Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/26/2003 08:36 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 26, 2003
8:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 191
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program and to
policies and procedures for consistency reviews and the
rendering of consistency determinations under that program;
relating to the functions of coastal resource service areas;
creating an Alaska Coastal Program Evaluation Council;
eliminating the Alaska Coastal Policy Council; annulling certain
regulations relating to the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to actions based on private nuisance; relating to
zoning within a third class borough covered by the Alaska
coastal management program; and providing for effective dates."
- MOVED HB 191 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 191
SHORT TITLE:COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/03 0513 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/03 0513 (H) FSH, RES, JUD, FIN
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
03/12/03 0513 (H) FN3: (DNR)
03/12/03 0513 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/17/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/03 (H) RES AT 12:30 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
03/26/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 191.
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land Manager
Central Office
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in regard to the current coastal
management program and the consistency review process during the
hearing on HB 191.
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Consultant
to the Administration
and to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
pertaining to HB 191.
DALE PERNULA, Community Development Director
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 191 that insufficient time
had been allotted to review the information.
HAROLD HEINZE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on his own behalf in support of
HB 191.
PAT CARLSON, Manager
Kodiak Island Borough
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that more time was needed to
review HB 191.
OLIVER HOLM, commercial fisherman
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
GERALD R. BROOKMAN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
JACK CUSHING, Mayor
City of Homer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that if HB 191 passes, the
opportunity for input of local knowledge into projects will be
lost.
REBECCA L. YATES
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HB 191.
DANA L. OLSON
Knik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns relating to HB 191.
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director
Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA)
Mekoryuk, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191 and
SB 143, the companion bill.
JEFFREY D. CURRIER, Manager
Lake and Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the major concern was to
maintain local input and that more time was needed to analyze
HB 191.
TOM COLLOPY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
MARY FRISCHE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
R.J. KOPCHAK, commercial fisherman
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 191 would contribute to
the accelerated development of non-renewable resources.
BILL SMITH, Chair
Homer Advisory Planning Commission;
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
ALAN PARKS, commercial fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 191.
ANNE WIELAND, fisherman
Kachemak Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong opposition to HB 191.
DeWAINE TOLLEFSRUD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in strong
opposition to HB 191.
ERIC JOHNSON
Association of Village Council of Presidents (AVCP)
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
ALLEN JOSEPH, Vice President of Operations
Association of Village Council of Presidents (AVCP)
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director
Coastal District Coordinator
Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA)
Unalakleet, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
DOUG HILL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
ROBERT ARCHIBALD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
NINA FAUST
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191 and
SB 143, the companion bill.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, President
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society (KBCS)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191 and
SB 143, the companion bill.
MARVIN R. SMITH, Community Development Coordinator
Lake and Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
JEFF LEPPO, Attorney
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 191.
BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Keeper
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191 and
provided project review statistics.
KEITH BETTRIDGE, City Administrator
City of Hoonah
Hoonah, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 191, noting that there have
been minimal coastal reviews in Hoonah during the past three
years.
PAULA TERRELL
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 191.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Heinze, Ogg, Samuels, and Berkowitz were present at the
call to order. Representative Guttenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Also present was Representative Beth Kerttula.
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
[Contains discussion of SB 143]
Number 0070
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 191, "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal
management program and to policies and procedures for
consistency reviews and the rendering of consistency
determinations under that program; relating to the functions of
coastal resource service areas; creating an Alaska Coastal
Program Evaluation Council; eliminating the Alaska Coastal
Policy Council; annulling certain regulations relating to the
Alaska coastal management program; relating to actions based on
private nuisance; relating to zoning within a third class
borough covered by the Alaska coastal management program; and
providing for effective dates."
Number 0170
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
told the committee that the Murkowski Administration has a
vision for governing Alaska. [That vision] is driven by the
reality of the budget and a recognition that in the current
world economy, Alaska must compete for capital investment. He
continued as follows:
Ours is a world where industry analyzes the time it
will take to get through a permitting process, because
this time is real money. This affects the large oil
and mining companies and, frankly, where time is
money, it affects the smaller companies, and it really
can affect the "mom and pop" applicants who have an
idea for a business and are attempting to work their
way through a very complex and uncertain regulatory
process, regulatory system.
Therefore, we have a basic goal to streamline and
consolidate our permitting functions, and this will
provide applicants a faster and more certain review.
By a certain review, I mean that the standards of a
review will be clear and concise, and not subject to
various interpretation of the language in a vague
standard.
We are attempting to do this by three things: One,
establish a project coordination office; two,
identifying various regulatory functions that might be
improved by clarified standards and processes; and
three, by changing the coastal management program's
consistency review process.
Currently, the ACMP [Alaska Coastal Management Plan]
consistency review process is very redundant, using
local enforceable policies and state standards that
are often a reiteration of the regulatory agency's
permit standards.
Number 0318
COMMISSIONER IRWIN continued:
Our vision is to rely upon the permit standards ...
themselves and the agency staff who currently
implement their permit statutes and regulations, and
not to require a separate analysis of the same
standards as part of a consistency determination.
However, having said that, I will note that at the
last [House Special Committee on Fisheries] hearing,
this administration heard some comments that we have
taken to heart. As a result, we're continuing to
review this legislation and will consider suggestions
from the coastal districts and the general public. We
will be ready to discuss these changes, if there are
some, and provide a continuing comprehensive
presentation in the first standing committee of
referral [the House Resources Standing Committee].
COMMISSIONER IRWIN noted that there were people available on
teleconference from whom he'd solicited assistance because of
their experience and expertise with "this complex, regulatory,
and redundant process." He continued as follows:
As I've gone through permitting in the Interior [of
Alaska], it can be very complex. Now that I've spent
time studying how the coastal management program
works, you can spend, literally, years trying to work
your way through the system. I'm familiar with
permitting. I would presume people who are not have a
very, very hard time with this. But, again, we want
to make sure you have the best chance to understand
what the system is now.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that [Commissioner Irwin] began
his discussion by saying that Alaska has a role in the world
economy. Conversely, he said it seems that the world's
perception of how Alaska does business is very critical to [the
state], particularly given the amount of federal land and
resources that Alaska relies on for its economy. He noted that
he sees a number of changes going on and questioned the
administration's consideration of the federal and global
perception that is being created by changes such as moving the
division of habitat, eliminating biologists, the sweeping
changes being made to the coastal management program, and
getting rid of public interest litigants for resources, for
example. He continued as follows:
It seems to me we're ... extending an invitation to
all the environmental lawyers in the country to come
up here, and that's going to impede our development
significantly. And we have a perception problem, and
I haven't seen a clear demonstration that this is
going to lead to the faster, more certain review that
is the promise of the Murkowski vision.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN responded that, based on his experience, he
feels absolutely confident that the [proposed] changes are
appropriate, will in no way compromise the environment, and are
necessary for simplification of a very complex system in Alaska.
He opined that Alaska needs to move forward, saying that, "We're
very clearly making a statement with these changes." He
admitted that the process of making changes can be difficult and
therefore must be managed; he told the committee that he has
managed a lot of change in his career and that he wholeheartedly
supports the changes [that the bill proposes]. He said that the
basic goals are not being undone, but rather that the system is
being simplified to work more easily, so that [the state] can
move forward on resource development.
Number 0784
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that he is concerned about
"the perception." He continued as follows:
I don't think this administration has done an
effective job dissuading those who look at Alaska as
an environmental haven. I don't think this
administration, in particular, has credibility with
those people, or [has] done a good job in addressing
the concerns that they might have. And I think
there's a rush here cloaked behind what I think is a
very Alaskan antipathy towards bureaucracy, then
regulation. ... We're giving short shrift to the
impact this is going to have on a larger scale.
Number 0832
COMMISSIONER IRWIN stated that he respectfully disagrees.
Number 0854
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land Manager, Central Office, Division
of Oil & Gas, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), told the
committee that he would give a summary of the current coastal
management program and the consistency review process.
MR. GALVIN noted that the coastal management program is made up
of statewide standards and local enforceable policies under
which projects within the coastal zone are reviewed before being
permitted by the state. He said that statewide standards are
found in the regulations at [6 AAC 80] and include the standards
for coastal development, habitat, airline, and water quality,
for example. These standards apply to all projects taking place
within the state's coastal zone. In addition, he said, there
are local, enforceable policies that are contained within the 33
local coastal district plans, and these policies apply to
projects that affect those particular districts.
Number 1021
MR. GALVIN explained that when a project is proposed within the
state's coastal zone, if it requires a state or federal permit,
it must first be found consistent with these statewide standards
and any local enforceable policies before the project can be
issued a state or federal permit. Applicants who have projects
in the coastal zone must first fill out a "coastal project
questionnaire," which provides information on other state or
federal permits that might be required, general information
about the project, and information necessary to decide who,
within the state, would be coordinating a consistency
determination.
MR. GALVIN said that the Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC), currently in the governor's office, coordinates any
consistency review needed for a project that requires either a
federal permit or permits from more than one state agency. If
the project only requires permits from one state agency, then
that state agency would do the consistency determination as
well.
Number 1130
MR. GALVIN stated that the initial review of the coastal project
questionnaire [is] to determine whether or not an individual
project review is required. He said there's an opportunity to
determine whether the project consists only of activities that
have, basically, been pre-approved, or have been found to be
consistent with the coastal management program. That's done
through existing general permits that are issued by (indisc.)
agencies, as well as something called "the ABC list." He
explained that it's a document that contains a list of permits
that are ruled out from needing consistency reviews - because of
being consistent with coastal management - and of activities
that are found to be "generally consistent" - as long as the
applicant agrees to certain requirements; those activities can
proceed without an individual review.
Number 1174
MR. GALVIN stated that if a project requires or includes
activities that do not meet the pre-approved standards, there
has to be an individual consistency review. That process, he
noted, is found in the regulations at [6 AAC 50]. In response
to Chair Seaton, Mr. Galvin said that his testimony is not
written.
Number 1216
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he had asked for a flowchart
at the last hearing [on HB 191], but none was given to the
committee. He stated that he finds it a little perplexing that
the administration is coming forward asking [the legislature] to
change something when it hasn't [provided] a written explanation
of what it is that would be changed. He added, "I think ...
it's a poor performance that makes it harder for us to do our
job as well."
Number 1298
MR. GALVIN continued with his testimony, telling the committee
that the project needs to have an individual consistency review,
which will be under either a 30- or 50-day time clock. The
consistency review starts with a public notice [and] a project
review packet, which includes the coastal project questionnaire
and applications for state permits, which is provided to the
local district, the resource agencies, and any member of the
public who has requested information on the project.
MR. GALVIN said that the first period for the consistency review
is an opportunity for review participants to request additional
information of the applicant, and to get information needed to
determine whether the project is consistent. In order to obtain
the information, he said, someone may need to "stop the clock"
on the review. Mr. Galvin explained that during a 30-day
[review], for example, a person may stop the clock on day 20 to
request additional information.
MR. GALVIN noted that the next deadline usually is the comment
deadline, a deadline by which the resource agencies, the coastal
district, and any members of the public who wish to comment on
the consistency of the project would submit those comments to
the coordinating agency. That agency then takes those comments
and prepares a "proposed consistency determination," which will
either find the project, as proposed, consistent or inconsistent
with all the enforceable policies and statewide standards. If
it is inconsistent, [the agency] will likely suggest some
alternative measures or additional changes to the project to
make it consistent with the coastal program.
Number 1489
MR. GALVIN noted that at that point, the resource agencies, the
coastal district, or the applicant could choose to elevate the
proposed consistency determination up to the resource agency
directors and, after that decision is made, up to the
commissioners. At any point during this time, he said, the
applicant may choose to voluntarily stop the clock for
discussion and negotiation among the review participants, in
order to attempt to settle any outstanding issues.
MR. GALVIN stated that at the end of the elevation process, if
there is one or five days after the proposed consistency
determination, the coordinating agency will issue a final
consistency determination. He said, "That will generally find
the project consistent, as long as the applicant has agreed to
those alternative measures that I mentioned earlier." When the
coordinating agency makes its proposed consistency determination
and offers the alternative measures to make the project
consistent, the applicant must accept those or suggest something
else to make the project consistent and, ultimately, get a
consistency determination from the coordinating agency in order
for the state or federal permits to be issued. That, he
concluded, would complete the process.
Number 1578
CHAIR SEATON referred to the "ABC" list. He asked Mr. Galvin if
he could estimate what percentage of the projects that came
forward were pre-approved so that they didn't have to go through
the 30- or 50-day process.
MR. GALVIN answered that there are no solid statistics regarding
Chair Seaton's request. He stated that most of the projects
actually wouldn't get to the DGC, because it would be the
agencies that would be reviewing them and finding that they met
the general concurrence and then issuing permits "based upon
that."
Number 1626
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Consultant to the Administration and to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testifying on behalf of
the administration, referred to Chair Seaton's question. She
noted that if a portion of activity is outside the [ABC] list,
then it automatically triggers an entire consistency
determination. She stated that DNR did not keep data regarding
how many of those occurred outside of the consistency
determination process either.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that he was trying to ascertain how
extensive the [ABC] list is.
Number 1673
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that there are approximately 2,000 total
consistency determination reviews per year. Approximately 375,
on average, are handled by DGC, which leaves about 1,500 single
agency reviews. She said that while the [ABC] list is important
to applicants and the state agencies, a great number of projects
actually go through a consistency medium.
MS. RUTHERFORD, in response to Representative Berkowitz's
previous statement regarding having asked for a flowchart from
the administration and its failure to provide one, said that
there will be a flowchart at the [House Resources Standing
Committee]. She said that she fully understands Representative
Berkowitz's desire to have [a chart] to view; however, she said
she has seen and participated in the attempt to develop
flowcharts on the existing ACMP program over the years, and must
say that "it's going to be somewhat daunting in itself." She
said that [the administration] will do the best it can and
provide as much data as it can to the [House Resources Standing]
Committee. She added, "But, in itself, it will not provide a
lot more clarification than Mr. Galvin was able to provide
today."
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:
Could someone tell me, since time seems to be the
critical component, ... how much faster this proposed
method would be for a couple of different types of
projects. And I guess typical projects would be, for
example, oil exploration, or a dock, or a log transfer
facility. I'd like to know how much faster this is
going to be.
Number 1807
MS. RUTHERFORD told Representative Berkowitz that she was not
sure that she could tell him how much time a new process would
take, compared with the old process; however, she said that the
new program will rely much more on existing permitting
authorities. She noted that, under the current program, there
can be no permits issued until a consistency determination has
been completed. She stated that there is at least a requirement
for a 50-day permit review for most multi-permit projects. She
said, "It is our hope that, under the new program, we will be
able to begin issuing permits as the regulatory agencies
complete their analysis as to whether permits are appropriate,
and what stipulations will reside with that particular permit."
She said that the profit will be occurring more quickly, because
[the permitting] can be segmented.
Number 1870
CHAIR SEATON stated that as he understands the new program, the
municipalities or boroughs can adopt their existing enforceable
policies as ordinances. He indicated that there is confusion
from the previous hearing, when the committee was told that the
permittee will still have to abide by the enforceable policies
that are adopted in ordinance by the municipalities or boroughs.
He continued as follows:
So, the confusion here is that the permittee is going
to come to DNR [and] is going to get a permit, but
that permit will really not let them do ... their
project, because there's no longer a consistency
review that, basically, includes the boroughs and the
cities. And so, then, after the permittee has his DNR
permit, he's going to have to ... somehow live within
those enforceable policies, if the borough or the city
adopts them.
CHAIR SEATON asked [Ms. Rutherford] to explain if his
understanding was correct, and if she could explain how that
would work under the new program.
Number 1946
MS. RUTHERFORD replied, "That is partially correct." She stated
that while both the incorporated and the coastal resource
service areas have enforceable policies that must be addressed
as part of the state consistency determination, the reality is
that certain Title 29 municipalities - the North Slope and
Kodiak, for example - already have permitting responsibilities
that the applicant has to address. She added, "So, in reality,
it doesn't change that piece at all and it doesn't add
additional time."
Number 1995
CHAIR SEATON said that if the enforceable policies are moved out
of the DNR process, the permit would not cover any of those
enforceable policies, but the permittee, after getting the
permit, would still have to work with the borough on a separate
level to fulfill the project, using the enforceable policies
that weren't within the consistency review anymore. He stated
his understanding that this would get the consistency review
over with more quickly, but said that he is trying to figure out
whether that will shorten or lengthen the time that a project
will take, since "after you get the one, then you have to
proceed on to the other borough and municipality project."
Number 2056
MS. RUTHERFORD stated her understanding that a person does not
have to get the consistency determination before proceeding to
getting the municipal permit; one is not a threshold requirement
for the other. She said that the new program will not add any
additional time. In response to a comment by Chair Seaton, she
concurred that, currently, all of the enforceable policies are
included in the consistency review permitting process. She
stated that what happens currently is that the enforceable
policies are carried on state permits; they are not implemented
by local ordinances. She said, "And this requires that they
begin to implement some of those on the local level." She
added, "They already duplicate the local permitting to some
degree." Ms. Rutherford noted that the local enforceable
policies are sometimes quite duplicative of state statutes, as
they're often a reiteration. She explained that some of the
confusion over the existing program and some of the conflict has
been "trying to sort out who has authority on a standard that
isn't an enforceable policy of the district plan, when in fact
it's just a reiteration of a state standard."
Number 2152
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Ms. Rutherford to clarify whether
the new process [in the proposed bill] would [eliminate]
duplication.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered as follows:
Many times, the district enforceable policies are
duplications of existing state statutes. What certain
municipalities, like North Slope Borough, have done is
they have imposed their own local land use permit
requirements, like fill permits or zoning permits.
So, they have tended to be different reviews all
along. But the changes in the program, as entertained
in HB 191 would eliminate the fact that the local
enforceable policies that are part of the consistency
determination are no longer repetitive, or sort of a
restatement of the state standard. And that
consistency [review] process would rely upon state
statutes and the state permitting process, to
determine consistency.
I think it's really important to note here that since
the ... ACMP program was ... approved by OCRM [Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management] in 1979, our
state environmental and land use laws have really
matured. Basically, in intervening years, the state
statutory framework has developed substantially,
particularly in DEC's [Department of Environmental
Conservation's] environmental laws and DNR's land use
laws. So, frankly, the ACMP filled a void when it was
implemented back in 1979, but it has evolved to the
point where it's quite duplicative.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Rutherford to share her feelings
on [the proposed legislation] and to tell the committee if she
sees any loopholes in it.
Number 2314
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that she thinks the [proposed] legislation
attempts to keep the benefits of the coastal management program;
it focuses primarily on the ability [of] the state to affect
federal activities and activities on the outer continental
shelf, and at the same time, eliminate the inefficiencies and
redundancies that [are] inherent in the existing program. She
said that she thinks [the language of HB 191] significantly
clarifies the standards that are necessary for a project to be
found consistent, eliminates redundancies as previously stated,
and streamlines the permitting approval process by incorporating
the consistency determination into the permitting approval
process.
MS. RUTHERFORD continued as follows:
It is unarguable that, in fact, it does eliminate the
habitat standard. And that is something that I feel
that the legislature will have to address over time,
if it's determined that that is a gap. I've always
felt that the habitat standard, which is a policy like
all the enforceable policies are -- and, frankly, the
enforceable policies were never crafted as laws, and
inherent in that is the problem with sometimes
interpreting and applying them. But I've always felt
that the habitat standard would best be promulgated as
a statute, with associated implementing regulations.
So, I feel that we've captured most of the benefits
that the coastal management program can provide, and
that, if in fact it is eventually determined that
there are problems associated with not having a
habitat standard, that that is best done through
statute.
Number 2416
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked, if two bureaucracies would be
doing what one can do, whether there would also be twice the
chance of a lawsuit - another chance to enter in at the
appellate level to, basically, fight the same complaint two or
three times.
MS. RUTHERFORD answered that her hope is that a program could be
crafted that would both be responsive to the environmental and
land use needs of the state and sustain both administrative and
judicial review. She added that she is, of course, speculating.
Number 2464
REPRESENTATIVE OGG stated that he is curious about what happens
when this statute goes into effect. He indicated page 9 and new
regulations or new ordinances that the municipality may adopt.
He asked, when a borough or municipality has adopted its coastal
zone management into its zoning "in its entirety," what would
happen to the zoning requirements that duplicate new state
requirements "under this statute."
MS. RUTHERFORD replied that [the borough or municipality] could
still continue to implement its local ordinances at the local
level; however, she said that she does recognize that there is a
bit of a challenge with regard to how quickly the municipalities
"can move to do that." She stated that this is one of the
issues being considered. She added, "Obviously, what they then
propose to DNR to embrace as part of the state consistency
review would probably take a little longer."
Number 2550
REPRESENTATIVE OGG clarified that he wanted to know what happens
to the present laws that would duplicate the state laws that an
organized borough or city has. He asked, "Do they have no
effect, because the state has that, or do the present laws
create a duplication in the permitting process?"
MS. RUTHERFORD answered as follows:
To the degree that they've already [adopted] them as
part of their municipal ordinances, they will
continue. If they have not, they are eliminated from
the state program, except those standards that are
particularly called out ..., which are primarily
marine ... mammal and fisheries standards ... starting
on page 10.
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that that has always been the intent of
the program.
Number 2630
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, thanked
Mr. Galvin and Ms. Rutherford for being available. She stated
that she is still hoping for an overview in the [House Resources
Standing Committee] discussing why the state has gotten involved
with the program to begin with. She said that she thinks that
Ms. Rutherford touched on that, in terms with the interaction
with the federal agency. She indicated "the new legislation"
and said, "If you don't have a state permit involved, you're not
going to be going any further in the review on a federally
permitted activity. And if you do have a state permit, all
you're doing is looking at the state side of it. Is that just
in this drafting of the legislation, and can you tell me why
it's drafted that way?"
MS. RUTHERFORD responded, "That is not in there. They will
still have to ... address the regulatory standards of the state,
yes. But one of the things we do recognize is that the goal of
the program is to affect federal activities, and we have
provided for that within the bill."
Number 2710
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about the federally permitted
activities. She added, "I mean, we aren't going to be taking
them out if they take permits?"
MS. RUTHERFORD said that is correct. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Kerttula, she stated that she is
not sure she knows why. She said that she thinks it is one of
the issues that is being discussed. She mentioned comments made
at the previous [House Special Committee on Fisheries] meeting.
She added, "But in the current proposal, you are correct, it ...
does not make that provision." She said that when there is no
state statute, generally there is no activity of any
significance.
Number 2749
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she is trying to think of an
example, but is sure they exist, where there is a federal permit
at stake, "and somehow we don't have the state." She said that
is something she is concerned about. She said she has heard
that the aim is to maintain all the protections with the OCS
[outer continental shelf] and with the federal actions. She
said, "I think federal permits are right in there."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what happens to the unorganized
borough, to the coastal resource service area that does not have
zoning authority and doesn't have anything that could be adopted
to be enforced in those areas.
Number 2784
MS. RUTHERFORD, in response to Representative Kerttula's initial
question, noted that the state, generally, has some sort of
certification when there's any kind of activity that requires a
federal permit. She said that it's rare and insignificant when
there's no state permit. Even then, she noted, "We do have
state certification on federal permits."
MS. RUTHERFORD, in regard to the issue of the unorganized areas,
admitted that this is "a difficult one." She said that the
framers of the [Alaska State] Constitution intended that
boroughs be created. She said that she thinks, as the state
evolves, in areas where there is some sort of economic base, it
behooves the local residents to embrace the authorities
associated with boroughs and, through that vehicle, they can
then participate in land use planning and addressing their own
issues. Ms. Rutherford also noted, "The fisheries and marine
mammal standards that are important, many, many times to the
local residents, are embedded in this legislation and will be
affecting federal activities and [the] outer continental shelf."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that this argument has been used
before in the legislature to quite a resistance from the areas
themselves, particularly [from] those that don't have the
financial ability to carry forward with borough organization.
She stated that she thinks that one of the beauties of coastal
management has always been [the] voice [of] the local people,
particularly in areas such as Northwest Arctic, where without
the program, people would have no local say.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued that she agrees with [Ms.
Rutherford] completely on the standards issue. She said that
she thinks it has been the Achilles heal of the program since
its inception. She stated her concern that by losing habitat
standards, in particular - which she said she completely agrees
should have been in statute - along with the other things that
are happening in other pieces of legislation, "we" are losing
our ability to review projects that could have critical impacts,
particularly on [Alaska's] fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked [Ms. Rutherford] if she is
stepping back and taking a look at what's "dropping out" if
everything that's being proposed happens all at once.
Furthermore, she asked if [Ms. Rutherford] is looking at whether
or not [the state] might be better off taking a hard look at the
standards and writing them so that everybody has certainty. She
said that in the past "it's been cobbled together to try to come
up with how to go forward." She asked, "Is someone doing that?"
Number 2948
MS. RUTHERFORD stated that in her 9-10 years with [the
Department of] Community and Regional Affairs, she has always
been a strong advocate for local control and local authority.
She continued as follows:
I've always, however, felt that the best authority is
embedded in incorporated entities. ... They're
subdivisions of the state; there are very strong
municipalities in the state of Alaska. And I frankly
think that the state has moved away from providing any
incentives for people to look to why they should
incorporate.
Having said that, however, I would also note that not
only do they have the option in the unorganized areas
to forming boroughs, but the cities within those
unorganized areas can still promulgate ordinances that
then they propose to DNR for incorporation in the
consistency reviews.
Regarding the, sort of, cumulative effect of all the
changes, I frankly think that the only issue that is
really substantive might be the habitat standard. And
as Representative Berkowitz pointed out appropriately,
the policymakers are the legislators ....
TAPE 03-17, SIDE B
Number 2984
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ thanked Ms. Rutherford for her good
work and added that he assumes she is now on contract with the
state [since she is writing for private industry]. He stated
for the record that he would like to have a timeline for a
couple of projects, so [the committee] can know empirically what
the difference is going to be between the current and proposed
methods. He noted that there is some indication from
Commissioner Irwin that other "fixes" were going to be made, and
he said that Ms. Rutherford spoke about "other issues that
they've been discussing." He said he would like to know what
those issues are and what fixes are going to be proposed. He
stated, "I've watched these train tracks long enough to know
when a train's about to move, and it's going to another
committee and I'm not on that committee, and I want to know
what's going to be happening in [the House Resources Standing
Committee]."
Number 2934
COMMISSIONER IRWIN noted that the discussions are ongoing and
the information requested will be brought to the [House
Resources Standing Committee]. He respectfully indicated that
he sees [the issue] opposite to how it is seen by Representative
Berkowitz. He explained, "What it says is we're listening. And
that's what I would expect these committees would want us to be
doing."
Number 2890
REPRESENTATIVE OGG referred to page 9, lines 14 - 15, indicating
that the commissioner "may include local ordinances". He asked
if there would be any administrative-type standards by which the
department would be held accountable or if this would be left to
the department's discretion.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN responded that in all cases, standards will
ultimately have to be applied. As the program is developed, the
first and most important step is [ensuring that] "it's similar,
it's parallel, it provides the certainty that the program itself
has." The goal is to make everything the same so that it is
more functional. He commented that one piece that's missing
from this discussion, which he'd like the committee to focus on,
is to not forget the establishment of a project-coordinating
office. He said the goal of that is to get a team of multi-
talented, highly specialized people, with their own strong,
technical opinions, along with bringing in the affected
communities and other commissioners. He said there would be a
lot of people working together, where people are working
together toward a goal. He said discussions have already been
started with the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency]. The goal would be to work
together as a team, without compromising principles, but if
there are common goals, the benefit of such a group effort is
how "you really get things done in this world," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the federal government had
been consulted on program approval, and if so, what the response
was.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN replied that those discussions are in
progress, are ongoing, and were started when that "very select
group worked on it." He added that both [Patrick Galvin and
Marty Rutherford] had been on the group designing this program,
"from day one." He added that all the pieces have been
approved, and the whole package is being evaluated.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the federal government had
signed off on this package.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN replied, "On the individual items, they have.
Now that we're at this point, we're doing the whole package."
Number 2677
DALE PERNULA, Community Development Director, City & Borough of
Juneau (CBJ), testified that he didn't have comments about the
legislation itself because the legislation had only been
received last Thursday and there has not been the necessary time
to review it or to present it to the local elected officials.
He did mention that this legislation could potentially affect
some of Juneau's waterfront and therefore requested additional
time for CBJ to review the material to provide further
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what timeframe would be required so
that testimony could be provided at the next scheduled standing
committee meeting, which would probably be during the next week.
MR. PERNULA said his concern was not so much that of a staff
review, but of getting the materials to the elected officials to
give them time to prepare their comments.
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that there were two more committees of
referral, the [House Resources Standing Committee] and the
[House Finance Committee], noting that it had been waived from
[House Judiciary Standing Committee]. He then referred to
Juneau's waterfront area; he inquired as to Mr. Pernula's
familiarity with the coastal zone process and asked whether a
separate permitting process by the municipality would be
different from the process that is currently being done.
MR. PERNULA said, "We have adopted ordinances dealing with those
policies, they have been adopted, we are enforcing them, and
they would be enforced after this piece of legislation would be
adopted."
CHAIR SEATON rephrased his question and said, "Currently those
enforceable policies are adopted in your borough, and the
consistency review takes care of all those things to make sure
they're all wrapped into the permit."
MR. PERNULA said, "right."
CHAIR SEATON continued, "And they're not included in the
specific ones that go forward in this bill. So, then, you'll be
enforcing those separately from the consistency review, and
separately from the permitting process."
MR. PERNULA confirmed that this was his understanding.
CHAIR SEATON asked if that process would be any different from
the current process, and if a separate permit would need to be
issued.
MR. PERNULA said, "That is my understanding, that we would." He
said, however, that having this bill only since last Thursday
hasn't allowed for a thorough analysis or testimony.
Number 2480
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that currently a lot of these
issues "fall out" in consistency determinations - municipal
zoning issues. She asked if these concerns held by coastal
districts would be taken care of in this process.
MR. PERNULA said, "I believe, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued that her concern was that
without the kind of involvement that [Mr. Pernula] currently
has, and with being forced to use a separate process, "it's a
little more difficult to come forward." She asked, "Is that
something you could comment on?"
MR. PERNULA said that it was premature for him to comment, but
that it would be a concern that right now there is a coordinated
program in which there are different levels of government, with
different regulations, in a coordinated process. That's one of
the things that would be reviewed, he added.
Number 2418
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Juneau had habitat standards
built into its ordinances.
MR. PERNULA affirmed this to be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to adoption of some of the
"local ordinances" on page 9, and commented that there would be
orphaned ordinances, similar to the habitat standards and asked
if Mr. Pernula thought he would be able to coordinate this, and
would still be able to permit.
MR. PERNULA responded that regulations would still be enforced,
independently of the state.
Number 2363
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, "You would no longer have any
reach into the state unless you had your ordinances adopted.
And you really wouldn't have any reach into the federal
activities because they would all be gone. Right?"
MR. PERNULA said, "That's my understanding. However, we've only
had [the bill] since Thursday and we need to do a more thorough
analysis."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued, "That's the beauty of coastal
zones, too, is that it gives you that power to comment and have
some authority over (indisc.)."
Number 2326
HAROLD HEINZE testified that he was representing himself as a
citizen, and mentioned that he was a former commissioner of the
[Department of Natural Resources] in the early 1990s, and as
such, offered his experience working with the ACMP at the
decision-making level within the executive branch. He provided
the following testimony:
First of all, I clearly am in support of what the
administration is trying to do here. I believe the
impact of what they're trying to accomplish will be a
very positive one for the state, and I believe it's an
absolutely good move expected by, frankly, the
citizens of Alaska. I think the legislature, to not
do this, would be counter to where the citizens of the
state want to go, for a couple of reasons. Number
one, I think that you're going to get better decisions
out of this.
MR. HEINZE continued:
Commissioner Irwin talked about this a little bit, but
I think it's very important to realize that the very
process that you exhibited frustration over trying to
understand - that exists right now - is an incredibly
bureaucratic process. There is absolutely nothing in
the history of the ACMP that indicates that
bureaucratic process has resulted in better decisions.
In actuality, I think you have a long history of
commissioners of natural resources who have made good
decisions. And the reason they make good decisions is
because they do go talk to local communities, they do
involve people, and they listen to the legislature and
they listen to a lot of other folks. And they balance
them properly, the constitutional mandate to make sure
that the resources of Alaska are used to the maximum
benefit of all Alaskans. That's a very prime driver
of the decision process - not a bunch of forms, not a
bunch of things that don't necessarily relate.
Number 2203
MR. HEINZE continued:
Secondly, I think this is a classic example of a
program that started out maybe with some very simple
ideas at the federal level. Basically, this program
came about because the federal government wasn't
listening to local people. And so it started as a
federal program. And, frankly, it wasn't to fix
anything in Alaska; there was nothing wrong here.
There was no reason (indisc.) ... in Alaska, but it
was necessary in California and some other places.
And it happened that Congress in their wisdom passed
this; we came under it. It took a long while for it
to get implemented. In the [1990s] we were still at
the tail end of the implementation of the ACMP. It
was still evolving. But in the last 10 years, all the
problems that existed in the 1990s still exist. They
haven't been able to be solved. The idea of involving
local communities in the decisions made at the state
level is a good one, and it will occur with or without
this program.
Number 2124
MR. HEINZE concluded his testimony:
What I see happening in this legislation is separating
out the idea of a separate office under the governor
with its own bureaucracy, its own purposes and
everything else, and basically taking the function and
moving it under DNR as part of a general decision
process that we make here in Alaska. We've been
willing to trust the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources to make a lot more important
decisions, frankly, than what we're talking about
here. And I don't see any real problem in trusting
that to happen. Frankly, the better decisions in
government are made when there is a clear-cut
responsibility and authority and, frankly,
accountability for those decisions. And that's the
way it's worked. I think that should be one of the
major focuses. I think this is a clear opportunity to
save money. I think it's a clear opportunity to
streamline government, and I think it's a clear
opportunity to make better decisions.
Number 2088
CHAIR SEATON said that the today's discussion is not about
money, but is about integrating local and state management,
noting that he wanted to "separate those out" so that testimony
would be focused on HB 191 and not on EO 106.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked the [former] commissioner for
his testimony, which mentioned federal concerns and the state's
initial involvement with this program.
MR. HEINZE said that he wasn't a lawyer but he believed that the
federal government, under its own law, was required to consult
under the (indisc.), regardless of the state's position. He
commented that the state could neither stop the federal
government nor require its involvement, saying that "if the
federal government is going to listen to local communities,
that's their choice, not ours." He said his only concern was
that the state make good decisions regarding its resources.
Number 1978
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG acknowledged Mr. Heinze's unique
perspective on this issue and asked if he had found anything
that could be considered as a definitive deficiency.
MR. HEINZE replied that based on his experience, the current
ACMP process is a "total minefield" and that it impedes a
commissioner's ability to make good decisions. He referenced
one of the more difficult decisions he had to make as a
commissioner, which was the leasing of state land east of Point
Barrow. He said fortunately, that contentious decision didn't
have to be made through the ACMP, and that "otherwise, we'd
still be trying to make that decision, I'm convinced." He
emphasized that his argument was for moving away from a
bureaucratic approach to decision making and to move towards
[locating this] within the executive branch. He told the
committee that he gives this administration credit for being
willing to do all the work necessary to figure out how to change
and revise this process.
Number 1874
PAT CARLSON, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough, testified that not
much time had been allotted to analyze the material. He
stressed that thousands of miles of coastline and some of the
richest fishing areas of the world lie within Kodiak's
jurisdiction, and the concern is "related to [Kodiak's] ability
to interact with federal policies, through the state." Mr.
Carlson referred to a letter he had received several months ago
from a state bureaucrat indicating "the State of Alaska did not
recognize local zoning." He said, "If our ability to interact
with the policies at the state level, with state jurisdiction is
preempted by state jurisdiction, then there's a serious conflict
and this may be an opportunity to straighten that out for
everybody in the state." He said his other concern is
recognizing that the legislature acts as the legislative body,
or assembly equivalent, for the unorganized borough ... [online
connection temporarily lost].
Number 1763
MR. CARLSON continued that [Kodiak] has interacted quite
cooperatively through the tri-borough agreement and recognizes
the need for streamlining the permitting process. He said, "Our
big concern is that we interface properly and still maintain
authority to recognize our local needs and habitat concerns. We
look forward to providing some amendment language after we have
the opportunity to further study this with our peers and provide
what we hope are helpful suggestions ..."
CHAIR SEATON said if the desire was to incorporate amendments
from existing enforceable policies or concerns regarding
inclusion of the statewide habitat standard, then those
amendments should be forwarded to the governor's office, the
next committees of referral, and local legislators.
Number 1672
OLIVER HOLM, commercial fisherman, testified that he has fished
in the Kodiak area for about 40 years, and said that he was
concerned about maintaining fisheries protections under the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act and how this bill would
affect those protections. He told the committee that it appears
that the maintenance of fisheries protection would not be as
good, at least during the interim period, and that many people's
livelihoods depend on fisheries. He said that the other issue
pertains to borough's and local government's maintaining access
into the process; it appears that HB 191 would allow boroughs to
enforce rules and create statutes but that they'd lose influence
on federal waters outside of the three-mile area.
MR. HOLM pointed out that a lot of [Kodiak's] fisheries occur
outside of that three-mile area, and because the habitat is
contiguous and indivisible from inside the three-mile area, the
result would be a diminished local involvement in coastal zone
issues. This would lead to an increased cost to local
governments to participate because local governments would have
to set up their own enforcement and monitoring efforts, which
are currently done through the state process. He noted that DNR
could choose to embody some of the local concerns and
regulations, "but they may choose not to." He stated that with
the adoption of HB 191, some local provisions in coastal zone
management would disappear, and he hoped that local input would
be maintained. He urged the committee not to pass HB 191, but
to further scrutinize the bill.
CHAIR SEATON asked if Pat Carlson would fax the letter
indicating that the state wasn't complying with local ordinances
[letter referenced in his testimony] to the committee.
Number 1477
GERALD R. BROOKMAN provided the following testimony:
First, I believe that this bill would do much to harm
Alaska's fisheries, and do little, if anything, to
help them or their management.
We need to take a balanced approach to the management
of Alaska's fisheries. The ACMP, while it may appear
cumbersome to some people with a limited view of the
issues involved or who are only concerned with a
single issue, is a very important tool to assist the
state in achieving balanced management, where all
affected parties have an opportunity to voice their
concerns and have them considered by an impartial
body, or one that is, in theory if not always in
practice, impartial. To throw it out would be tragic.
HB 191 would deny the public an opportunity to have
input into issues that affect their vital interests.
It would deny local communities the opportunity to
have input into how their areas are developed.
Alaskans have, in the past, criticized management
decisions made at the federal level without taking
into consideration state interests; ironically, this
bill would transfer management decisions from the
local to state level. While the final decision would
continue to be made at the state level, retaining the
ACMP as it is presently constituted would at least
continue to allow local input into the final
decisions.
In summary, HB 191 is one of the most important
[bills] that will be considered by this legislature.
Its effects would be disastrous to our fisheries. I
urge that you vote against it.
Number 1357
JACK CUSHING, Mayor, City of Homer, stated that he's been
elected to office six times and that "in real life" he is a
civil engineer and, as such, has had to file numerous permit
applications through DGC. In addition, he's on the Alaska
Coastal Policy Council, representing lower Cook Inlet. He said
if this bill passes, a tremendous opportunity will be lost for
the input of local knowledge into projects. He said that during
the time he's been on the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, he's
hardly ever seen a project stopped or slowed down. On the
contrary, he's seen a tremendous amount of input received and
considered in a timely manner, with the assistance of local
knowledge brought into the projects.
Number 1207
REBECCA L. YATES said she was representing herself, that she has
a law degree and an environmental law certificate from Lewis and
Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, and has extensively
studied riparian zone issues. She said she is very opposed to
HB 191, and reiterated others' testimony that local knowledge is
vital to this process. With Alaska's strong dependence on
fisheries, anything that has the potential to destroy the
fisheries should be scrutinized. She emphasized that it is
extremely important to maintain the input of the public and of
local knowledge into the process.
Number 1138
DANA L. OLSON provided the following testimony:
I'm concerned about this bill because 16 [U.S.C.] Sec.
1455(d)(11) was land and water use, was the format for
the coastal management program, and the state has been
actively doing negotiated rule making under the Clean
Air Act. There was no opportunity for persons to
apply. I believe that this would violate the public
participation process, that it would be, in effect, [a
violation]. I wanted to say that the 1990 amendment
to the coastal zone requires that you consider the
zone as a whole, and so this would be in conflict with
the local policy. I wanted to say that a precedent
lawsuit that I had in federal court, 97-219-CV,
established that in the Mat-Su Borough's Knik Fairview
Comprehensive Plan, [this] was not a comprehensive
plan. It was simply a zoning implementation plan.
MS. OLSON continued:
Since all the other comprehensive plans were
implemented under the same authority, under the same
manner, it can be inferred that the Mat-Su Borough has
no local comprehensive plans; they [are] simply having
zoning implementation plans not [being] implemented.
One of the problems that I find in dealing with the
coastal management program is that I've requested
numerous times, for public meetings, and I've been
ignored by Mr. Hudson (ph). An issue comes up; what
happens when the local government doesn't take your
input, as was articulated in my federal lawsuit. What
does the state do then, and what is the administrative
process for that?
Number 0962
CHAIR SEATON asked if Ms. Olson had submitted written testimony.
MS. OLSON replied that she had already submitted written
testimony and concluded by saying, "I provided case law to say
that, 'No, I have no authority to go back and revisit the
provisions of law that were prior-approved.'"
Number 0930
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource
Service Area (CRSA), provided the following testimony:
Of the listed 44 Cenaliulriit villages, 15 are
traditional primary governments, 28 [are] second-class
cities, and 1 [is] first class. Cenaliulriit and
AVCP, Association of Village Council Presidents, were
not notified of these bills, nor requested beforehand
for input prior to the introduction of these bills.
The traditional governments will not have the same
ability under Title 29, and even if the second-class
communities are set up already, they do not have
ordinances in place for standards and how they can
proceed with development. This bill threatens the
process it took to meet with every community to fine-
tune and streamline Cenaliulriit policies for the last
18 years.
Several villages rely on the communal and vast
ancestral areas both in water and inland, and even
wetlands. Because of the wetlands (indisc.) pretty
vast, and resource dependence, it is documented by the
subsistence mapping that we have been collecting over
the last three years.
The rural communities are unique from the urban areas,
having a direct tie [to] a healthy balance of those
resources. Most favor renewable resources as their
base of their daily sustenance versus destructive
development that may have permanent destruction to
guaranteed yearly yields and harvest for future
generations. But we find that local participation,
using this process the way it's been going through
right now, has always proven to be successful in
providing wise mitigation to problems that we
encounter in planning and local infrastructure
development.
And a lot of our projects have been reviewing our
water and sewer projects, which are supposed to be
putting the honey bucket into the museum, as an
example. I see a bunch of other projects always going
through my table, and it's been very successful, and
we've been doing really good with these projects. And
there is no duplication of effort, I'm [reporting] to
this committee, on the part of Cenaliulritt's
permitting process, due to this unique setting of the
region. And it does not take years to go through the
permitting process.
Number 0638
MR. OSCAR continued:
This new proposed process will do the opposite, by
forcing outside interests to step in [to] the process
instead. Why should we be dictated [to] by outside
interests both in legal and by environmentalists? My
people prefer a localized process rather than someone
from outside. In retrospect, they fear that the state
DNR might bulldoze itself to their livelihoods, and
Cenaliulriit had to work hard convincing every
community that DNR supports subsistence with this
mapping project. These villages are saying that it
will enable the state to begin using [the]
subsistence-mapping project against them. They are
also saying that it makes laws, similar to treaties,
so that it can break them. With the habitat standards
gone and with this new proposed process, the distrust
has widened, quite vastly.
We question how this will affect the federal coastal
zone requirement and funding once the local districts
are eliminated. The Cenaliulriit villages are very
concerned they will not have access to prove their
dependence [on] a resource in a given area with these
bills, and we are therefore opposed to House Bill 191
and the companion, [SB] 143.
Number 0605
CHAIR SEATON suggested, if there were subsistence, habitat, or
other standards that were desired to be included in HB 191, that
Mr. Oscar identify and submit those for consideration as
amendments.
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that Mr. Oscar's comments had
greatly concerned her, saying, "I know that perceptions and
fears can travel very fast, and particularly when you're not
able to be here and watch and see compromises, and see the
process work. I just want to say that before the area feels the
terrible lack of trust that I feel starting already, that what
you're doing, and what you're doing by involving your people
through your comments, I think will have a great impact."
Number 0484
CHAIR SEATON said, "Mr. Oscar might want to take a look because
in his area, subsistence doesn't have one of the standards that
is accepted in this bill. So, he might want to have an
amendment so that the subsistence priority is adopted."
Number 0462
JEFFREY D. CURRIER, Manager, Lake and Peninsula Borough, said
that most people who had testified had mentioned concern for
local control and the consistency issue, so he wouldn't belabor
those points. He said that there had not been sufficient time
allowed to analyze the materials and he requested that the
process slow down to allow time for increased understanding and
to give those who don't have a large staff sufficient time to
react to the bill. He said [Lake and Peninsula Borough]
strongly supports the concept of streamlining, saving time, and
promoting projects, but mentioned that the major concern is to
maintain local control and have local input.
Number 0225
TOM COLLOPY, citizen, testified that so far, the administration
has presented no evidence that the process being suggested will
be more efficient than the current process. He noted that it
would, however, remove any responsibility with regard to
habitat, and for that reason, he was opposed to HB 191.
Number 0157
MARY FRISCHE, citizen, testified that although she has only been
in the area for approximately two years, she strongly opposes HB
191. She said it dismisses a process that gives local people a
voice in government, a voice that's needed to determine how the
land, shores, and coastal waters are managed. She emphasized
that coastal resource protection policies need to remain open to
local public input.
Number 0080
R.J. KOPCHAK, commercial fisherman, testified that he has been a
fisherman for 28 years, and was previously the coastal zone
coordinator for the City of Cordova as a city planner. He
stated that he would like to make a couple of points. [Tape
ends.]
TAPE 03-18, SIDE A
Number 0049
MR. KOPCHACK continued his testimony as follows:
The bill effectively cuts the public out of the
process and, I think, neutralizes a program that has
been an important component in maintaining vibrant
salmon habitat throughout the state. The salmon and
the subsistence resources within the state, of course,
deserve all of our protection. And one of the
difficulties in deconstruction of the coastal zone
management program is that it further places stress
within the capacity to administer these important
resources and the habitats they depend on. This
deconstruction is unwarranted. There is absolutely no
evidence at this particular point that the ACMP
program is broken. No one has made the point in any
of the debate I have listened to in your committee
that, in fact, ACMP is broken and needs to be
repaired.
MR. KOPCHACK continued:
As a matter of fact, this particular bill is part of a
suite of bills that, in my opinion, are designed to
deconstruct protections of salmon habitat in an effort
to bring rapid and accelerated development of
nonrenewable resources, and again puts our salmon
habitat in jeopardy. We won't see those impacts, of
course, for a few years. The cumulative impacts from
the deconstruction of these particular checks and
balances will be the burden that my children and
grandchildren will have to carry with them. All of
those who support these particular bills will be
taking vows at how well they've done, now, and they
won't be held accountable in 20 years when the full
impact of this deconstructive effort is upon us. You
need to have balance; I speak for balance and you are
deconstructing balance.
Number 0220
BILL SMITH, Chair, Homer Advisory Planning Commission, noting
that he is a former member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Planning Commission, said that he has observed that the
consistency reviews conducted by the borough are a great aid to
developers, especially local developers, and he offered the
following testimony:
They have aided projects in getting the consistency
reviews and the coordination with state and federal
agencies. Eliminating this process will create delays
for local development projects. In addition, the idea
that local zoning regulations can be adopted to
replace the enforceable policies is really not at all
accurate. The Title 29 municipalities cannot enforce
any of their policies with regard to the state or the
federal government. HB 191 would completely cut
municipalities out of being able to have any
enforceable policies except on private lands.
MR. SMITH continued:
I don't think that's the proper process, if you're
going to do something about the coastal management
program. Even if the state were to adopt all of the
local policies, it still wouldn't give a local voice
regarding federal and state properties. Right now we
have a seat at the table, and this takes it away. I
don't think we should eliminate the locally adopted
policies without going through a local political
process. I've spoken with a lot of people at the
borough - the mayor's office, the planning department,
and the assembly - and none of them were consulted by
the state administration about what policies to adopt
and which ones to get rid of. I suggest that we
really need to engage in [the] local political process
before we destroy what we have built over the years,
with that process.
Number 0458
ALAN PARKS, commercial fisherman, testified on his own behalf
and said that he has been a commercial fisherman since 1975. He
provided the following testimony:
All Alaskans whose (indisc.) and economies have
benefited from the ACMP because of the process,
consistency review, and local involvement. I oppose
HB 191. HB 191 undermines local control over local
resources. HB 191 will essentially cut out the public
from their process. HB 191 is meant to streamline
government but in fact will create more red tape.
Alaska's fish and subsistence resource deserve
protection, as they have since statehood. There is no
legitimate evidence that the system is broken. HB 191
will remove the balance between fish protection and
coastal development. I urge you to oppose HB 191 and
to give local communities another opportunity to
address the issues and concerns that they have. It's
obvious from the testimony from the representatives
from Kodiak and Lake [and Peninsula Borough] that they
haven't had an opportunity to review it and get input
from their local officials. As a fair minimum, hold
another hearing. As an optimum result, oppose it and
kill this HB 191.
Number 0630
ANNE WIELAND, fisherman, testified that she has been a personal-
use fisher in Kachemak Bay for 28 years, and said that she
strongly opposes HB 191. She stated that it would take the
local public out of what should be public process and in effect
disfranchise the stakeholders. She continued that removing
state and local enforceable policies is a very short sighted
proposal, and if this bill passes, it will end up degrading
fisheries and other coastal resources that have provided s
livelihood and subsistence resources for generations. She urged
that HB 191 not be passed and also that the current ACMP be
retained.
Number 0692
DeWAINE TOLLEFSFRUD, representing himself, said that as a proud
member of an Alaskan coastal community, he strongly opposes HB
191. He stated that local management of coastal policies is
critical to maintaining the health of Alaska's coastline and its
inhabitants, and HB 191 would undermine local control over
important resources and "take the teeth out" of regulations that
have been locally determined to be detrimental to coastal
resources. He told the committee that there are many negative
aspects to HB 191, but in the interest of brevity, he would
leave those comments to others.
Number 0819
ERIC JOHNSON, Association of Village Council of Presidents
(AVCP), provided the following testimony:
This bill would get rid of CRSAs. There is no
substitute for the role that CRSAs play in rural
Alaska; they are the only regional planning and
project review voice with any real authority and
ability to steer the process out here. Municipalities
with Title 29 zoning and land use powers are no
substitute for a true regional voice in the process.
People in communities out here are affected by things
that occur well outside their city boundaries. As far
as the option of forming boroughs goes, the
legislature called for an LBC [Local Boundary
Commission] study, I believe, just last year, which
found that the area out here is not economically
suitable for borough formation.
MR. JOHNSON testified:
I don't think that waiting until the region out here
is economically suitable for borough formation is a
very good reason to strip people out here of local
control over coastal zone resources. The deference
that coastal districts receive in interpreting and
applying their plan is a very important part of the
current ACMP. It provides local people with a lot
more than just agencies listening to them. Without
deference, and this bill would strip coastal districts
of their deference, coastal districts cannot steer
planning in their regions. The people in their
regions would not need to be listened to by state and
federal agencies.
Number 0947
MR. JOHNSON continued:
CRSAs are not environmental impediments to the Alaska
economy. They are not environmental special-interest
entities. Their district plans are designed with full
local community involvement. CRSAs boards are elected
by the people of their regions. They are not
impediments to desired development in their regions.
I would challenge the governor to point to what
evidence he has that there are worthy projects in
rural Alaska that have somehow been stopped or are
unreasonably delayed by CRSA review. What this is
about is local control, and that is an Alaskan value.
Former DNR Commissioner Heinze testified earlier that
the ACMP was needed because the [federal government]
"wouldn't listen to the local people."
MR. JOHNSON concluded:
That's just what this legislation would do; it makes
it so that state and federal agencies wouldn't have to
listen to local people out here. We believe that's
bad policy. We believe that the Alaskan value of
local control and regional input and control on
resources is critical and that we shouldn't replace a
process that currently allows for bottom-up-type
input, and replace it with a top-down system where
large agencies can just run amuck over people.
Number 1050
ALLEN JOSEPH, Vice President of Operations, Association of
Village Council of Presidents (AVCP), testified as follows:
My position on HB 191 is that I oppose it. The reason
I oppose it is because it will take away the ability
of our villages to work together to manage our coastal
zones, since this bill would limit management
decisions to municipalities. We all know that
municipalities, their authorities are limited to what
you would call city limits, and in the overall
picture, municipalities and the lands they manage are
tiny dots on the landscape. One example that might be
worth mentioning is, in our region that's now
(indisc.), one of their programs is the subsistence-
mapping project. John Oscar mentioned it earlier in
his testimony. The people of our region, acting
through Cenaliulriit (indisc.), identified subsistence
as one of the most important uses of the coastal zone.
The mapping project relies on local knowledge to
identify those areas of high subsistence value for
planning purposes. This bill would not only do away
with Cenaliulriit but also do away with our reasonable
subsistence policy entirely.
Number 1192
CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director, Coastal District Coordinator,
Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA), testified
in opposition to HB 191 and provided the following testimony:
House Bill 191 eliminates CSRAs, and CSRAs are an
important governmental function in our region. Our
region goes from Shishmaref on the north side of the
Seward Peninsula to Little Diomede, Gambell and
Savoonga, and on the south side, Saint Michael and
Stebbins. Our CSRA has the highest land in use for
subsistence. Subsistence is a historic, traditional,
and customary practice. It's an ancient economy and
it's recognized, and it still works. Our CSRA was
established in 1980. It's a service area, and it's
the lowest form of regional government in the state of
Alaska. I urge you to keep the Bering Strait Sea
Authority and the other sea authorities functional.
Local knowledge is a very important part of the ACMP.
The projects that are reviewed and the policies that
are applicable to each project are determined by
location. Location is an important factor because
under this bill you are taking away local knowledge
and all of the efforts that local people have put into
living in those communities.
Number 1334
DOUG HILL, longtime Alaska resident, urged the committee to
reject HB 191, saying that the due deference afforded to local
decision making will be stripped away in order to allow DNR to
make faster resource decisions. He said he was not against
development but that he supports development that involves some
stewardship. He stated that local governments and citizens will
lack a consistent basis upon which to comment on projects and
that coastal uses that require only a state permit will not
require an ACMP consistency review under HB 191. He said that
repeatedly "they tell us that they can provide fish and wildlife
and habitat protection," and yet on numerous occasions the
details or mechanics of what's being promoted have not been
provided. He urged the legislature to ensure that Alaskans,
especially Alaskans living a rural or subsistence lifestyle,
have a firm understanding of HB 191 and all of the initiatives
that decrease industry and governmental accountability and also
decrease public participation in government.
Number 1430
ROBERT ARCHIBALD testified that he has been in Alaska for 25
years and has seen the good and the bad, and is not in favor of
HB 191 because currently, the statewide standards are pretty
good and protect 33 different areas that are site-specific. He
stated that with the [Division of Habitat and Restoration] being
moved from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and with
the [Forest Resources and Practices Act] "up in the air", there
is a need for stewardship in the state, and HB 191 might not be
the best action to take right now. He said that the ACMP has
been a good plan and that perhaps it's time to determine how to
best streamline the process instead of doing away with it
altogether.
Number 1508
NINA FAUST began her testimony by stating, "Redundancy is not
always bad nor is it always failsafe." She continued by
offering the following:
Having both state and local oversight of enforceable
standards provides two perspectives on a project - one
that will provide local knowledge valuable to protect
local resources. Developers say that time is money,
but protecting our natural resources is money as well.
Damages that could broadly affect local economies have
to be considered. I don't think it's wise to go
backwards on our standards, particularly by dropping
the local habitat standard. We need the local
knowledge; it's essential and must be retained.
Development projects that receive the careful
oversight provided by the ACMP are probably better
projects in the end. Discovering environmental
problems beforehand saves money and can make a project
much more welcome within a community. By being open
to the scrutiny provided by ACMP and fixing problems
beforehand, a company demonstrates its willingness to
be a good neighbor within a coastal area.
MS. FAUST continued:
I oppose both of these bills [HB 191 and SB 143] and I
am also wondering if some of these major changes might
end up costing the state quite a lot of money because
perhaps NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] will
require environment impact statements because of the
sweeping changes. I urge you to allow communities to
continue in their local stewardship for the sake of
their economies and the sake of their local resources.
Number 1606
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, President, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
(KBCS), an organization with a membership of approximately 100
people, said the organization strongly opposes HB 191 and SB
143. She said that many coastal communities have adopted
enforceable policies to protect the important sustainable
resources and that local communities have come to expect that
projects affecting local natural resources will be consistent
with the existing state and local enforceable policies. She
stated that KBCS respectfully urges that HB 191 and SB 143 do
not pass, adding that the ACMP has been implemented by local
communities and is working. She said KBCS strongly supports
balance and asks that a good system not be dismantled. She
emphasized that protection of coastal communities, local and
statewide economies, and Alaska's natural resources deserve the
best stewardship possible as well as continued public oversight.
Number 1668
MARVIN R. SMITH, Community Development Coordinator, Lake and
Peninsula Borough, provided the following testimony:
I am the coastal management person for the Lake and
Peninsula Borough, and I'll reiterate what the borough
manager said. We just recently got this and haven't
had a chance to present this to our planning
commission nor to our assembly. Our planning
commission acts as our coastal management policy
group, and we'd like more time .... There are some
specific things in it that inhibit our ability to
operate. One of those is, if they eliminate the
ordinances that are in effect today, which is our
coastal policy program, that would basically gut our
program, especially the habitat section.
MR. SMITH continued:
We also think that just because a federal project is
considered consistent, that it's considered locally -
it's not; I have examples that show that it's not. I
think that local policies and local input, as I've
heard many people say, have got to be considered. We
appreciate that the ACMP program has been beneficial
for the Lake and Peninsula Borough. We have recently
been doing a mapping project, and the funding
basically came from the ACMP program. That mapping
project, with a partnership with the State of Alaska,
[Department of Community & Economic Development], ...
is identifying many natural resources and subsistence
use areas. That mapping project started with a small
amount of funds that we got from the ACMP program, and
we're mapping 16 villages in the boroughs through the
ACMP program. Those maps are replacing 20-year-old
maps, and it all occurred because of the program. We
appreciate comments but think that we need [more time]
to look at this. This program, as it is now, is not
appropriate and we'd consider looking at it closer.
We appreciate the governor's attempts to streamline
and think that possibly there might be some
streamlining [to be] done.
Number 1818
JEFF LEPPO, Attorney, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),
provided the following testimony:
Alaska Oil and Gas Association was involved from the
beginning, in 1977, with the adoption of the ACMP and
has been very active in the last several years in
regulatory-reform initiative. Just as a background, I
personally have been involved in environmental
permitting in Alaska for over 22 years and directly
involved in the ACMP process for a number of completed
and ongoing projects like the recent TAPS [Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System] reauthorization of the right-
of-way. Since we only have a short time here, I would
like to touch on three points, quickly: one, why
statutory reform of the ACMP is imperative; two, the
key benefits and advantages of HB 191 over the current
program; and three, the potential sources of
misunderstanding or misinformation about HB 191.
MR. LEPPO testified:
Why reform the ACMP? From the perspective of the
development community, which are the businesses that
invest in new development in Alaska and therefore need
to obtain federal and state and local permits, the
ACMP process has become the single most problematic
regulatory hurdle to responsible development in
Alaska. It really bears repeating in light of some of
the earlier testimony. It is, in fact, the single
most problematic regulatory hurdle to responsible
development in Alaska. It is a major source of
uncertainty for new projects, and it results in real
serious chilling effects on the economic investment in
Alaska. Why? Because there are vague standards for
where the ACMP applies and to what projects or what
portions of projects it applies to. These are
applicability and scope issues.
MR. LEPPO continued:
Second, there's a lack of schedule discipline. The
schedule and the timeframe for the ACMP process cannot
be diagramed. I appreciated the comments of
Representative Berkowitz early in this, about his
frustration that he had not been provided with a
diagram with the existing program. The problem is,
and Mary Rutherford alluded to this point - that it
essentially can't be diagramed. That's not a failing
of the administration. It is a very serious failing
of the current system. I appreciate how frustrated
the Representative is, but imagine the frustration of
someone who is trying to permit a project who cannot
diagram what he or she needs to go through.
This program has been a significant source of
litigation. The program is uncertain in terms of what
restrictions apply. So, why reform it? Because it's
the single most confusing, delay-prone, litigation-
prone, and uncertain program in Alaska. What are the
key benefits? This bill provides for the use of a
specific mechanism identified in Section 13, in
46.39.010(d), that federal law says is an appropriate
way to go about organizing a state program called
"Network."
MR. LEPPO offered one more comment about a misunderstanding and
testified as follows:
There has been a lot of talk about the local role, I
think, that genuinely, people misunderstand how the
local role has been preserved. This statute, HB 191,
preserves federal grant monies to local coastal
districts for research training and technical
assistance. That's in AS 44.33.781. It contains a
specific provision for including municipal ordinances
as enforceable policies, and it expressly applies
those to federal and OCS projects. That's
46.39.010(e) and (f), page 10 of your statute; and
there, [pages] 9 and 10, it specifically applies these
local ordinances to federal and OCS projects and it
adopts, on page 10, a number of the (indisc.)
enforceable policies.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that these have previously been
reviewed, and due to time constraints, Mr. Leppo's testimony
would need to be curtailed.
Number 2102
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested that Mr. Leppo provide
concrete examples of projects that have been derailed because of
the existing ACMP and also examples of projects that would be
able to go forward under the new system. Representative
Berkowitz pointed out that it was not mandatory that municipal
ordinances be adopted; it's permissive under the proposed
language in the bill.
Number 2130
BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Keeper, said Cook
Inlet Keeper was a nonprofit organization that pursues separate
functions: training citizens to collect credible water quality
data that helps the state comply with the Clean Water Act and
commenting on water quality and habitat issues. He offered the
following testimony:
First, as many people have noted, there's not a
documented problem here. We've heard a lot of
hyperbole, but the rhetoric does not support the
facts. I'd like to review some statistics from the
DGC and their project reviews. This data is from the
last five years of reviews. The average length of a
50-day review, with extensions, is 53.2 days. The
average length of a 30-day review, with extensions, is
28.2 days. The percent of reviews extended at request
of the applicant [is] 38 percent. The number of oil
and gas projects on the North Slope that have taken
more than one year in the ACMP review: zero. The
number of oil and gas projects on the North Slope that
have taken more than six months: one. The number of
mining projects that have taken more than six months
to review: zero. The number of mining projects that
have taken more than one year: zero.
That's in response to some of the comments made at the
last hearing, from the development community, that the
ACMP added a year or more to a variety of projects on
the North Slope. I'd also like to note that the bill
goes much further than eliminating duplication.
Instead, it erases important and unique substantive
protections. Ms. Rutherford earlier referred to the
gap that would be created by the removal of the
habitat standard. The habitat standard has been used
as a tool by resource managers to look outside streams
to protect salmon habitat. (Indisc.) [Title] 16 has
been used simply to look at instream effects.
The zero fiscal note - and the commissioner already
noted that they have been talking to the federal
officials that [there is a] need to approve of this -
there is definitely going to be an environmental
impact statement that is going to cost a lot of money
and a lot of time to go through. So, in our opinion,
this is certainly not efficient government, as we
already have a program in place that is not broken.
Number 2257
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to the zero fiscal note, and
said that from what [Commissioner Irwin] had indicated, perhaps
the zero fiscal ought to be reviewed.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the committee would appreciate an
updated fiscal note.
Number 2298
KEITH BETTRIDGE, City Administrator, City of Hoonah, testified
that Hoonah is a coastal district limited by its own city
limits, and therefore the coastal reviews over the past three
years have been minimal, as few have impacted the city limits.
Number 2352
PAULA TERRELL, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, said that the
council's major concerns are fisheries and conservation, and
that its membership comprises many commercial and sport
fishermen. She reinforced several points, beginning with
Representative Berkowitz's comment about the adoption of
enforceable policies. She said that all of a community's
enforceable policies are not adopted and that it's completely up
to the state to decide whether or not policies are going to be
adopted. This takes it out of the realm of the coastal
communities, and therefore really eliminates the due deference
that local communities have. She suggested that these are
multiple permits that do take more time because of involving
federal as well as state agencies.
MS. TERRELL emphasized that nothing should be done to the
habitat standard, which allows ADF&G to comment on projects that
involve "out of the stream beds" - that Title 16 was in the
stream, and that this is out of the stream. She said it is a
very important tool, and since it is such a complex issue, she
suggested that that a group of involved stakeholders composed of
industry, state, federal, and so forth, work on the details and
present those refinements to the legislators. She said she
thought that some refinements need to be done with the ACMP but
in this case, "the baby is being thrown out with the bath
water."
Number 2490
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 191 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Number 2498
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected, saying that although there is
room to improve upon the ACMP, the product before the committee
- by the administration's own admission - is a "work in
progress." He stated that one of the responsibilities of
legislators is to ensure that bills are as good as [the
committee] can make them, noting that, clearly, there was room
for improvement on HB 191. He said that a lot of testimony had
been taken but, in essence, the issues had not been addressed.
He said that insufficient empirical evidence had been received
to support, in good conscience, the changes recommended by the
administration.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ urged the committee, rather than
actually voting at this time, to hold the bill, do more work,
and at the appropriate time, to act together to move the bill.
He noted that the [House Resources Standing Committee] wouldn't
be meeting today and that there was still an opportunity for the
administration to produce evidence to support HB 191. He
restated that he was willing to be persuaded to be supportive of
the bill, but at this point, because enough evidence had not
been presented, it was riding on a "trust me, anecdotal
information" approach in a situation where there was
overwhelming public testimony in opposition to the bill. He
emphasized that the committee needed to listen to the public's
expression of desire that "this bill should not move."
Number 2593
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested that a more appropriate venue
would be the [House Resources Standing Committee]. He said he
grew up in a coastal community and he understands the expressed
concerns of the coastal community. He noted that the bill was
far from the House floor and had a long road ahead, including
three committees of referral from this point.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ confirmed that there were three
committees of referral in the [House] but only one committee in
the [Senate].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he would vote to move the bill to
the next committee of referral; he also said that there would be
stumbling blocks ahead, and "we will all be there watching to
make sure that the local communities are heard from."
Number 2637
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said the case had not been made and
noted that a lot of communities had been heard from, indicating
an overwhelming amount of distrust, perhaps due to confusion or
from misinformation. He suggested that the committee do
additional work on HB 191, but if not, he hoped that the
commissioner would take to heart the requests and information
that had been supplied. He noted that the committee had not
received flowcharts or detailed information, as had been
requested. He highlighted that the public had revealed an
overwhelming desire to provide input into the coastal process.
He mentioned that some but not other ordinances were being
adopted, noting that Juneau currently has a habitat ordinance.
He asked where the preponderance of responsibility was being
placed, saying that a lot of questions had been asked but had
not yet been answered.
Number 2740
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE suggested that the heart of the matter was
that there was no way to obtain the requested flowchart; she
referred to a former commissioner's statement of the situation
being "a minefield" and said that the permitting process needs
to be streamlined. She indicated that the bill could be
"tweaked and adjusted" as it moves forward; she stated that she
was in support HB 191.
Number 2774
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she was concerned about the
redundancy in the current process. She stated that the basic
goals were not being undone; rather, the objective was to
streamline the process. She said the commissioner had taken
notes, and that she believed he was willing to be responsive [to
what was heard in committee]. She suggested that the [House
Resources Standing Committee] would have a lot of work to do on
the bill; she stated that she would vote to pass the bill out.
Number 2820
CHAIR SEATON expressed concern that a lot of changes had been
identified as being necessary to the process, and that a lot of
testimony from individual districts and villages and other areas
were indicative of problems and concerns with HB 191. He said
that he hoped the commissioner would incorporate information
that had been heard in committee. Chair Seaton said that as a
general policy, he didn't want to move bills out of committee
until the work had been done, because if a bill moved out with
"amend" on it, but wasn't, in fact, amended, then [the
committee's] responsibilities were not being fulfilled. He said
he hoped that the other committees of referral would amend the
bill because sufficient concerns had been expressed, indicating
that amendments were needed.
Number 2900
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the committee had not heard from
ADF&G, and fisheries issues such as habitat standards that
should have been addressed by this committee had not been
addressed. He said although the administration had indicated a
flowchart couldn't be made, his own office staff had devised a
flowchart that at least provided assistance in understanding the
process; he emphasized that the administration's not providing
the requested flowchart "said something" to him.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ urged the committee to hold the bill,
acknowledging that it's not easy to "buck the governor."
Referring to a Legislative Council suit against former Governor
Knowles being argued in front of the supreme court, he told the
committee he'd backed the suit because it was the right thing to
do. He stressed the importance of legislature's not just
putting a "rubber stamp" on what the governor does.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Heinze, Samuels,
Ogg, Wilson, and Seaton voted in favor of reporting HB 191 from
committee. Representatives Berkowitz and Guttenberg voted
against it. Therefore, HB 191 was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 5-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at
11:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|