02/10/2009 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2009
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program; and
establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE, EDGMON, BUCH
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) CRA, RES, FIN
02/10/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as one of the prime sponsors of HB
74.
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, Intern
Representative Reggie Joule
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on behalf of Representative Joule,
presented HB 74.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 74.
TOM OKLEASIK, Planning Director
Northwest Arctic Borough
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
STEVE de ALBUQUERQUE, Director
Health and Safety Environment
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 74.
JOHNNY AIKEN, Planning Director
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
CAROL SMITH, Coastal Coordinator
City of Valdez
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related support for various aspects of HB
74.
TERI CAMERY, Planner
Planning Division
Office of Community Development
Department of Community Development
City & Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 74.
CARL ANDREW, Chair, Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area
Tuntutuliak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Coordinator
Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Aleutians West CRSA is
largely in support of HB 74.
GARY WILLIAMS, Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
MILLI MARTIN
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on her own behalf, encouraged
passage of HB 74.
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director
Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (BBCRSA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with aspects of the
existing ACMP and related support for various aspects of HB 74.
KAREN KEESECKER, Planner
Coastal Zone Planning
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
TOM LOHMAN, Environmental Resource Specialist
Department of Wildlife Management
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:02 AM
CO-CHAIR BOB HERRON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
Representatives Herron, Munoz, Keller, and Gardner were present
at the call to order. Representatives Harris, Millet, and
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 74-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
8:02:05 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal
management program; and establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board."
CO-CHAIR HERRON informed the committee that HB 74 would be held
over today.
8:02:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the prime sponsors of HB 74, began by sharing a photo
map entitled "Oil Development in Alaska's Arctic." The photo
illustrates the amount of oil development from 1968 when oil was
first discovered in Prudhoe Bay and there was a single well to
1977. In 1977 coastal zone management began. In 1989
[development] began [to reach into] the coastal areas of the
North Slope and around Prudhoe Bay. By 1999 there was much
activity in the North Slope region. In 2003 how coastal zone
management was done in the North was changed. The point, he
emphasized, is that at that time coastal zone management with
the involvement of local communities was very successful in
exploration and development of the state's resources. This
legislation attempts to return the coastal zone management
process to one in which there is local involvement. The notion
that local community involvement would stop development is
inaccurate because much development successfully occurred when
local communities were involved in the coastal zone management
plan. He recalled only in one or two instances that projects
were slowed down and to his knowledge no project was halted
because of the coastal zone management in place. Representative
Joule opined, "One of the brags we have in this state with
development is that we do it right."
8:06:49 AM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, Intern, Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that HB 74 seeks to amend Alaska
Coastal Management Plan (ACMP) statutes to accomplish four
objectives. She then turned to the history of the ACMP, which
was created pursuant to the 1972 federal Coastal Zone Management
Act. The intent, in part, of the aforementioned act is:
to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to
restore and enhance the resources of the nation's
coastal zone for this and succeeding generations; to
encourage the participation and cooperation of the
public, state, and local governments as well as of the
federal agencies; to provide for the coordination and
simplification of procedures in order to ensure
expedited governmental decision making for the
management of coastal resources; and to give
opportunities for public and local government
participation in coastal management decision making.
MS. HENSLEY reminded the committee that in 1977 the Alaska State
Legislature enacted the Alaska Coastal Management Act, which
created the ACMP. The program was federally approved in 1979.
Although originally a 17-member board oversaw the program, in
2003 the Murkowski Administration concentrated much of the
decision-making power in the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). This legislation, HB 74, has four objectives with the
first being to restore the Alaska Coastal Policy Board, which
would be composed of nine members. Of those nine members, five
would be appointed by the governor to represent the public
representing coastal districts and the remainder would be the
commissioners of the state's resource agencies. The board would
be responsible for approving district coastal programs, grant
programs, and regulations pertaining to the ACMP. She then
pointed out that the process in HB 74 would frontload dispute
resolution by encouraging districts to resolve issues with DNR
prior to the plan being reviewed by the Coastal Policy Board.
The process would also involve all three resource agencies in
pre-decision appeals. Furthermore, DNR would maintain all day-
to-day management of all ACMP matters and retain responsibility
for project consistency reviews. The second objective of HB 74
is to streamline the ACMP consistency review process and to
promote agency cooperation related to issue resolution. Ms.
Hensley highlighted that one of the main ideas behind ACMP is to
have a one-stop shop for those who want to conduct activities by
the coast. Therefore, HB 74 returns the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) permitting to the process.
This legislation also streamlines the consistency review process
by encouraging coordination of municipal Title 29 with the ACMP
process, which reduces the chances of conflicts between state,
federal, and local permit conditions.
MS. HENSLEY then specified that the third objective of HB 74 is
to restore the role of coastal districts by allowing them to
establish local, enforceable, and meaningful policies. This
legislation would empower coastal districts without giving them
veto authority, which is critical to building partnerships and
engaging in responsible development. Ms. Hensley opined that HB
74 recognizes that local people have local knowledge that is of
importance when managing coastal resources. Furthermore, the
federal law upon which the ACMP is based emphasized coastal
districts, which was also the case in Alaska law prior to 2003.
The fourth objective of HB 74 is to restore state's rights by
reinstating certain provisions eliminated by the 2003
legislation. For example, HB 74 allows for an extension of the
90-day review limit for those consistency reviews that include
permits from federal agencies. The aforementioned allows for
more input from the state and the public during the review
period. The legislation also allows review of projects inland
of coastal zones if there may be coastal impacts. The
legislation, she pointed out, also allows for review of
individual oil and gas lease sales in federal Outer Counter
Shelf (OCS) waters. She noted that there is no other mechanism
for the state to have such extensive input in what occurs in the
OCS.
8:12:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, recalling that the legislation empowers
local communities, inquired as to the limits of the power local
communities would hold under HB 74.
MS. HENSLEY related that currently coastal districts have
difficulty in obtaining approval of their enforceable policies,
which has limited their ability to have a say in their own
communities. This legislation, she explained, would allow
communities to write enforceable policies that become part of
the review process. However, the local communities wouldn't be
responsible for determining whether the project is consistent
with the standards as that responsibility lies with DNR.
8:14:16 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to what the new timeframe would be
for federal projects.
MS. HENSLEY offered to obtain that answer for the committee.
8:14:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the sponsor has formulated any
answers to the issues raised in the letter from ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc. ("ConocoPhillips"). He pointed out that
ConocoPhillips requests that the existing [ACMP] program stay in
place.
MS. HENSLEY, regarding the DEC carve out and ConocoPhillips'
desire to maintain two separate processes, opined that generally
the streamlining effect is more beneficial to developers.
8:18:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE directed the committee's attention back to
the map he presented earlier, which illustrates the activity [on
the North Slope] from the implementation of the ACMP to 2003.
He, again, told the members that much of the time the map
illustrates was a time when much of what HB 74 proposes was in
place. During that time when local communities were involved in
the process, development was successful, with a minimum of
intrusion.
8:21:12 AM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), related that DNR doesn't
support HB 74 as the department has two substantive concerns.
First, HB 74 creates a new oversight body that has the ability
to override agency authority, which effectively renders the
legislative establishment of laws relative to resource
management and protection moot. The second substantive concern
of DNR is that HB 74 doesn't balance or represent all the ACMP
participants and stakeholders, but rather is specific to the
issues of a group of ACMP participants. Mr. Bates mentioned
that he had additional concerns that he could detail if the
committee saw fit. He then noted that DNR has attached a fiscal
note to HB 74.
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to who isn't represented in
the legislation.
MR. BATES explained that DNR views the ACMP as a stool with four
legs that consist of the following: coastal districts, state
agencies, interested public, and industry. This legislation
primarily represents the interests of the coastal districts in
coastal management. The concern is that a change to one leg of
the stool makes the stool unstable.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then asked whether the department
believes the existing ACMP is stable.
MR. BATES related that DNR has been evaluating changes to the
ACMP because the department realizes that for many participants
the program has been challenging since 2003. The department, he
further related, is trying to find ways to stabilize the
program. However, the department hasn't reached consensus on
what those changes could be.
8:24:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the ways in which DNR
believes the ACMP is currently unstable.
MR. BATES pointed out that HB 74 illustrates how some
participants would like to see the program stabilized, such as
through the creation of the Coastal Policy Board, the expansion
of districts' ability to write enforceable policies, and the
expansion of the coastal zone inland.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that one of the ways in
which the status quo is unstable, from the department's view, is
the opportunity for coastal zone districts to make decisions
regarding inland areas.
MR. BATES said the aforementioned has been represented through
HB 74. The department believes that the ACMP is relatively
functional and stable to the point of being able to implement
it. Although DNR recognizes the desire to change the program,
the department hasn't reached a conclusion as to what that
change could or should be or even the form in which the change
would be.
8:25:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there are areas of the ACMP that
DNR believes is unstable or does DNR acknowledge the view of
some stakeholders that the ACMP is unstable while DNR believes
the program is stable.
MR. BATES explained that a year ago DNR committed to reevaluate
the ACMP statutes and regulations, and that process was
initiated in July 2008. The goal was to evaluate whether the
program is stable and whether there is change that could result
in a more stable program. He reiterated that to date, DNR
hasn't come to consensus regarding whether change is necessary
and what the change could look like. Mr. Bates said, "I
wouldn't put forward the idea that the program is unstable at
this point. Certainly, I know that there is a desire for change
on certain participants' parts."
8:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to what the administration, in
general, and DNR is doing to sit down with those who desire
change and want local issues to be taken into consideration
within the ACMP.
MR. BATES specified that the department engaged in a fairly
robust public process to engage all participants in the ACMP;
that process began in July 2008. Comments and public input were
solicited in regard to what changes could be accomplished
generally with the program. To that end, DNR put out draft
statutes/regulations to gather input, garner ideas, and engage
participants in what the ACMP is and how it could be improved.
A number of meetings were held over the months of July through
December during which issues were discussed in depth. Still,
the department hasn't come to consensus with the participants at
the table regarding what changes could be achieved. Mr. Bates
pointed out that the ACMP is a complicated program that
represents many factions, and therefore there is a difference in
opinion as to what is best and how to effectively implement a
coastal program.
8:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that the department has
ongoing dialogues with the impacted parties. Referring to the
map of the North Slope presented by the sponsor, Representative
Harris inquired as to [what is going on within the ACMP process]
in other areas of the state where there is development or
possible development.
MR. BATES specified that the coastal program goes around the
coast of Alaska. There are 28 coastal districts that are
actively participating in coastal management. From his
perspective, the department has a good dialogue with those
coastal districts. In fact, a representative from Valdez sits
on the working group with whom the department communicates.
That representative from Valdez communicates with the South
Central Region. He noted that the department has held ongoing
meetings over the past six months and a full coastal conference
is scheduled for March.
8:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled the development of coastal
management in the early 1970s. She further recalled that it
took a long time for all communities to develop a plan that
achieved balance and brought in all the stakeholders, in
comparison to a six-month process. The current time in Alaska
is unparalleled in terms of trauma on communities. She then
expressed the need to be more thoughtful with the process. For
instance, choosing times to meet or obtain comments from
communities when the residents are able to participate.
MR. BATES pointed out that the six-month process he described
wasn't the only process DNR went through. In fact, since the
2003 changes to the ACMP there has been regular dialogue with
all participants, particularly the coastal districts.
Furthermore, there was a district planning process with all 28
districts in which they revised their plans according to the
2003 changes. He noted that the three remaining districts that
haven't secured approval of their plans are the North Slope
Borough, the Northwest Arctic Borough, and the Bering Straits
Coastal Resource Service Area. The first two boroughs requested
mediation of their plans almost two years ago. As part of that
mediation, the department traveled to those coastal districts
and other areas of the state. Therefore, the department has
been discussing whether coastal districts can secure approval of
enforceable properties, what topics they can address, and what's
important to the communities. Mr. Bates emphasized that this
process has been ongoing, not just in the last six months.
However, in the last six months the department has formalized
its effort to evaluate the coastal zone management program and
determine if change is possible. He acknowledged that this is a
critical time in the state's history and local governments would
like greater involvement and say in the permitted activities in
their region. He highlighted that under the existing program,
local communities have the ability to have enforceable policies
and have the opportunity to participate in the state's
permitting process and comment on those activities through the
state agencies or the coastal zone management program. "The
issues are not lost even if a district does not have an
enforceable policy to apply to a project," he remarked.
8:40:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the changes DNR proposed
in the statutes and regulations it put out for public comment
and whether those address any of the matters addressed by HB 74.
MR. BATES clarified that DNR didn't engage in regulation
promulgation through the Administrative Procedures Act, rather
input from the participants was solicited from which potential
statutory changes were crafted. In order to illustrate how
those statutory changes would be reflected in the regulations,
the department put out amended regulatory language as an example
of the possible comprehensive change to coastal management. Mr.
Bates commented that there are some statutory changes that could
be made to the regulations in order to accomplish some of the
issues coastal districts and others have raised.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that she is very interested in
knowing what kinds of changes are being contemplated by DNR.
8:42:27 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that one of the concerns with HB 74
is that it could lead to costly delays and litigation. She
asked if there are examples prior to 2003 in which the
involvement of the coastal districts added cost to or delayed
the projects.
MR. BATES said that he doesn't have an answer. Part of coastal
zone management in Alaska, as a voluntary program, has been to
include local communities in the decision-making process. He
opined that local communities have always been a valuable
participant in the process and had the ability to influence the
outcome of projects. He said he didn't believe the department
has ever reviewed whether local community involvement/coastal
district involvement is costly. The aforementioned may be best
addressed by an industry representative. Any time a coastal
district raises a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed
through the state permitting process or through coastal
management, the department addresses it and brings it to
satisfaction, he stated.
8:45:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to who determines what is
legitimate.
MR. BATES clarified that all issues are legitimate. He
explained that if an enforceable policy or statewide standard is
implicated, it's considered under coastal management. If the
issue isn't implicated under coastal management, the issue is
shared with the agency that has responsibility or expertise with
the issue. Therefore, if the issue falls under the jurisdiction
of the department, it addresses the issue otherwise the issue is
shared with [those under whose jurisdiction it falls].
8:46:47 AM
TOM OKLEASIK, Planning Director, Northwest Arctic Borough,
related the Northwest Arctic Borough's support for HB 74, which
would really restore the coastal districts' ability to
effectively participate in the ACMP. Since Alaska is a large
and unique state, local input for statewide programs is
important. The best way to accomplish the aforementioned is
with a board of Alaskans, as proposed in HB 74, to oversee the
major aspects of the ACMP. The board, he opined, would restore
effective public engagement in the program. As mentioned
earlier, the Northwest Arctic Borough has been involved in
mediation over its plan, which is still yet to be approved. He
noted that the plan is in year five or six of the process. The
borough, he related, believes the mediation has been one-sided
and very frustrating. Despite all the efforts of the [borough],
the plan was denied by the state. This legislation would fix
some of the mediation process by providing a fair review.
Currently, the only recourse is to go to the commissioner of DNR
for a decision that has already been made. There is no ability
to obtain a third party review, he pointed out. In the way of
background, Mr. Okleasik informed the committee that during
mediation the coastal district was required to provide its
analysis of state statutes and regulations and interpret those
and their application by the legislature. In fact, during that
five-year period, the borough's plan may have been rewritten 10-
15 times and policies continued to be rewritten during
mediation, and still no resolution. He related that often when
the state was asked to explain its position, it refused with no
explanation or interpretation of regulations. The
aforementioned was frustrating because there is no recourse.
Therefore, the situation is before the legislature to address
and provide state staff clear criteria and direction for
approval of district policies and ensure there is involvement of
a board. The Northwest Arctic Borough also approves the
addition of subsistence to the ACMP objectives. Until the
changes of the Murkowski Administration, the ACMP program was a
very effective tool in balancing resource development and
protecting coastal resources to support healthy subsistence.
When development comes forward the reality of subsistence should
be recognized and there should be a process through which local
coastal districts can be involved. The aforementioned is why
local policies are so important. With regard to whether local
involvement slows down a project, Mr. Okleasik related his
experience that the more a company can work with a community to
avoid long-term adverse impacts the better the relationship with
all parties involved. Furthermore, local involvement would
likely result in the project being designed to be more
effective. In closing, he said that the borough encourages
responsible resource development of its natural resources as
illustrated by the Red Dog Mine, the world's largest zinc mine.
He related that the borough recognizes the economic importance
of development, but emphasized that local coastal districts need
to have a role in voicing valid concerns in order to ensure
resource development is performed appropriately.
8:52:51 AM
STEVE de ALBUQUERQUE, Director, Health and Safety Environment,
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., related that ConocoPhillips Alaska,
Inc. (ConocoPhillips) is opposed to HB 74. ConocoPhillips
doesn't believe that ACMP legislative reform is necessary at
this time and questions the significant changes proposed by HB
74. During the hearing of the Senate companion legislation,
there was testimony that the proposed changes would streamline
the permitting process and save the applicant time. As the
person in charge of permitting for ConocoPhillips, the state's
largest oil and gas explorer, developer, producer, Mr. de
Albuquerque opined that's not the case.
MR. de ALBUQUERQUE then addressed the existing ACMP process.
Alaska, he stated, is one of the most complex and rigorously
regulated permitting and business environments in the world.
ConocoPhillips closely works with local, state, and federal
agencies as well as private land owners, Native villages,
regional corporations, communities, and the public on a daily
basis to seek input on all of ConocoPhillips' permit activities.
Furthermore, ConocoPhillips can't point to any of its projects
in which any coastal district's input or concerns weren't
adequately addressed in the project decision. Moreover, he said
he couldn't think of an instance during his four years as the
permitting director with ConocoPhillips in which ConocoPhillips
and the coastal districts weren't able to satisfactorily resolve
an issue. He highlighted that in 2003 the legislature concluded
that the ACMP is intended to function with a minimum of delay
and avoid regulatory confusion, costly litigation, and
uncertainty regarding the feasibility of new investment in the
state. The legislature also specified that the standards must
be clear, concise, and provide the needed predictability as to
the application, scope, and timing of the consistency review
program. The aforementioned resulted in the existing
streamlined process. He opined that from the applicant's
perspective the existing ACMP process provides the assurance of
an efficient permitting process. Existing statewide standards
are clear and concise and ConocoPhillips is able to establish
relatively firm timelines for its projects. Still, coastal
districts have the ability to propose enforceable policies that
conform to the district plan approval criteria and requirements.
Coastal districts, he related, can also propose enforceable
policies that aren't duplicative, don't restate existing state
or federal policies, and don't redefine, replace, or modify
existing standards. However, HB 74 would allow districts to
restrict selected activities within the coastal district. These
activities would involve uses of state concern, matters already
adequately addressed by existing regulatory programs. Decision-
making authority concerning the management and use of state
resources is vested with the state, the current approach avoids
enforceable policies that may be conflicting between the
districts, state and federal agencies, and could result in a
loss of conformity of district policies that currently exist.
Mr. de Albuquerque stated that ConocoPhillips desires a clear
and concise permitting process in order to accurately estimate
project timelines. He reminded members that resource
development in Alaska is already burdened with many seasonal
constraints and uncertainties due to weather and environmental
protections.
8:57:54 AM
MR. de ALBUQUERQUE turned the committee's attention to the
creation of the coastal policy board, which ConocoPhillips
believes to be unnecessary and merely adding another layer of
complexity. The existing process provides clear, concise,
consistent statewide standards for resource development in
Alaska. Therefore, the existing process prevents conflict in
the regulatory process and provides applicants and stakeholders
with the assurance of an efficient permitting process. The
creation of the coastal policy board with approval and decision-
making authority could lead to an inconsistent permitting
landscape and much uncertainty. He opined that interested
stakeholders have ample opportunity to review and comment on
proposed projects during the mandated public comment periods
associated with obtaining local, state, and federal permits.
Applicants already have to comply with municipal codes,
enforceable district policies, statewide standards, and existing
state and federal regulations in order to obtain final
approvals.
8:59:07 AM
MR. de ALBUQUERQUE then addressed the retention of the DEC carve
out. He related that ConocoPhillips doesn't support elimination
of the DEC carve out as there seems to be a significant
misunderstanding among stakeholders on this matter. Approvals
from environmental permits, including air and water permits and
oil spill contingency plans, have well-documented and clear
public notice and comment requirements. The public notice and
comment requirements haven't been negatively impacted by the DEC
carve out. Again, he reiterated that the current process works
well. He opined that elimination of the DEC carve out would re-
introduce conflicting regulatory mandates between DEC and the
ACMP. Mr. de Albuquerque emphasized that the ACMP is a process
and the permits are received from other agencies. Adequate
public participation and opportunity for review by the coastal
districts is provided in the existing streamlined program. He
highlighted that adequate environmental review and protection is
being provided by DEC as part of the consistency review process.
In closing, Mr. de Albuquerque reiterated that ConocoPhillips
desires a clear and consistent permitting process.
ConocoPhillips isn't trying to reduce the level of environmental
protection or the subsistence resources upon which so many
stakeholders depend. Mr. de Albuquerque questioned why HB 74 is
necessary since, as of 2003, the existing consistency review
process has ensured that both state and local districts'
concerns have been met prior to permits being issued for
development of projects in a coastal zone. Therefore, changes
to the existing, working program aren't necessary or desirable.
9:01:31 AM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Planning Director, North Slope Borough, related
the North Slope Borough's support for HB 74, which he opined
would fix many of the problems the borough faced during the
amendment process for its coastal management plan. He informed
the committee that although the [North Slope Borough coastal
district] was recently in mediation with DNR, no agreement was
reached and thus there is an impasse. This legislation makes it
clear that the coastal districts can establish enforceable
policies so long as they are clear and concise, don't restate an
existing law, and don't address a matter preempted by state or
federal law. The 2003 changes to the ACMP allowed districts to
establish policies for those matters not adequately addressed by
state and federal law. Although the administration ensured the
legislature that districts would be able to establish reasonable
policies concerning such critical matters as subsistence and
activities in federal waters, almost all [of the district's]
enforceable policies were denied/rejected by DNR. He related
that the review process for the plan was frustrating because the
rules kept changing. He opined that the reasons DNR put forth
to deny the district's policies weren't supported by statutes or
regulations. This legislation would establish clear criteria
for approving district policies.
MR. AIKEN emphasized that the neither the North Slope Borough
nor any other district wants to adopt policies that would
obstruct future development. The North Slope Borough is as
dependent on oil and gas as the state is, he said. This
legislation would bring DEC back into the consistency review
process because many coastal resources and uses are directly
related to air and water quality, which were removed under the
DEC carve out. Additionally, one of the largest concerns for
the North Slope Borough is the impact of a potential oil spill
on the subsistence resources and uses, which can't be addressed
under the existing program. With regard to the coastal policy
board created under HB 74, Mr. Aiken pointed out that the board
would be composed of coastal district [representatives] and
state agency [representatives]. He opined that the proposed
coastal policy board isn't intended to be a separate stakeholder
group but rather is intended to represent those who implement
the program. The 2003 changes to the ACMP concentrated all
decision making into a single agency, which is problematic, he
opined. This legislation would provide the proposed coastal
policy board oversight in the following areas: approval of
coastal district plans, approval of major grant programs, and
approval of proposed changes to the ACMP regulations.
Furthermore, this proposed board would be a streamlined version
of the former coastal policy council as it would be smaller and
wouldn't be involved in project consistency reviews. He
highlighted that nothing in HB 74 gives the proposed board
authority to overrule an agency's decision-making power. The
aforementioned changes proposed by the legislation would
streamline the ACMP because it would encourage stakeholders to
work together early in the process to solve problems.
MR. AIKEN acknowledged that the [Department of Environmental
Conservation] may state that only three districts don't have
approved programs. However, the reality is that most districts
didn't have the funds to fight for a meaningful and useful
program; otherwise they would be in the same position as
[Barrow]. He opined that most of the districts [with plans] are
as frustrated as those without. In fact, he opined that
although Juneau has an approved plan, the people of Juneau
remain unhappy with the process. Mr. Aiken further opined that
[Barrow] has really tried to work with DNR on this process.
However, he related that [Barrow's coastal district] doesn't
believe in or agree with DNR's interpretations, which are
believed to be arbitrary and capricious. The process has been
frustrating; therefore he said he is anxious for changes so that
[the process] could move forward. Many of the changes proposed
in HB 74 would, he opined, restore faith in the state government
and the ACMP.
9:11:34 AM
CAROL SMITH, Coastal Coordinator, City of Valdez, informed the
committee that prior to the 2003 regulation changes, the Valdez
coastal management plan had 41 enforceable policies. However,
that decreased to 14 after the changes. The Valdez coastal
management plan was approved after the changes because Valdez
felt it was important to remain part of the ACMP, although many
of the area's important policies had been lost. The hope, she
related, was that new regulations would be introduced,
regulations that provided for meaningful local input. With
regard to the DEC carve out, Ms. Smith related her support of
Section 37, which eliminates the DEC carve out. At the November
workshop in Anchorage, DNR and other state agencies related
problems with the review process that they attributed to the DEC
carve out. The city has also had problems with regard to
coordinating and responsibilities for a DEC project. Therefore,
Ms. Smith said she supports the legislation making a one-stop
shop. Furthermore, Ms. Smith related her support of the
elimination of the requirement to update the plan every 10
years. Updating the plan is costly and time consuming,
particularly when no changes are necessary. She related support
for the proposed coastal policy board. The legislation makes
the criteria for district enforceable policies much clearer
because districts should be able to write meaningful enforceable
policies that address local concerns. The legislation would
also allow coastal districts to establish policies so long as
they don't duplicate an existing law and don't address a matter
by a state or federal agency. Ms. Smith highlighted that the
Alaska coastline is vast and different and one size doesn't fit
all situations. For instance, there is a gap with regard to the
Clean Air Act, and although the city wanted to implement a
policy to address the gap, the regulations didn't allow for
such.
9:16:31 AM
TERI CAMERY, Planner, Planning Division, Office of Community
Development, Department of Community Development, City & Borough
of Juneau, informed the committee that she has been working with
the ACMP for approximately eight years now. Ms. Camery related
her support for HB 74. The ACMP, she emphasized, is a
management program not a regulatory program. Furthermore, most
district coastal management plans include a variety of policies
that promote development and the protection of sensitive areas.
In fact, Juneau has a series of policies for special water front
areas. Juneau has used the coastal zone management program to
develop the city's cruise ship ports, marine facilities, and
various loading areas. The ACMP is the way in which local
priorities are carried through the review process with state and
federal agencies. As mentioned earlier, the coastal district
role was drastically reduced in 2003. In the case of Juneau,
its 99 policy plan was reduced to 16 after a lengthy course of
mediation.
MS. CAMERY, in response to the earlier comment that HB 74
represents a specific group, highlighted that districts
represent 27 coastal districts throughout the state. The
policies presented through the coastal management review process
begin with local participation. Therefore, she opined that it's
a misrepresentation to say that the public and the districts are
separate. Districts represent local government; districts
represent the public and work constantly with industry.
Therefore, she said coastal districts aren't a separate leg, as
represented by DNR. Ms. Camery related that when Juneau lost
its policies through the review process, the city decided to
maintain those policies within the local land use code. The
aforementioned resulted in a separate review process rather than
a coordinated review process, and therefore added time and
expense for the developer. This proposed legislation would
restore an integrated review process.
MS. CAMERY then informed the committee that when Juneau first
developed its coastal management program in the 1980s, the focus
was on the Wetland Management Program. The Wetland Management
Plan was the result of very restrictive permitting by the Corps
of Engineers. That program, she explained, was developed to
promote scientifically supported development on low value
wetlands versus the single brush review the Corps of Engineers
has to do. Later on the Corps of Engineers took a lax role in
permitting wetland fill. Ms. Camery suggested that under the
current federal administration, the pendulum is likely to return
to tighter regulation. Coastal management is the way in which
districts can bring their local concerns forward and ensure that
those are heard throughout the federal and state review
processes, which is why she opined that HB 74 helps all the
stakeholders. Ms. Camery noted that this legislation, while not
perfect, would seem to work toward the concerns expressed during
a recent three-week meeting of all the stakeholders.
9:23:03 AM
MARILYN CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), reminded the committee that AOGA is a
private nonprofit trade association whose member companies
account for the majority of oil and gas operations in the state.
Since virtually all of the state's oil and gas operations take
place adjacent to or within Alaska's coastal zone, AOGA is
actively engaged in the Alaska Coastal Management Act and the
subsequent program since its inception in 1979. Over the past
30 years, there has been a significant evolution in federal and
state environmental laws and regulations. In the late 1990s and
early 2000s, it became clear that the ACMP had become
unmanageable in terms of process and scope. The aforementioned
led to confusion, misinterpretation, and significant delays in
the processing of permits, which was largely due to the
evolution of environmental laws. The 2003 revisions resolved
these challenges and transformed the program into one that
provides certainty for the state, local districts, and regulated
community, she opined. Unfortunately, HB 74 eliminates the
certainty provided by the 2003 changes.
MS. CROCKETT provided the following testimony regarding the DEC
carve out, which she characterized as one of the most
problematic aspects of HB 74. She said:
This provision in existing law implements the original
intent of the ACMP, that being that the air, land, and
water standards and permits administered by the state
are inherently consistent with the Coastal Zone
Management Program, and therefore the additional step
of securing a consistency determination isn't
necessary. These standards were developed over years
of technical input and are implemented through permits
that are comprehensive and time consuming, carrying
with them statutory and regulatory requirements for
extensive public comment period falling outside of the
ACMP review schedule. As in the previous program,
elimination of the carve out will result in
consistency determinations on projects being held up
until permits with the long lead times are issued and
finalized; resulting in considerable delays in
projects moving forward and a tremendous amount of
certainty in terms of final approval for applicants to
move forward. Our second concern relates to the
coastal policy ... board. We're very concerned about
the re-establishment of this board and the extent of
responsibilities that will be vested with it. The
bill empowers the board to approve all district
programs and enforceable policies, changes to the
boundaries, statewide standards, and changes to the
program. The Department of Natural Resources may
still adopt regulations, but only after approval of
the board, which will result in endless back and forth
as DNR attempts to ... mesh its requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act with board approval. We
are concerned about the predictability and timelines
being eliminated. One of the most challenging aspects
of any permitting program is the ability to rely on
timelines for decision making and this is ...
obviously true in Alaska where we're often faced with
operating during ... limited seasons. Unfortunately,
HB 74 eliminates the decision timeline activities ...
for activities proposed by a federal agency or
permitted by a federal agency with no end timeline
identified. Virtually, every project requires at
least one federal permit for the impact of this
provision is dramatic and frankly, will not affect
just only oil and gas activities, but many other
development activities including homebuilding given
the breadth of wetlands coverage in the state, which
will require a permit from the Corps of Engineers.
Finally, I'd like to talk about expansion of the
coastal boundaries. The bill would expand the reach
of activities not only to the coastal zone but also to
inland of the coastal zone if the activities would
cause direct and significant impacts to a coastal use
or resource. At last week's hearing, we heard a
representative from one of the coastal districts state
that it's their desire to weigh in on projects
adjacent to their district, even if it means over the
mountain. Such an expansion of the boundary was never
envisioned by the federal program nor in the state
program, and is another example of the uncertainty
that faces project applicants in determining when
their project is in or out of the coastal zone. At
the end of the challenges facing all of us is
achieving the necessary balance between development of
state-owned resources for the benefit of all Alaskans
while protecting important coastal resources. We
believe the program in place today strikes that
appropriate and important balance.
9:28:31 AM
CARL ANDREW, Chair, Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area,
informed the committee that the local coastal district covers
the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta and includes about 40 villages. He
then related that Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area
(CRSA) supports HB 74. Although Cenaliulriit CRSA's plan was
approved last August, it wasn't very helpful and HB 74 would be
helpful in fixing many of the problems experienced during the
years it took to get the plan approved. He then informed the
committee that he is a volunteer and no funding has been
received from DNR over the past few years. The Cenaliulriit
CRSA has no paid staff and the former program director left the
program due to frustration with how state was treating the
[district] in terms of its enforceable policies. He emphasized
that consistency is the most important concern. Although the
previous plan [prior to 2003] allowed for the discussion of the
impacts of development on subsistence, under the existing plan a
district can't comment on subsistence during project review.
Before comment on potential impacts on subsistence, DNR requires
the designation of areas for each type of subsistence use. He
related that the former program director went to every village
and developed detailed GIS maps specifying the location of
subsistence uses. However, DNR didn't approve the maps and
denied the seven enforceable policies related to subsistence.
Therefore, subsistence can't be discussed at all during
consistency reviews. This legislation would allow policies on
subsistence so long as those policies don't address something
addressed by the state. The legislation also establishes a
coastal policy board, which is necessary since it hasn't worked
for DNR to make all the decisions. He concluded by expressing
the hope that the committee would forward HB 74.
9:33:05 AM
KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Coordinator, Aleutians West Coastal
Resource Service Area (CRSA), related that Aleutians West CRSA
is largely in support of HB 74. She informed the committee that
Aleutians West CRSA represents the entire western Aleutian area,
an area with a wealth of natural resources. She further
informed the committee that Aleutians West CRSA became effective
in 2007 and only 10 of the 44 enforceable policies it held at
the beginning of the revision process remain. There are no
longer any habitat policies, mitigation policies, or policies
that mention air, water, or land quality. Furthermore, although
there are designated subsistence use areas, there are no
enforceable subsistence use policies. Many of the previous
enforceable polices have been relegated to an unenforceable
appendix and classified as advisory policies. Prior to [2003],
the ACMP was a network program in which local reviewers were on
par with federal and state reviewers. Although the
centralization of the program in DNR has resulted in silencing
the local voice and creating a disconnected program, she said
she didn't believe that to have been the intent. Passage of HB
74 will return the [coastal districts] to a more meaningful
position within a network program. She then related that the
Aleutians West CRSA is in support of the coastal policy board
that incorporates the positive aspects of the former coastal
policy council. The proposed policy board would include
representation from the coastal district, resource agencies, and
DCCED. She noted agreement that the board's mission should
include the approval local district plans, program-related
funding, and program and regulatory changes. The Aleutians West
CRSA also agrees, she related, that the board wouldn't be
responsible for consistency review. The new board, she opined,
would serve as a public forum that should result in more public
involvement and a more equitable decision-making process, while
providing an outreach component that is sorely lacking now. Ms.
Kolehmainen said that the DEC carve out has confused the
consistency review process, especially when the scope of the
project requires permits from more than one agency. The removal
of the DEC carve out has been interpreted as the removal of any
matter relating to air, water, or land quality through the
program implementing regulation. As stated earlier, it became
impossible to craft acceptable policies related to air, water,
or land quality or that even mentioned the words air or land.
The aforementioned negated policies clearly within the
regulation of DEC, but also policies related to habitat that
might touch on water issues. "The return of DEC to the
coordinated ACMP program is integral to a meaningful program and
the AWCRSA supports the inclusion of DEC in network ACMP," she
opined. However, the AWCRSA doesn't support the change in AS
46.40.190 relating to cooperative administration as the proposed
language totally reverses the meaning of the paragraph and has
the potential of undermining the existence of CRSAs. Ms.
Kolehmainen related appreciation to the sponsor for addressing
the problems in the existing ACMP. Passage of HB 74 will go a
long way to restore the role of coastal districts in the ACMP,
increase public involvement and oversight, and bring consistency
reviews back into a coordinated network program.
9:38:11 AM
GARY WILLIAMS, Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal
District, testified in support of HB 74. He characterized the
reinstitution of a board to offer a modest level of oversight to
the ACMP as a positive step. Without an oversight board there
is no opportunity for coastal districts to appeal agency
decisions when there is disagreement over the interpretation of
statutes and regulations, which was a common problem in the
rewrite of coastal district plans. The proposed language on
page 13, lines 9-11, is extremely important in the
implementation of a resource management program. The language
calls for consideration of the impacts of activities that "would
cause direct and significant impacts to a coastal use or
resource." However, under current law a coastal district can't
consider the cumulative impact of activities that would cause
damage to a resource if the activity occurs outside of the
boundaries of coastal resources. Therefore, an activity in an
upland that could damage a nearby wetland couldn't be considered
in a district consistency review. "The proposed language in
this section must be part of any rational management program,"
he said. Mr. Williams then pointed out that the Kenai Peninsula
Borough Coastal program is part of the Kenai River Center, which
is a multi-agency one-stop permitting entity with borough,
state, and federal resource managers working together to process
permit applications and manage compliance. The aforementioned
is a process and relationship that works. Through the
aforementioned process it's evident that bright lines of
authority and responsibility don't always exist, and therefore
it's valuable to have a certain amount of overlap and
regulations. Furthermore, it's important that the legislature
require the [coastal districts] to be inclusive in interagency
and intergovernmental relationships and to communicate their
common concerns and understandings regarding resource issues.
If, in crafting HB 74, local and state agencies are encouraged
to work together to ensure that development and resource
protection are in balance, this will be fine legislation. Mr.
Williams opined that HB 74 is a step in that direction.
9:41:14 AM
MILLI MARTIN, clarified that although she is the president of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly, she is speaking on her own
behalf today. Ms. Martin recalled her concern when the
Murkowski Administration "literally gutted what had been a very
good program for Alaska's coastal zones." She opined that the
program wasn't broken and didn't need fixing at that time,
although it does now. She emphasized that the various regions
of the state differ, and therefore local oversight is critical.
Ms. Martin related her support of the idea of a coastal policy
board as it seems to reinstate what existed prior to the 2003
changes. With this board, coastal districts can appeal when
there are differences of opinion or interpretations of DNR's
decisions, among other things. Furthermore, the board restores
the voice of the local communities. She then pointed out that
Section 9 would allow districts to adopt policies that more
clearly reflect their needs, local conditions, and science. She
suspected that the aforementioned may be controversial and
require compromise. She expressed the hope that the trend
toward more local input and control can be preserved. Section
19, she highlighted, would restore the consistency review
process for those projects inland of the coastal zone if there
is significant impact to the coastal uses. Ms. Martin related
her concern with regard to any impact to the rivers, which she
characterized as the [state's] economic engines. She opined
that restoration of this section as vital. Ms. Martin noted her
support of many of the previous speakers' testimony and
requested passage of HB 74.
9:43:52 AM
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service
Area (BBCRSA), pointed out that [BBCRSA] is not a borough, and
thus [BBCRSA] relies heavily on its own enforceable policies as
they can be made locally relevant to the program. The current
program has devastated local programs because it doesn't allow
local, relevant policies. Therefore, [coastal districts] are
reliant on statewide standards that are one-size-fit-all
standards. Furthermore, BBCRSA believes the proposed coastal
policy board is a good idea because it decentralizes authority.
Mr. DeValpine then highlighted the case in which the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals decided that Mineral Management Corporation
didn't meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 partially because it didn't adequately take
into account subsistence whaling of the local people. If the
program had worked as it should, such that local communities had
the necessary input, the aforementioned lawsuit would've likely
not have happened and exploration would've occurred. The
lawsuit also illustrates the instability of the existing ACMP
program because the local district wasn't heard regarding its
concerns on subsistence.
9:48:19 AM
KAREN KEESECKER, Planner, Coastal Zone Planning, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified in support of HB 74 as it would resolve
some of the issues [the Municipality of Anchorage] has had with
the ACMP since the 2003 revisions. The Municipality of
Anchorage received approval for its coastal management plan
revision in December 2007 after a rather lengthy process. The
revision reduced the over 100 enforceable policies to 5. One of
the largest problems after the 2003 revision to ACMP was
approval of the proposed enforceable policies. Prior to the
2003 revisions coastal districts could develop policies to
address effects for unique coastal resources. However, the 2003
regulations made it practically impossible to establish well-
crafted enforceable policies based on local knowledge. The new
criteria [embodied in HB 74] would also allow the Anchorage
coastal district to construct meaningful policies reflective of
local conditions and management intent. This legislation would
also create the Alaska coastal policy board, which would be a
streamlined version of the previous coastal policy council. She
applauded the efforts to bring back third party oversight with
the proposed board, which would provide broad agency and
district representation. The legislation would also return DEC
to the ACMP. She echoed earlier testimony with regard to the
difficulty of the removal of air and water quality issues under
the existing program. In closing, Ms. Keesecker thanked the
[sponsor's] efforts to rectify this important program for
Alaska.
9:50:59 AM
TOM LOHMAN, Environmental Resource Specialist, Department of
Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough, informed the committee
that the North Slope Borough's local district plan was approved
in 1988, his second year with the borough. He related that the
ACMP isn't like other regulatory schemes and not intended to be
like other regulatory schemes. The ACMP is a voluntary
partnership and any party that opts to become part of the
program expects to benefit from their participation. States
that opt into the national program agree to meet certain general
conditions and in return receive federal dollars. [The program]
provides a unique federal commitment to make federal activities
consistent with the terms of local programs and in return the
federal government receives the protection of coastal resources
and uses. Mirroring the federal approach, the state, in
crafting its program, adopted a unique approach 30 years ago
such that the authority was transferred down to the local
district level. The approach adopted by the state recognized
the uniqueness of Alaska in regard to the size and diversity of
its resources and uses. The plan also recognizes that the
historic grant of real authority from the state and local
communities is important for everyone. Mr. Lohman then noted
his agreement with Ms. Camery that the districts are the
residents of the state. This legislation, HB 74, attempts to
correct some of the damage to the program since the 2003
regulation revisions. Although there were assurances at the
time of the revisions that districts would be able to adopt
meaningful local enforceable policies dealing with a broad range
of coastal resources and uses. The aforementioned simply didn't
happen, but rather the districts have been left with a greatly
diminished role in the program. Mr. Lohman opined that no one
should be frightened of the local districts' strong
participation in the program as was the case for most of the
history of the program. He pointed out that during that time
local plans weren't used to halt otherwise good projects. Mr.
Lohman said that [the North Slope local coastal district] has
been and will continue to be pro-development on the North Slope.
Furthermore, it's been frustrating that despite a couple of
years of good faith effort and expense on the part of districts,
the current administration has been slow to restore the program.
At the statewide district meeting in April 2007, Commissioner
Irwin assured everyone that DNR would fix the program. Only
when ACMP legislation was filed last year did DNR announce that
it would begin a formal re-evaluation of the program, which
would begin in July. Department officials acknowledged at a
June meeting that legislation caused them to act. Again, in
good faith many local districts put a lot of effort into
participation in the re-evaluation. Mr. Lohman related that
[the North Slope Borough local coastal district] submitted
extensive written comments in August, attended four full-day
meetings in September and October, and an intense three-day
meeting in early December to discuss proposed DNR legislation.
Over the holidays, the [districts] scrambled to prepare
extensive comments after being told the goal was for DNR to file
legislation at the start of this session. He recalled that at
the December meeting, DNR urged everyone to work together and
pointed out that success in the legislature requires simplicity
and consensus. The North Slope Borough coastal district along
with other districts asked for the opportunity to meet with DNR
as it processes all the input received prior to the introduction
of legislation. However, there has been no communications from
DNR since the three-day meeting and no legislation from the
administration has been introduced. He noted that DNR has
argued that there are legal constraints on the executive's
ability, either through the agency or a newly created coastal
policy board, to approve district policies that are stricter or
more specific than laws passed by the legislature. The
aforementioned is ridiculous, and therefore [the districts] have
asked for a more detailed briefing on this issue; no such
briefing has been provided. No district is looking to adopt
policies that conflict with or are pre-empted by state or
federal law, and furthermore none of the districts are anti-
development or used the programs as such prior to 2003. The
districts merely want the ability to shape the development that
does occur to meet local needs and concerns. In closing, Mr.
Lohman related strong support for HB 74.
9:57:37 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that he and Co-Chair Munoz would work
with Representative Joule until the next meeting at which time
the committee will consider amendments.
9:58:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE highlighted that the testimony from across
the state today illustrates the wide interest in HB 74 since
people simply want meaningful input restored. Representative
Joule related that his job as a legislator is to represent the
people not the state or the industry. He further related that
sometimes healthy tension is appropriate. In closing,
Representative Joule said that he looked forward to working with
the co-chairs until the next hearing.
[HB 74 was held over.]
9:59:24 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Committee Packet on HB74 for HCRA.PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| 02 10 09 AOGA Testimony on HB74 ACMP.pdf |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| LetterFromAleutiansWestCRSA2.10.9(pro).PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| letter from City of Cordova2.9.9 (pro).PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| LetterFromAML2.7.9 (pro).PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB74sp1968.jpg |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB74sp1977.jpg |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB74sp1989.jpg |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB74sp1999.jpg |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB74sp2001.jpg |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74_Fiscal_Note_DEC-CO.pdf |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74_Fiscal_Note_DNR-DCOM.pdf |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| LetterFromCityofValdez2.10.9 (pro).PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| LetterFromConocoPhillips2.10.9 (con).PDF |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |
| NVOK support HB 74 Feb 2009.doc.pdf |
HCRA 2/10/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/24/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 74 |