:29:46 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 9, as amended, was
adopted.
2:30:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved on to Amendment 10, which addresses
elevations of consistency determinations. Basically, if there
is an elevation during the consistency review process, the
disputes would be resolved by the commissioners from the
following departments: Department of Natural Resources, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and DEC. The commissioners
will issue a written order that was signed by at least two of
the commissioners that renders the final determination.
2:30:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that committee adopt Amendment 10, labeled
27-GH1965\A.31, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "relating to the review of certain
consistency determinations for a project in an Alaska
coastal resource district;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.40.096(d) is amended to read:
(d) In preparing a consistency review and
determination for a proposed project, the reviewing
entity shall
(1) request consistency review comments for
the proposed project from state resource agencies,
affected coastal resource districts, and other
interested parties as determined by regulation adopted
by the department;
(2) prepare proposed consistency
determinations;
(3) conduct elevations [COORDINATE
SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS] of proposed consistency
determinations prepared under (2) of this subsection;
an elevation [A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW] of a proposed
consistency determination under this paragraph
(A) may only be conducted [IS LIMITED TO A
REVIEW] by the commissioners of the resource agencies
[DEPARTMENT];
(B) may occur only if requested by
(i) the project applicant;
(ii) a state resource agency; or
(iii) an affected coastal resource
district; and
(C) shall be completed with the issuance of
a written order signed by at least two of the
commissioners of the resource agencies [DEPARTMENT]
within 45 days after the initial request for an
elevation [SUBSEQUENT REVIEW] under this paragraph;
(4) render the final consistency
determination and certification.
* Sec. 3. AS 46.40.096(o) is amended to read:
(o) The time limitations in (n) of this section
(1) do not apply to a consistency review
involving the disposal of an interest in state land or
resources;
(2) are suspended
(A) from the time the reviewing entity
determines that the applicant has not adequately
responded in writing within 14 days after the receipt
of a written request from the reviewing entity for
additional information, until the time the reviewing
entity determines that the applicant has provided an
adequate written response;
(B) during a period of time requested by
the applicant;
(C) during the period of time a consistency
review is undergoing an elevation [A SUBSEQUENT
REVIEW] under (d)(3) of this section.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.096(q)(2) is amended to read:
(2) "reviewing entity" means the
(A) Department of Natural Resources, for a
consistency review subject to AS 46.39.010;
(B) the commissioners of the resource
agencies, for the elevation of a proposed consistency
determination under (d) of this section;
(C) state agency identified in (b) of this
section, for a consistency review not subject to
AS 46.39.010.
* Sec. 5. AS 46.40.210 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(13) "elevation" means a review of a
proposed consistency determination by the
commissioners of the resource agencies."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:31:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 10 makes sure all of
the resource agencies are involved in the process. The
commissioners would have a 45-day time limit by which they must
act and issue a written order. The aforementioned ensures the
public is aware of the written order and its recommendations.
2:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if current elevations are directed
only to the commissioner of DNR.
MR. BALASH replied yes. In further response to Representative
Munoz, Mr. Balash, confirmed that the current law requires
action and a written order within 45 days. However, if there is
a single agency review conducted by an agency other than a
division within DNR, it would be a different commissioner
dealing with the elevation. Most reviews are conducted by DCOM
or some other DNR agency. Therefore, more often than not,
particularly since the 2003 changes, the elevations have been
handled by the DNR commissioner.
2:33:33 PM
MR. BALASH then directed attention to the language on page 2,
line 1, of Amendment 10, which read: "shall be completed with
the issuance of a written order signed by at least two of the
commissioners of the resource agencies". He noted that it's not
unusual to have four opinions among the three commissioners,
which calls into question what happens on day 46. In the
department's estimation, no action is the same as a denial, he
related. The aforementioned is how such would be treated in an
administrative appeal, to which an elevation is similar. Since
the statute doesn't say that, it would be better stated
explicitly. In response to Co-Chair Feige, Mr. Balash suggested
inserting on page 2, line 4, a new subparagraph (D) that read:
"if a written order is not issued within the 45 days, the
proposed consistency determination under (d)(2) is final". He
did acknowledge that the drafters would likely have their own
way of structuring the language.
2:37:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that if the
commissioners disagree with the determination and there has to
be a written order issued, then two of the commissioners would
sign the order. However, in the case in which the three
commissioners agree with the determination, he said he didn't
see a need for a written order.
2:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON posed a scenario in which there were
four items that were elevated to this level, and asked if each
item would be addressed separately with a written determination
for each. If there wasn't a written determination for one item
with 45 days, then she questioned whether the assumption would
be that the original determination would stand.
MR. BALASH clarified that the order signed by at least two
commissioners would need to specify which parts of that original
determination were being changed. In the case presented by
Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Balash said the proposed
determination finds the project inconsistent unless four
alternative measures are adopted by the applicant. If the
commissioners agreed with two of the alternative measures and
disagreed with the other two, the written order would need to
state as much, which is that the two items for which there is
disagreement aren't applicable to the final determination.
2:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined, "If it's put in there, then no
one has any questions." She suggested that if the original
written determination is not issued within the 45 days, it might
be better to specify in writing that the original determination
stands. Therefore, there is no question either way.
CO-CHAIR SEATON concurred with Representative P. Wilson. While
elevations are rare, the issue was strong enough to not be
resolved during the regular process. If there is no requirement
for a written decision, there is no way to know whether there
wasn't a meeting to consider the elevation or there was no
agreement. He opined that overall there would be much more
comfort and participation if it remains a written decision,
signed by at least two of the commissioners. Therefore, he
expressed his desire for the language [on page 2, lines 1-2, of
Amendment 10 to remain] as written.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that the committee is placing on
the record that it expects that no matter the decision, there
needs to be a written record that's issued.
2:43:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE remarked, "I don't think we disagree that there's
a requirement to have a written order." However, Mr. Balash
brought up an interesting scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that this entire process is a
process of coming together and making compromises.
2:44:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stated that she would like to incorporate
language to avoid the situation described by Mr. Balash.
Perhaps, there needs to be a fifth paragraph added that states:
"in the absence of a determination within the 45-day time
period, the proposed consistency determination stands". The
aforementioned language would at least avoid the problem
highlighted by Mr. Balash.
2:45:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:45 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
2:51:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that there are three different situations
that could arise when an elevation occurs during the review
process. One of which is addressed in subparagraph (C) on page
2, lines 1-4, of Amendment 10, whereby two of three
commissioners agree and issue a written order that is signed by
at least two of the commissioners. The other situation is one
in which all the commissioners agree. The third situation, as
posed by Mr. Balash, is one in which there is no agreement
between any of the commissioners and the question is how to
address that.
2:52:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that if no written order is
required, there is a fourth situation in which the commissioners
never meet. In such a situation the project sponsor proposing
an elevation never knows whether the commissioners met and
agreed with the proposed consistency determination or whether
they never met and reviewed the proposal because there is a way
for the commissioners to act without ever meeting or acting. He
opined that the only way to ensure that an elevation takes place
is to require a written determination. He further opined that
it's unfair to whoever is making the elevation to not know
whether the elevation was taken up or ignored in which case the
preliminary review standards are mandated.
2:54:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested that on page 1, line 20, subparagraph
(B), of Amendment 10 replacing "may" with "shall" would have the
effect of ensuring the commissioners of the resource agencies
meet.
2:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that changing the language of
Amendment 10 on page 1, line 20, subparagraph (B) to read:
"shall occur only if requested by" would mean no one else can
request it. She asked if it's necessary to maintain the term
"only" as without it the language would mean the same thing.
2:55:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the commissioners are acting on
whether a project is consistent or not.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that there has been an elevation, which
means there is a dispute raised by the applicant, the resource
agency, or the coastal district. That dispute is elevated to
the commissioners to decide.
2:56:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that the term "only" on page 1,
line 20 of Amendment 10 needs to remain otherwise a paragraph
(5) should be added.
2:57:13 PM
MR. BALASH, referring to Amendment 10, suggested that on page 2,
line 1, following "completed", inserting the following language:
", if granted,". The aforementioned change would require, as
with any administrative appeal for which there is a request for
reconsideration, two of the three commissioners to accept the
elevation and two of the three commissioners to grant and decide
the elevation.
2:58:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that he believes the desire is to have
the right of the resource agencies, a project sponsor, or
coastal district to elevate if there was disagreement in the
construction of the consistency review. If it's not able to be
worked out within the consistency review, it must be major
disagreement, he said. He said he wasn't sure having the
decision predicated on reviewing the information reaches the
desired goal.
2:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that on page 1, line 18, of
Amendment 10 the language should be changed to read as follows:
"shall be conducted by the commissioners of the resource
agencies if requested by". Therefore, an elevation has to be
conducted if requested by someone who has standing to request
it.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the change proposed by Mr. Balash to
Amendment 10 on page 2, line 1, following "completed" inserting
the following language: ", if granted," and Representative
Gardner's suggested change from "may" to "shall" would address
the concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded yes, because the applicant,
resource agency, or coastal resource district knows they had to
have the review.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that they still should have a
written finalization; whatever the outcome, it needs to be
written.
3:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to what happens if [the
elevation] isn't granted.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that then the commissioners
say no and the earlier determination remains. However, if it's
related in a written report, then there won't be any doubt
regardless of the outcome.
3:01:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that Representative
Gardner's proposal to change the language on page 1, line 18, of
Amendment 10 from "may" to "shall" means that the commissioners
will conduct elevations. However, the suggested "if granted"
language is problematic because it means the commissioners will
have decided the determination prior to the review and thus he
didn't favor inserting the "if granted" language.
3:02:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the committee would recess until
6:00 p.m.
6:14:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE reconvened the meeting at 6:14 p.m.
Representatives P. Wilson, Herron, Munoz, Foster, Dick, Gardner,
Kawasaki, Seaton, and Feige were present at the call back to
order.
6:15:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
At AS 46.40.096(q)(2)(B) after "resource agencies"
Insert "or a deputy commissioner in the same
department"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 10
was adopted.
6:15:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that Amendment 10, as amended, was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Amendment 10,
as amended. There being no further objection, Amendment 10, as
amended was adopted.
6:16:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 11,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.32, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Delete "relating to the approval of district
coastal management plans by the Department of Natural
Resources;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.40.070 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 46.40.070. Requirements for department
review and approval. (a) The department shall approve
a district coastal management plan submitted for
review and approval if the
(1) district coastal management plan
(A) meets the requirements of this chapter
and the district plan criteria adopted by the
department; and
(B) does not conflict with the statewide
standards adopted by the department; and
(2) enforceable policies of the district
coastal management plan
(A) do not duplicate, restate, incorporate
by reference, rephrase, or otherwise modify or adopt
state or federal statutes or regulations;
(B) are not preempted by state or federal
law; and
(C) do not arbitrarily or unreasonably
restrict uses of state concern.
(b) The enforceable policies in a district
coastal management plan submitted for review under
this section may establish new standards or
requirements that are within the authority of a state
or federal agency unless the state or federal agency
specifically objects.
(c) In reviewing and approving a district
coastal management plan under (a) of this section, the
department may not require a district to designate
areas for the purpose of developing an enforceable
policy.
(d) In this section, "specifically objects"
means that a written objection to the enforceable
policy that establishes the new standards or
requirements is filed with the department by
(1) the commissioner of a state agency;
(2) the head of a federal agency operating
in the state;
(3) the official responsible for a federal
agency's operations in the state; or
(4) legal counsel for a federal agency
operating in the state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
6:17:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 11 addresses the AS
46.40.070 requirements for departmental review and approval,
such that it specifies the adequately addressed standards of
what can be approved for enforceable policies. He characterized
Amendment 11 as cleanup language.
6:18:08 PM
MR. BALASH recalled that Representative Munoz had concerns when
the language in [AS 46.40].030, which would [require that
[enforceable policies] don't duplicate or adopt by reference
state or federal regulations, was removed. The language was
reinstated on page 1, lines 16-18, of Amendment 11. Amendment
11 repeals and reenacts AS 46.40.070, which addresses the
requirements for departmental review and approval of local
plans. He reviewed the requirements of the district coastal
management plan and the enforceable policies of it, as specified
in Amendment 11. Section 2(b) in Amendment 11 addresses the
concern expressed by a number of districts with regard to
whether state and/or federal statutes and regulations adequately
address an issue of concern by the coastal districts. Section
2(b) specifies that so long as there is not a regulation on the
matter and the state or federal agency that has authority for
the matter doesn't object, a coastal district can develop a
policy on that matter, bring it forward as part of the local
plan and development, and adopt that enforceable policy. He
pointed out that Section 2(d) identifies who can object. In the
case of a state agency, the objection would come from the
commissioner while within the federal government the objection
would come from the head of or legal counsel for that agency in
Alaska. Mr. Balash expressed hope that Amendment 11 strikes the
appropriate balance by eliminating the subjectivity in the
statute and allows the process to move forward in a clear
fashion whereby everyone knows the rules.
6:22:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:23:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that attached to Amendment 11 is a
legal opinion. He then pointed out that due to the following
new language in Amendment 11: "does not conflict with statewide
standards adopted by the department", there need to be language
changes throughout the legislation. Therefore, Co-Chair Seaton
moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 11, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In the following sections:
AS 46.40.010(d) Development of Alaska coastal
management program
AS 46.40.030(a) Development of district coastal
management plans
AS 46.40.040(a) Statewide standards and district plan
criteria
AS 46.40.070 Requirements for department review and
approval
AS 46.40.180(b) Approval of plans in coastal resource
service areas
Delete "meet the Statewide Standards"
Insert "does not conflict with Statewide Standards
adopted by the department"
CO-CHAIR SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Feige, confirmed that
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 11 would standardize the
language throughout HB 106 in terms of statewide standards for
plans.
6:25:42 PM
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 11
was adopted.
6:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection to Amendment 11,
as amended.
6:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON then objected to Amendment 11, as amended.
He highlighted that although a lot of work went into Amendment
11, it doesn't include criteria for objecting. He then removed
his objection.
6:27:08 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 11, as amended was
adopted.
6:27:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 12,
labeled 27-GH1965\A.33, Bullard, 4/4/11, which read:
Page 1, line 3, following "program;":
Insert "establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board;"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 46.39 is amended by adding new
sections to article 1 to read:
Sec. 46.39.005. Alaska Coastal Policy Board. (a)
The Alaska Coastal Policy Board is created in the
Department of Natural Resources. The board consists of
the following:
(1) five public members appointed by the
governor subject to confirmation by the legislature in
joint session, the public members shall include, one
at-large member from any coastal resource district and
four members from a list composed of at least three
names from each region, nominated and submitted by the
coastal resource districts of each region; one public
member shall be appointed from each of the following
regions:
(A) northwest Alaska, including, generally,
the area of the North Slope Borough and the Northwest
Arctic Borough; and the Bering Strait area, including,
generally, the area of the Bering Strait regional
educational attendance area;
(B) southwest Alaska, including, generally,
the area within the Lower Yukon, Lower Kuskokwim, and
Southwest regional educational attendance areas and
the Lake and Peninsula and Bristol Bay Boroughs; and
the Kodiak-Aleutians area, including the Kodiak Island
and area of the Aleutians East Boroughs and the area
of the Aleutian, Adak, and Pribilof regional
educational attendance areas;
(C) Upper Cook Inlet area, including the
Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough; the Lower Cook Inlet area, including,
generally, the Kenai Peninsula Borough; and the Prince
William Sound area, including, generally, the area
east of the Kenai Peninsula Borough to 141 West
longitude; and
(D) Southeast Alaska, generally the area
east of 141 West longitude;
(2) each of the following designated
members:
(A) the commissioner of environmental
conservation;
(B) the commissioner of fish and game;
(C) the commissioner of natural resources;
(D) the commissioner of transportation and
public facilities.
(b) Public members serve staggered terms of
three years. Except as provided in AS 39.05.080(4),
each member serves until a successor is appointed and
qualified. A public member may be reappointed. A
public member may be removed for cause.
(c) The board shall designate cochairs, one of
whom shall be selected from among the public members
appointed under (a)(1) of this section and one from
among the members designated in (a)(2) of this
section.
(d) If a member serving under (a)(2) of this
section is unable to attend, a deputy commissioner in
the same department may attend and act in place of the
member. The names of alternates serving under (a)(2)
of this section shall be filed with the board.
(e) Three public members and three designated
members of the board constitute a quorum. However,
action may be taken only upon the affirmative vote of
a majority of the full membership of the board.
(f) The board shall meet at least four times a
year and as often as necessary to fulfill its duties
under this chapter and AS 46.40. Meetings may be held
and members may vote telephonically, except one board
meeting a year shall be held in person.
(g) Public members of the board are entitled to
per diem and travel expenses authorized by law for
members of boards and commissions.
(h) Administrative support for the board shall
be provided by the division in the department
responsible for coastal and ocean management. The
director of the division in the department responsible
for coastal and ocean management, under direction of
the cochair designated by the board from the
individuals listed in (a)(2) of this section, may
contract with or employ persons as necessary to assist
the board in carrying out the board's duties and
responsibilities.
(i) The board shall make recommendations to the
department relating to the approval or modification of
a district coastal management plan under
AS 46.40.060(b).
* Sec. 3. AS 46.39.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.39.030. Powers of the department. The
department may
(1) apply for and accept grants,
contributions, and appropriations, including
application for and acceptance of federal funds that
may become available for coastal planning and
management;
(2) contract for necessary services;
(3) consult and cooperate with
(A) persons, organizations, and groups,
public or private, interested in, affected by, or
concerned with coastal area planning and management;
(B) agents and officials of the coastal
resource districts of the state, the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board established in AS 46.39.005, and federal
and state agencies concerned with or having
jurisdiction over coastal planning and management;
(4) take any reasonable action necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter or AS 46.40.
* Sec. 4. AS 46.40.060 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.40.060. Review and approval by the
department. (a) If, upon submission of a district
coastal management plan for approval, the department
finds that the plan meets the provisions of this
chapter [AND THE STATEWIDE STANDARDS AND DISTRICT PLAN
CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DOES NOT
ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT OR EXCLUDE USES
OF STATE CONCERN], the department may approve the
district coastal management plan, or may approve
portions of the district plan that meet those
requirements.
(b) If the department finds that a district
coastal management plan is not approvable or is
approvable only in part under (a) of this section, it
shall submit the plan to the board for review. The
board shall review the plan and make recommendations
relating to whether the department shall approve or
modify the district coastal management plan in whole
or in part [DIRECT THAT DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLAN
SUBMITTED BY THE COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT BE
MEDIATED. IN MEDIATING THE DEFICIENCIES, THE
DEPARTMENT MAY CALL FOR ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN
THE DISTRICT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MEET WITH OFFICIALS
OF THE COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
DIFFERENCES].
(c) After the board has reviewed the district
coastal management plan and submitted recommendations
under (b) of this section [IF, AFTER MEDIATION, THE
DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED], the department
shall enter findings and, by order, may require
(1) that the district coastal management
plan be amended to satisfy the provisions of this
chapter [OR MEET THE STATEWIDE STANDARDS AND DISTRICT
PLAN CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT];
(2) that the district coastal management
plan be revised to accommodate a use of state concern;
or
(3) any other action be taken by the
coastal resource district as appropriate.
(d) The superior courts of the state have
jurisdiction to enforce orders of the department or
commissioner of natural resources entered under (c) or
(e) of this section.
* Sec. 5. AS 46.40.060 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) A person affected by a decision of the
department under this section may request
reconsideration of the decision within 15 days of the
issuance of a decision made by the department under
(c) of this section. The request must be in writing
and must include a statement of the specific changes
desired. The commissioner of natural resources may
review the department's decision on the basis of the
request and determine whether the decision should be
changed. The commissioner may issue a determination in
writing within 20 days of the issuance of the
decision. If the commissioner takes no action, the
request for reconsideration shall be considered as
denied. Denial of a request for reconsideration shall
be considered a final administrative order and
decision of the department.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.39.005 is repealed.
* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: MEMBERS OF THE ALASKA COASTAL POLICY
BOARD; STAGGERED TERMS. (a) Notwithstanding
AS 44.39.005(a), added by sec. 2 of this Act, within
30 days after the effective date of this section, the
municipalities of each region identified in
AS 44.39.005(a)(1) shall submit to the governor the
names of three persons from the region qualified under
AS 44.39.005(a), added by sec. 2 of this Act.
Notwithstanding AS 44.39.005, added by sec. 2 of this
Act, within 60 days after the effective date of this
section, the governor shall appoint, from the lists of
names submitted under AS 46.39.005(a)(1), one member
from each region and one at-large member to serve on
the Alaska Coastal Policy Board established by
AS 46.39.005, added by sec. 2 of this Act. The
governor shall appoint the public members to three-
year staggered terms. The governor shall specify the
term of each member appointed subject to this section.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of
AS 46.40.060(b), as amended by sec. 4 of this Act, a
review by the Alaska Coastal Policy Board relating to
a district coastal management plan, or a portion of a
district coastal management plan, shall be delayed
until all the public members of the board are
appointed under (a) of this section.
* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT. Section 6 of this Act takes
effect only if secs. 1 - 8 and 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005,
take effect."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 10. If sec. 6 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect on the date that secs. 1 - 8 and 18, ch.
31, SLA 2005, take effect."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 10 of this
Act, this"
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion.
6:27:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 12 would establish an
Alaska Coastal Policy Board that will consist of five public
members appointed by the governor as well as the commissioners
of DEC, ADF&G, DNR, and the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities. Of the five public members, one will serve
at-large and the remaining four members will be nominated from
the regions representing the coastal districts within the
region. There won't be any alternates for the public members,
but deputy commissioners can serve as alternates for the
commissioners of their respective departments. Co-Chair Seaton
clarified that although a quorum can be established with three
public members and three designated members or their alternate,
a majority of the entire board, five votes, will be required to
take action. The board will meet four times per year, one of
which will be an in-person meeting. Members can meet and vote
telephonically. Co-Chair Seaton related that the purpose of
this is to keep the board involved in policy review and making
and ensuring that the program does not suffer from failing to
get together and addressing problems face-to-face.
6:29:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, referring to page 3 of Amendment 12, provides
the authority for the department to contract or employ a person,
as necessary, to provide administrative support. However, it is
not a requirement for the department to do so. He then reviewed
Section 4 of Amendment 12, which proposes new language to AS
46.40.060, which he hoped would result in a cohesive and
expedited review process. Amendment 12 includes a provision
that allows an individual to submit a request for
reconsideration within 15 days [of the issuance of a decision]
and provides 20 days for the commissioner to respond in writing.
The remaining language of Amendment 12 is transition language.
6:32:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE interjected that Amendment 12 represents a
considerable amount of work and respects the desires of the
coastal districts to have more of a voice in the process while
also respecting the desires of the governor and industry to have
fixed timelines with regard to the consistency review.
6:32:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
6:32:59 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:33 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
6:45:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 12, which would insert a new subsection
(j) on page 3 after line 10, as follows: "Duties of the board
shall provide a forum for representatives of affected interests
to discuss and attempt to resolve issues relevant to this
chapter, AS 46.40, and to the coastal uses and resources of the
state; the division shall annually solicit issues and make
recommendations to address the issues to the department
commissioner."
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 12
was adopted.
6:46:45 PM
There being no further objection, Amendment 12, as amended, was
adopted.
6:47:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt the following
letter of intent [original punctuation provided]:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes
made to the Alaska Coastal Management Program under HB
106 will increase the ability of Alaska Coastal
Districts and Coastal Resource Service Areas to draft
strong Coastal District Plans and increase the number
of enforceable policies that will be approvable by the
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources. It
is the intent of the Legislature that these changes
will allow the Alaska Coastal Management Program to
meet the concerns of coastal residents while
developing Alaska's diverse coastal resources.
6:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined that not all districts will need to
increase the number of enforceable policies, and therefore it
might be better to delete the language "and increase the number
of" and replace it with "with", such that the letter of intent
would read as follows:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes
made to the Alaska Coastal Management Program under HB
106 will increase the ability of Alaska Coastal
Districts and Coastal Resource Service Areas to draft
strong Coastal District Plans with enforceable
policies that will be approvable by the State of
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. It is the
intent of the Legislature that these changes will
allow the Alaska Coastal Management Program to meet
the concerns of coastal residents while developing
Alaska's diverse coastal resources.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if there is any objection to the
aforementioned change to the letter of intent.
6:49:32 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He clarified
that the letter of intent doesn't mandate that every district
increase the number of enforceable policies, but the intent of
the "rewrite" is to allow an increase in the number of
enforceable policies in the coastal districts throughout the
state. Therefore, removal of the language "and increase the
number of" from the letter of intent invites the question of
whether [the intent] is have the same number of enforceable
policies that exist now.
6:51:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her support for the proposed
amendment to the letter of intent because it's not necessarily
the intent to create more enforceable policies, but rather that
the coastal districts are able to do what they need to do.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred.
6:51:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK suggested that if the concern isn't in
regard to the quantity, perhaps the language "and increase the
number of" could be replaced with the language "more specific
and accurate" enforceable policies.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated that before the committee could address
Representative Dick's suggestion, it needed to dispense with the
proposed change already before it.
6:52:34 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred with Representative Munoz. If the
coastal districts and service areas are allowed to draft
stronger district plans, one could expect that there might be
more enforceable policies. However, it is not necessarily the
committee's intent to increase the number of enforceable
policies.
6:53:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that the goal of this "rewrite" is to
address the problems the coastal districts have experienced and
the constraint with regard to the number of issues that could be
addressed in enforceable policies. He emphasized that the
letter of intent was written to acknowledge the problem of the
number of enforceable policies that were approvable by the
department, while recognizing that there will be more
enforceable policies.
6:54:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE remarked that although there may be more
enforceable policies, it isn't the intent to increase the number
of enforceable policies. He opined that the enforceable
policies need to be based on a solid foundation. The desire, he
further opined, is to make the plans and the standards for those
enforceable policies stronger and more clearly defined.
6:55:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that the language "and increase
the number of" shouldn't remain in the letter of intent because
many of those enforceable policies included designated areas
that are no longer included.
6:56:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if the language "better defined enforceable
policies" would be more appropriate.
6:56:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON expressed concern with not recognizing that more
than half of the enforceable policies of coastal districts have
been rejected. He then reminded the committee that the letter
intent is [not a mandate/requirement].
6:57:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON maintained his objection.
6:57:57 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:58:01 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Kawasaki,
P. Wilson, Herron, Munoz, Foster, Dick, and Feige voted in favor
of the amendment to the letter of intent. Representative Seaton
voted against it. Therefore, the amendment to the letter of
intent was adopted by a vote of 8-1.
6:59:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved that the committee adopt the HB
106 letter of intent, as amended. There being no objection, the
HB 106 letter of intent, as amended, was adopted.
6:59:59 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:01:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the committee is now being
provided with a proposed committee substitute (CS) that
incorporates all the amendments made to date, except the
conceptual amendments made this evening.
7:01:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 27-GH1965\I, Bullard, 4/4/11, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
7:02:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:02 p.m. to 7:09 p.m.
7:09:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE called the committee back to order.
7:09:46 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:10:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection Version I.
There being no further objection, Version I was before the
committee.
7:10:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Version I, as follows:
Page 2, line 21;
Delete "subject to confirmation by the legislation in
joint session, the public members"
7:10:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
7:10:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that the purpose of Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Version I is to conform the work draft to the
Legislative Legal Services opinion that the board members
wouldn't be confirmable by the legislature.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Version I was adopted.
7:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if Version I includes all the
amendments the committee adopted today.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE replied yes, save the conceptual amendments.
7:13:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved that the committee adopt the
conceptual amendments to Amendments 9, 10, 11, and 12 [which
were previously adopted during this hearing] to Version I.
There being no objection, those conceptual amendments were
adopted.
7:14:56 PM
MR. BALASH noted that the department will have to develop a
fiscal note that will reflect the projected fiscal year (FY)
2012 operating budget requirements for DCOM. The fiscal note
will also include the increments associated with the changes to
the substance of the law made by this committee, particularly in
terms of the funds necessary to support the activity of the
board.
7:15:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE reminded everyone that a considerable amount of
effort and diplomacy went into putting the CS together. He
opined that this CS represents an excellent compromise between
all parties and much of the credit for that compromise goes to
Representative Herron.
7:16:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON thanked the co-chairs, Mr. Balash, and the
members of the committee for their work.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSHB 106, Version 27-
GH1965\I, Bullard, 4/4/11, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
7:17:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes and clarified
that the fiscal notes will be pending. He then removed his
objection.
7:17:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced then that there being no further
objection, CSHB 106(RES) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Big Game Commercial - Polley#2.docx |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Game - Hoffman.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Game - Spraker.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Letters of Support for Ted Spraker.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Hearing Request.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB0186A.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB186-DFG-WC-04-01-11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| Bison Damage _ 2010.doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DBWG Recommendations 1 11 11 (2).doc |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Endangered Species Law and Policy.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Federal Register Vol 76 No 26.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Wood Bison Back Up - A.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - B.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - C.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB 186 Wood Bison Backup - D.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| Proposed Downlisting to Threatened.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 1.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 3.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Wood Bison News 4a.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 106 Amendment 9 -A.30 & Amendment 10 - A.31.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Letter of Intent.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 11 - A.32.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 12 - A.33.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 7 - A.27.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 8 - A. 28.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment Summary 4.4.11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 1 - A.2.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Amendment 6 - A.16.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB 106 Conceptual Amendment Changing statewide standard references 4.4.11.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |