Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/17/2003 08:40 AM FSH

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
              HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES                                                                            
                         March 17, 2003                                                                                         
                           8:40 a.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair                                                                                               
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                        
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                                                                  
Representative David Guttenberg                                                                                                 
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Cheryll Heinze                                                                                                   
Representative Ralph Samuels                                                                                                    
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."                                                                 
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
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 -                                                                        
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                                                                   
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Coordinator                                                                                          
Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area (AWCRSA)                                                                           
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 191, requesting that                                                                       
legislation be modified to allow the CRSAs to exist.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA                                                                                                    
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Asked questions and commented on HB 191.                                                                   
WILLIAM (BILL) JEFFRESS, Director                                                                                               
Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)                                                                                     
Office of Management & Budget                                                                                                   
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 191, which was sponsored by                                                                   
the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.                                                                  
JANET BURLESON BAXTER, Acting Special Assistant                                                                                 
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Natural Resources                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Highlighted key components of HB 191.                                                                      
BRECK TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Environmental Section                                                                                                           
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law                                                                                                               
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided an overview of the sectional                                                                      
analysis for HB 191.                                                                                                            
TADD OWENS                                                                                                                      
Executive Director                                                                                                              
Resource Development Council (RDC)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 191.                                                                            
JUDY BRADY                                                                                                                      
Alaska Oil and Gas Association                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified that HB 191 moves toward the                                                                     
original intent of the ACMP.                                                                                                    
NOAH NAYLOR, Planning Director                                                                                                  
Northwest Arctic Borough                                                                                                        
Kotzebue, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified that  HB 191 hurts  the Northwest                                                               
Arctic Borough in several ways.                                                                                                 
WALTER SAMPSON, President                                                                                                       
Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly                                                                                               
Kotzebue, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified  on HB  191, suggesting  that the                                                               
overall process include public testimony.                                                                                       
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
TAPE 03-14, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  PAUL   SEATON  called  the  House   Special  Committee  on                                                             
Fisheries meeting to order at  8:40 a.m.  Representatives Seaton,                                                               
Wilson,  and  Berkowitz  were  present  at  the  call  to  order.                                                               
Representatives Kott  and Guttenberg  arrived as the  meeting was                                                               
in progress.   Representatives Samuels  and Heinze  were excused.                                                               
Also present was Representative Kerttula.                                                                                       
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS                                                                                            
CHAIR SEATON announced that the  first and 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 0012                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  said that  public testimony would  be heard  at the                                                               
beginning  of  the  meeting  while   awaiting  for  a  quorum  to                                                               
Number 0073                                                                                                                     
KAROL  KOLEHMAINEN, Program  Coordinator, Aleutians  West Coastal                                                               
Resource  Service  Area  (AWCRSA), said  that  committee  members                                                               
might  think that  her interest  is in  saving her  job, but  the                                                               
reason  for  her  testimony  is  because  of  the  seven  elected                                                               
officials of the [AWCRSA] and all  that they represent.  She then                                                               
provided the following testimony:                                                                                               
     Geographically,  they  represent   the  entire  western                                                                    
     Aleutian  area  from  Unalaska   Island  west  to  Attu                                                                    
     Island, an area  that is 20 to 60 [miles]  in width and                                                                    
     roughly  1,000  miles  long.   It  is  bounded  by  the                                                                    
     Pacific Ocean  to the south  and the Bering Sea  to the                                                                    
     north and  has a wealth of  natural resources including                                                                    
     some  of  the richest  fishing  grounds  in the  state.                                                                    
     Like the  geography, the communities of  the region are                                                                    
     also diverse.   Unalaska,  the only Title  29 community                                                                    
     and  the  number one  seafood  processing  port in  the                                                                    
     nation for  may years, has  a population of  over 4,000                                                                    
     people,  and Nikolski,  a  tribal  government, has  30.                                                                    
     Both  of these  communities contribute  members to  the                                                                    
     AWCRSA board.                                                                                                              
     Article  2   of  Alaska  Statute  46.40   provides  the                                                                    
     authority  for coastal  management  in the  unorganized                                                                    
     borough  and   allowed  the   people  of   the  western                                                                    
     Aleutians  to form  a  CRSA  [Coastal Resource  Service                                                                    
     Area].   Sixteen  years ago,  in 1987,  the AWCRSA  was                                                                    
     established by a vote of  the people of the unorganized                                                                    
     western Aleutian  area.  They went  through the process                                                                    
     and gave of their time  to develop a coastal management                                                                    
     plan for the region.  The  plan was signed into law and                                                                    
     provides representation of the  local interest in state                                                                    
     and federal permitting decisions.                                                                                          
     The plan  has procedures  and policies, not  to prevent                                                                    
     development,  but   to  guide   development  activities                                                                    
     within  the coastal  zone boundary.   Recently  we have                                                                    
     been   updating  the   plan,   a  massive   undertaking                                                                    
     involving mapping of the resources  of the entire area;                                                                    
     collection of  census data and cultural,  historic, and                                                                    
     economic information; and the  development of goals and                                                                    
     objectives   for  the   region,   culminating  in   the                                                                    
     development of coastal policies.   All of this work was                                                                    
     accomplished  by a  volunteer board  and using  federal                                                                    
     funding.   Because the CRSA  exists in  the unorganized                                                                    
     area, it  serves as  a local  authority for  the entire                                                                    
     area,  and  the  plan  is  the  recognized  information                                                                    
     source  for   prospective  developers  and   oil  spill                                                                    
     contingency planning.                                                                                                      
Number 0348                                                                                                                     
MS. KOLEHMAINEN continued:                                                                                                      
     If  I have  gone on  at length  about the  area, it  is                                                                    
     because I care deeply about  the region and respect the                                                                    
     efforts  of the  AWCRSA board.   As  previously stated,                                                                    
     the board  is strictly  voluntary and its  members have                                                                    
     contributed many hours over many  years to develop what                                                                    
     it has become.  I would like  to add that I am the sole                                                                    
     employee, and  the entire  program is  federally funded                                                                    
     with  monies passed  through the  state.   Now, with  a                                                                    
     stroke of  the pen,  this political subdivision  of the                                                                    
     state will cease to exist.                                                                                                 
     I have  reviewed the proposed  legislation and  some of                                                                    
     the  supporting  material,  and  wish  to  continue  by                                                                    
     specifically   addressing  some   of  the   assertions.                                                                    
     First,  to  state  the  Title  29  municipalities  will                                                                    
     retain   their   existing  land-use   authorities   and                                                                    
     regulate  private land-use  activities is  correct, but                                                                    
     doesn't provide  the complete picture.   In the AWCRSA,                                                                    
     the Title  29 municipality,  Unalaska, does not  have a                                                                    
     coastal management  program; that  role is  provided by                                                                    
     the  CRSA.    I  suspect  this is  true  in  the  other                                                                    
     unorganized  borough areas  as  well.   Anyone who  has                                                                    
     been involved with the rewrite  of a comprehensive plan                                                                    
     knows that  it does not  happen overnight, and  it will                                                                    
     take much time and effort  for a community to develop a                                                                    
     coastal  program  and  be eligible  for  the  financial                                                                    
     benefits of participation.   Unalaska represents a mere                                                                    
     116 square miles of a much, much larger area.                                                                              
Number 0495                                                                                                                     
MS. KOLEHMAINEN continued:                                                                                                      
     Next,   to  say   that  DNR   [Department  of   Natural                                                                    
     Resources] is  authorized to adopt local  ordinances as                                                                    
     state  enforceable policies  for  federal reviews  also                                                                    
     seems  to   gloss  over  the   very  real   concern  of                                                                    
     elimination of  a local  presence in  permit decisions.                                                                    
     I  guess that  is the  ultimate in  streamlining -  the                                                                    
     state makes the  decision.  I believe  another word for                                                                    
     that  is centralization,  but then  that  word is  much                                                                    
     less palatable.                                                                                                            
     And last, to  say that the adoption  of certain coastal                                                                    
     policies   for  state   decisions   will  continue   to                                                                    
     recognize a local input is  just the second point, made                                                                    
     in an only slightly different  way.  When that happens,                                                                    
     you  no  longer have  local  policies;  you have  state                                                                    
     policies,   and  only   the  ones   that  were   deemed                                                                    
     acceptable, apparently.                                                                                                    
Number 0552                                                                                                                     
MS. KOLEHMAINEN continued:                                                                                                      
     Now  that I  have said  all of  this, I  would like  to                                                                    
     conclude by  admitting that  we recognize  that passage                                                                    
     of  this  legislation   appears  inevitable  given  the                                                                    
     current political climate.  In  HB 191, Section 10, the                                                                    
     legislation purports to provide  a program of research,                                                                    
     training, and technical  assistance to coastal resource                                                                    
     districts,  including   the  direct  granting   to  the                                                                    
     districts.  However, Section  16 repeals [AS] 46.40.120                                                                    
     through   [AS   46.40.180]  eliminating   the   coastal                                                                    
     resource  districts,   the  CRSAs,  which   allow  huge                                                                    
     political subdivision  of the state, and  includes many                                                                    
     of  the communities  that could  benefit the  most from                                                                    
     coastal grants.                                                                                                            
     We  respectfully   request  that  the   legislation  be                                                                    
     modified  to allow  the CRSAs  to exist  permanently as                                                                    
     coastal district  areas or  a similar  functional area,                                                                    
     or for a  period of time long enough to  allow the work                                                                    
     that has been done to be  redirected in a way that will                                                                    
     let  the  areas  develop  meaningful  authority  in  an                                                                    
     acceptable and beneficial form.                                                                                            
CHAIR SEATON noted that Ms. Kolehmainen's written testimony                                                                     
would be distributed to committee members.                                                                                      
Number 0684                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, inquired as                                                                  
to the kinds of projects [AWCRSA] has commented on during the                                                                   
past year or so.   She asked for examples of  the sorts of things                                                               
in which it would no longer be participating.                                                                                   
MS. KOLEHMAINEN  responded that some  projects that come  to mind                                                               
are the development of the  small-boat harbor in Unalaska and the                                                               
remediation activates on Amchitka Island,  for which she has been                                                               
the resource  and information source person  for national missile                                                               
defense activities  at Chiniak  and Adak  and for  the hydropower                                                               
project in Atka.   She added that the benefit of  the CRSA is not                                                               
just in providing  comments, but also as an  entity that provides                                                               
goals and  objectives and as  being a tremendous resource  to the                                                               
area that might not otherwise have that resource.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA  asked   for  a   description  of   Ms.                                                               
Kolehmainen's   interaction  with   the  coastal   zone  project,                                                               
inquiring about the working relationship  as evidenced by how she                                                               
receives information from project managers.                                                                                     
Number 0824                                                                                                                     
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said she has been  with the program for over four                                                               
years,  and  the  biggest  benefit is  through  the  Division  of                                                               
Governmental Coordination (DGC).   She described that she attends                                                               
a   pre-application   meeting   with   the   resource   agencies,                                                               
developers,  and  affected  communities   -  if  they  choose  to                                                               
participate - and  discusses what the project will  include.  She                                                               
said  they  are  the  local  experts and  express  not  only  the                                                               
concerns  of   the  community,  but   also  the   advantages  and                                                               
disadvantages of  certain types  of development.   She  said that                                                               
the  CRSA or  any coastal  district could  be of  benefit to  the                                                               
developer during  those early meetings  when the plans  are being                                                               
formulated and developed.                                                                                                       
CHAIR SEATON announced that there was  a quorum and that he would                                                               
return to  hearing public  testimony after  hearing consideration                                                               
of HB 191.                                                                                                                      
Number 0918                                                                                                                     
WILLIAM  (BILL)  JEFFRESS,  Director,  Division  of  Governmental                                                               
Coordination (DGC), read from a  statement of purpose for HB 191,                                                               
which  was sponsored  by the  House Rules  Standing Committee  by                                                               
request  of   the  governor.     That  document   read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
      Under the authority of article III, sec. 18, of the                                                                       
     Alaska Constitution, the Governor has transmitted this                                                                     
     bill  to  reform  and  streamline  the  Alaska  Coastal                                                                    
     Management  Program   (ACMP).    This   legislation  is                                                                    
     premised   on  the   statutory  changes   contained  in                                                                    
     Executive  Order 106,  which  was presented  to you  on                                                                    
     February 12, 2003.  Executive  Order 106 would transfer                                                                    
     responsibility for  the ACMP program from  the division                                                                    
     of   governmental  coordination   in   the  office   of                                                                    
     management  and budget  to  the  Department of  Natural                                                                    
     The  Alaska   Coastal  Management  Program   was  first                                                                    
     enacted in 1977 in order  to participate in the federal                                                                    
     Coastal  Zone  Management Act  of  1972.   The  federal                                                                    
     program is voluntary, and  encourages states to receive                                                                    
     funds  and  the  opportunity  for  federal  consistency                                                                    
     review.   Federal consistency review enables  the state                                                                    
     to  apply  its  authorities   to  projects  located  on                                                                    
     federal land  and the  federal outer  continental shelf                                                                    
     where otherwise it would be preempted by federal law.                                                                      
Number 1021                                                                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS went on to say:                                                                                                    
     The  goal  of  this  legislation is  to  create  a  new                                                                    
     coastal  management program  that retains  the benefits                                                                    
     of the  federal act but eliminates  the duplication and                                                                    
     complexities built  into the  present ACMP.   This bill                                                                    
     would  achieve this  goal by  choosing the  simplest of                                                                    
     the three management techniques  allowed by the federal                                                                    
     act.   The bill  provides certainty  and predictability                                                                    
     to  the ACMP  process by  clarifying the  standards and                                                                    
     responsibilities for program implementation.                                                                               
     The  central streamlining  concept of  the bill  is the                                                                    
     reliance on existing state  statutes and regulations as                                                                    
     the  enforceable policies  of  the ACMP.   The  current                                                                    
     duplicative   consistency   review    process   in   AS                                                                    
     46.490.096  and  6  AAC  50  is  eliminated  by  simply                                                                    
     relying  on the  issuance of  current state  permits by                                                                    
     the  resource  agencies  as the  means  of  determining                                                                    
     whether an activity  is consistent with the  ACMP.  The                                                                    
     bill  would   eliminate  district   coastal  management                                                                    
     enforceable policies  but retain a local  role in three                                                                    
     ways.   First,  Title  29  municipalities would  retain                                                                    
     their  existing   land  use  authorities   to  regulate                                                                    
     private activities within  their jurisdiction.  Second,                                                                    
     the   bill  authorizes   the   Department  of   Natural                                                                    
     Resources (DNR),  as the implementing agency,  to adopt                                                                    
     local ordinances as enforceable  policies to be applied                                                                    
     in consistency  reviews of  federal projects  and Outer                                                                    
     Continental  Shelf (OCS)  development.   The DNR  would                                                                    
     consult  with the  local  government when  interpreting                                                                    
     and applying  local ordinance as part  of a consistency                                                                    
     review.    Third,  the bill  would  specifically  adopt                                                                    
     certain existing coastal  district policies for federal                                                                    
     OCS   development   as  state   enforceable   policies.                                                                    
     Coastal  resource  service  areas  in  the  unorganized                                                                    
     boroughs   would    no   longer   exist.       However,                                                                    
     municipalities  within the  unorganized boroughs  could                                                                    
     participate in  both funding and regulatory  aspects of                                                                    
     the program.   The way coastal  communities participate                                                                    
     in the  program will now focus  on sustainable resource                                                                    
     and economic development.                                                                                                  
     The  bill  would  also  eliminate  the  Coastal  Policy                                                                    
     Council, but would create  a Coastal Program Evaluation                                                                    
     Council  to submit  a  report to  the  Governor on  the                                                                    
     implementation  of these  reforms.   The council  would                                                                    
     sunset July 1, 2005.                                                                                                       
Number 1221                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked  if   analysis  had  been  done,                                                               
perhaps in  writing, that  could be shared  with the  committee -                                                               
analysis  done prior  to making  the  determination that  coastal                                                               
management was in need of streamlining.                                                                                         
MR.  JEFFRESS responded  that during  the past  week, on  several                                                               
occasions during  testimony on  Executive Order  107 (EO  107), a                                                               
cross-representation   of    different   interest    groups   had                                                               
highlighted the  need to modify the  ACMP program.  He  said that                                                               
almost  every  transition  team  that was  put  together  by  the                                                               
governor, except for the Department  of Corrections, included the                                                               
issue of revamping the ACMP program.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said he  had hoped  that the  basis for                                                               
this large of a change  would be more substantial than anecdotes,                                                               
because his  experience in listening  to testimony on EO  107 was                                                               
that  there   was  also  considerable  testimony   in  the  other                                                               
direction  as well.   He  referred to  there being  discussion of                                                               
moving towards the  "Virginia model" and asked  if a side-by-side                                                               
comparison had been done to  examine how the Virginia model would                                                               
work  in Alaska  in  terms  of timelines,  costs,  et cetera,  to                                                               
demonstrate  that  the  new  model  would  be  quantitatively  or                                                               
qualitatively better.                                                                                                           
MR.  JEFFRESS  suggested that  Breck  Tostevin  was available  to                                                               
respond to that question.                                                                                                       
Number 1371                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA began  by  acknowledging the  difficulty                                                               
involved in Mr.  Jeffress's being new at his  job and immediately                                                               
working with  the transition.   She stated  that one of  the jobs                                                               
that the coastal  management program has always  undertaken is to                                                               
work with local people in  the coastal districts themselves.  She                                                               
said she  wasn't hearing the  "normal, same kind  of interaction"                                                               
with  coastal  districts,  from  this   plan,  as  she  has  seen                                                               
throughout  the years.   She  asked  what had  been done,  before                                                               
introducing this bill,  with the coastal districts,  and asked if                                                               
they were  involved with the writing  of the bill or  if outreach                                                               
had been  done to explain  what the bill  does, to those  some 38                                                               
local districts.                                                                                                                
MR. JEFFRESS  acknowledged that  he was new  to the  position and                                                               
was not aware  of all of the communication that  had gone on with                                                               
the coastal districts.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA said  that perhaps  somebody else  could                                                               
speak  to  that.   She  then  asked  what  the current  plan  was                                                               
regarding  involving  the  districts   in  order  to  take  their                                                               
comments  and concerns  into  account.   She  wondered if  people                                                               
would  be  responding  during  legislative  hearings  or  if  the                                                               
administration would be reaching out [to communities].                                                                          
MR. JEFFRESS  responded that he  thought it was a  combination of                                                               
both  of those  approaches,  saying that  they  wanted people  to                                                               
respond  to the  legislative  process but  he  had also  received                                                               
feedback  from some  of the  coastal  districts and  some of  the                                                               
members of the ACPC.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked if  any meetings were  planned for                                                               
coastal districts or if an  overall review of the legislation was                                                               
scheduled to ensure that their wishes were understood.                                                                          
MR. JEFFRESS  said that  there are  plans, with  the help  of Mr.                                                               
Tostevin, to  brief all of the  DGC staff so that  everyone is on                                                               
the  same  page so  that  the  process  of  reaching out  to  the                                                               
communities  and  making  sure   that  everyone  understands  the                                                               
current legislation can begin.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   said  she  found  it   troubling  that                                                               
staff had  not previously  been briefed and  was glad  that plans                                                               
were  underway  for  this  to  happen,  because  staff  would  be                                                               
responsible for dealing directly with the district.                                                                             
CHAIR SEATON asked  if this was basically a new  program or if it                                                               
was a change to the existing coastal zone management program.                                                                   
MR. JEFFRESS  responded that this  would be a "major  overhaul of                                                               
the existing  program."  He  said one  area under review  is that                                                               
the coastal  zone makes up  quite an  area of Alaska,  but within                                                               
the  context of  the whole  state,  it is  a small  portion.   He                                                               
continued  that throughout  the  state, a  lot  of permitting  is                                                               
going on  and a lot  of the  habitat for both  anadromous streams                                                               
and other choice  habitats exists in the interior  of the coastal                                                               
zone.    With  the  existing rules,  regulations,  and  statutory                                                               
authority that's  given to the  resource agencies,  most habitats                                                               
have been protected.   The view is that instead  of duplicating a                                                               
process  of  policies,  this  could   be  standardized  and  then                                                               
existing  statutory authority  and  regulations  could be  relied                                                               
upon  to continue  to protect  the  resources.   This would  also                                                               
include those coastal zones.   The resource agencies have already                                                               
demonstrated that  they can adequately protect  habitat and other                                                               
resources in the Interior and coastal zone management areas.                                                                    
Number 1696                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON asked  if there would be local-area  input for areas                                                               
outside  of  the municipal  boundaries  and  questioned how  that                                                               
would  take place  if the  local  service areas  were "done  away                                                               
MR.  JEFFRESS replied  that  with  DNR as  the  lead agency,  the                                                               
streamlining process  would achieve  more consistency,  and there                                                               
would be  a process in which  all of the resource  agencies would                                                               
go through the public process,  which would include public input.                                                               
He said  that if there's  a single  state permit, there  would be                                                               
consistency in the issuance process.                                                                                            
CHAIR SEATON  asked if  there is  a requirement  that substantial                                                               
changes   to   the   coastal  zone   management   plan   requires                                                               
notification   to   NOAA   [National  Oceanic   and   Atmospheric                                                               
Administration] and  requires public  input and (indisc.)  on the                                                               
process.   He  noted that  he hadn't  seen any  other notice  and                                                               
asked if  this legislation was,  at this point,  being considered                                                               
as notice to the public.                                                                                                        
MR. JEFFRESS referred that question to Mr. Tostevin.                                                                            
Number 1799                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  asked  about comments  made  regarding                                                               
duplicative  processes  under the  current  model  and asked  for                                                               
identification of where that duplication exists.                                                                                
MR. JEFFRESS responded that some  of the enforceable policies are                                                               
very similar to  the state standards and that it's  "an effort of                                                               
interpretation of which  one would apply."  He  said that several                                                               
of  the  coastal  zone  enforceable  policies  are  almost  taken                                                               
verbatim out  of the state standard.   When those are  put into a                                                               
permit or  a condition, he said,  they are both serving  the same                                                               
purpose, this is, trying to  get away from duplicative process in                                                               
areas that are subject to different interpretation.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  if  those  areas of  duplication                                                               
could be identified, since a finite number are involved.                                                                        
MR. JEFFRESS replied that he would imagine this to be so.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  said it  would be helpful,  in learning                                                               
more about the  process, to see a list of  where such duplication                                                               
MR. JEFFRESS suggested that Mr. Tostevin could provide examples.                                                                
Number 1912                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  asked if the duplication  process made the                                                               
whole process more burdensome by  taking additional time in order                                                               
to get everything in place.                                                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS replied that this  was correct and that sometimes it                                                               
was a matter  of interpretation of local policies.   He said they                                                               
were looking at  the history of permitting in  some areas outside                                                               
of the coastal  zone.  He said they have  the statutory authority                                                               
and the  regulations in  place to  do the  job of  protecting the                                                               
resources.    He said  the  question  was,  "Why are  we  putting                                                               
another layer on top of those?"                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked  for an idea of the  time period that                                                               
was involved,  wondering if it was  it two weeks, two  months, or                                                               
two years.                                                                                                                      
MR. JEFFRESS  said he personally  didn't have an answer  to that,                                                               
but  that   perhaps  someone  from  DGC   could  provide  further                                                               
Number 2028                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON referred  to the comment of state  statutes as being                                                               
basically  identical to  the  requirements  of local  enforceable                                                               
policies and asked  why an entire series  of enforceable policies                                                               
would  be adopted  if  they were  already  incorporated in  state                                                               
MR. JEFFRESS stated that he  probably misspoke in saying that all                                                               
were duplicative and  that obviously there are some  on the North                                                               
Slope  concerning whaling  in  which state  statutes  are not  in                                                               
place.   He  said  the  administration tried  to  go through  the                                                               
existing enforceable  policies and  pick out  the ones  that make                                                               
sense and  that have  consistently been  used and  also represent                                                               
local  communities where  that activity  is occurring.   He  said                                                               
that those are the ones that are embedded in this bill.                                                                         
CHAIR SEATON  said that  the committee's list  seems to  refer to                                                               
North Slope  policies and  asked if  the other  regional policies                                                               
that differ from the North Slope were also included.                                                                            
MR.  JEFFRESS said  a  lot of  those were  embedded  in the  bill                                                               
itself, representing other coastal districts.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA   said  that  on  a   broad  level,  her                                                               
experience  has been  that any  time  there has  been a  dramatic                                                               
change in the program, there has  been a lot of planning and work                                                               
done  ahead  of time  with  the  Office  of [Ocean  and]  Coastal                                                               
Resource Management (OCRM).  In  that way, approval is gained and                                                               
federal consistency  isn't jeopardized.   She asked  what contact                                                               
DGC has had  with [OCRM] to see  if the program was  on the right                                                               
Number 2157                                                                                                                     
MR.  JEFFRESS said  they have  talked to  plan administrators  in                                                               
Washington, D.C.,  and that quite  a bit of flexibility  is built                                                               
into  the   approval  of   these  (indisc.)   coastal  management                                                               
programs.  Once  the legislation is passed or comes  to the point                                                               
of being  reviewed, then they will  be able to identify  if there                                                               
are any  shortfalls, but as  it stands,  they are open  to moving                                                               
forward.   In response to  Representative Kerttula's  question as                                                               
to whether this  legislation had been sent to  them, Mr. Jeffress                                                               
referred to Mr. Tostevin for verification of that.                                                                              
Number 2205                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ suggested  that a  "decision flowchart"                                                               
showing the  workings of the  current system and also  the future                                                               
system would be helpful and asked for such a flowchart.                                                                         
Number 2218                                                                                                                     
JANET BURLESON  BAXTER, Acting Special  Assistant, Office  of the                                                               
Commissioner, Department of Natural  Resources, testified that HB
191  streamlines the  permitting  process  by almost  exclusively                                                               
relying  on existing  permit requirements  to establish  the ACMP                                                               
standards.    She highlighted  key  components  by providing  the                                                               
following testimony:                                                                                                            
     Except for federally sponsored projects  and projects in the                                                               
     Outer Continental Shelf, the bill  eliminates the need for a                                                               
     separate  consistency  review  beyond the  individual  state                                                               
     permit decisions.                                                                                                          
     The  bill does  consistently reduce  the coastal  management                                                               
     enforcement   policies.     It   eliminates  the   statewide                                                               
     standards found in  6 AAC 80.  It  significantly reduces the                                                               
     number  of  local enforceable  policies.    It only  applies                                                               
     local enforceable  policies to federally  sponsored projects                                                               
     and projects in the OCS.                                                                                                   
     The  bill emphasizes  local governments'  use  of their  own                                                               
     local land-use  controls.  There's  no state  application of                                                               
     local policies  except on  federally sponsored  projects and                                                               
     projects  in the  OCS, where  local land-use  controls would                                                               
     normally be preempted by federal law.                                                                                      
     It  eliminates the  Coastal Resource  Service Areas.   Since                                                               
     application of local policies is  very rare, there is little                                                               
     justification  for  financially supporting  these  entities;                                                               
     future  support  for  coastal communities  should  focus  on                                                               
     responsible  resource development  and sustainable  economic                                                               
     It eliminates  the Alaska Coastal  Policy Council.   Without                                                               
     local  plans to  approve,  or the  proper implementation  of                                                               
     local  plans to  ensure, there  is little  justification for                                                               
     retaining  this  body.    The  bill  does  provide  for  the                                                               
     evaluation council for a two-year period to evaluate the                                                                   
     program - and that would sunset in two years.                                                                              
Number 2348                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  SEATON  asked if  she  had  said that  this  significantly                                                               
reduces the number of enforceable policies.                                                                                     
MS. BAXTER confirmed that this was so.                                                                                          
CHAIR SEATON  then asked  if for  most areas  of the  state other                                                               
than  the North  Slope, which  has "many  of theirs"  included in                                                               
this  plan, basically  all  of  the local  input  outside of  the                                                               
municipalities, would be eliminated.                                                                                            
MS. BAXTER replied that Mr.  Tostevin would address this question                                                               
in more  detail.  However, she  said it does provide  for some of                                                               
the enforceable policies to be  used for consultation through the                                                               
normal DNR public-input process.                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON said he was trying  to figure out if the enforceable                                                               
policies  were  being significantly  reduced  -  which are  local                                                               
determinations  on  a regional  basis  -  and how  projects  work                                                               
within their  areas.  He  questioned how to  incorporate regional                                                               
concerns   outside  of   a  municipal   boundary  in   the  state                                                               
development projects.                                                                                                           
MS. BAXTER referred to Mr. Tostevin.                                                                                            
CHAIR  SEATON  noted that  she  had  said  this only  applied  to                                                               
federal  lands, and  wondered if  it  was correct  that even  the                                                               
enforceable  policies  that  are  adopted are  not  going  to  be                                                               
enforceable on state projects but  only on projects that occur on                                                               
federal lands (indisc.).                                                                                                        
MS. BAXTER said she understood  that yes, the enforceable polices                                                               
that are in  the bill would be addressed to  federal projects and                                                               
that   single  projects   by  agencies   would   use  their   own                                                               
stipulations to cover issues.                                                                                                   
Number 2475                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  asked if  the state's position  was that  all state                                                               
statutes  or  all these  regulatory  areas  currently embody  the                                                               
coastal zone management policies and  if they are consistent with                                                               
coastal zone management as it exists today.                                                                                     
MS. BAXTER  said that as  Mr. Jeffress  had said earlier,  "we do                                                               
feel that we have protected  the habitat values in the anadromous                                                               
streams through  outside the coastal  zone as well as  inside the                                                               
coastal zone, and those protections would exist statewide."                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  asked if coastal  zone management was only  for the                                                               
protection of anadromous streams.                                                                                               
MS. BAXTER said, "What we think  is that we have protected values                                                               
outside the  coastal zone  with the state  standard that  DNR and                                                               
DEC [Department  of Environmental Conservation] has,  and we feel                                                               
that by  applying those same  standards within the  coastal zone,                                                               
we would protect those habitat values as well."                                                                                 
CHAIR SEATON suggested that this  was confusing because there are                                                               
a lot of values other than salmon habitat values.                                                                               
MR.  JEFFRESS said  that  what  is being  bypassed  is that  when                                                               
resource  agencies  issue  permits,  there  is  a  public  notice                                                               
process  and  public  hearings.     He  said  there  is  also  an                                                               
opportunity on some of the  permits - that resource agencies have                                                               
to   mitigate  concerns   that   stakeholder   groups  or   local                                                               
communities may have.   He said this is a  statewide process that                                                               
exists  right now,  and there  is one  process for  ACMP and  one                                                               
process for the state permits.   He said that they can streamline                                                               
this process by  just having a single notice  and the opportunity                                                               
for  the public  to  participate  and also  for  the agencies  to                                                               
consider what mitigation may be appropriate.                                                                                    
Number 2590                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  reflected that  this meant that  there's a                                                               
place in  the process, if this  goes into effect, in  which local                                                               
areas and  local stakeholder  groups could step  up to  the plate                                                               
and fully explain their concerns.                                                                                               
MR. JEFFRESS replied that was exactly  right and said that it was                                                               
confusing  as to  why there's  redundancy with  the ACMP  program                                                               
when  people on  the  interior of  the coastal  zone  have to  go                                                               
through  public  notice  and  go   through  comment  periods  and                                                               
mitigations with the agency.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  said her  understanding was that  when the                                                               
transition  teams  from  every   single  area  across  the  state                                                               
submitted their  concerns and suggestions  to the  governor, that                                                               
was taken into  consideration and was part of this  process.  She                                                               
asked  if  stakeholders in  every  area  would  get a  chance  to                                                               
listen, put  in their  concerns, and give  full input  into this;                                                               
she asked  if things would  happen as  they have, but  there just                                                               
wouldn't be duplicity.                                                                                                          
Number 2674                                                                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS said this was correct.   He said that the transition                                                               
teams were looking  at efficiency in government  and the economic                                                               
engines  that  the  state  needs in  order  to  have  sustainable                                                               
resource  development, meeting  the  goals  of the  constitution.                                                               
When several of the transition  groups highlighted that there was                                                               
a perception  that the ACMP  process was a stumbling  block, that                                                               
was a motivation to move forward  with this legislation.  He said                                                               
he  had mentioned  this to  other committees,  that it's  hard to                                                               
quantify how many opportunities the  state has missed because the                                                               
process seems so  daunting, and that they are  trying to simplify                                                               
the  process so  that  some  of the  opportunities  can be  taken                                                               
advantage of.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if somebody  could explain the normal                                                               
public  process  that  would  happen before  a  permit  would  be                                                               
MR.  JEFFRESS  said  that  normally  the  applicant  has  a  pre-                                                               
application meeting.   He said "let's just take  a generic permit                                                               
anywhere in  the state."   There is  a pre-application  to define                                                               
what  the  role of  industry  is  in providing  information  that                                                               
agencies need to  make a decision.  Then the  agencies review and                                                               
make sure the  application is complete, and then  there is public                                                               
notice.   There  may or  may  not be  enough interest  to hold  a                                                               
public hearing, but  during that public comment  period a request                                                               
can be made  for a public hearing or a  public meeting to further                                                               
disseminate some of the information  about the project or to take                                                               
testimony  on  it.   Then  there  would be  specific  regulations                                                               
governing  the permit,  and  the agencies  would  then take  that                                                               
information and make their determination.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if, as  a general process, there is a                                                               
certain time period before and  after public notice, allowing for                                                               
a chance to pull information together.                                                                                          
MR.  JEFFRESS  answered that  was  correct  and that  there  were                                                               
different  regulations governing  public  notice on  DEC and  DNR                                                               
permits, but  that generally  the notice  for the  public comment                                                               
period was  30 days,  although sometimes that  was extended.   He                                                               
said that usually  agencies respond to comments and  some of that                                                               
is incorporated into the final decision.                                                                                        
Number 2822                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  asked  if  the following  was  a  correct                                                               
understanding  of the  overall process:   first,  there's a  pre-                                                               
application meeting  and there's the  agency review of  that, and                                                               
then there's a public notice of  30 days or longer, and there's a                                                               
public  hearing   and  public   comment  process   that  includes                                                               
testimony, and then  the agency takes that  information and makes                                                               
a determination.                                                                                                                
MR.  JEFFRESS said  that this  was a  simplified overview  of the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON   asked  if  additional  steps   would  be                                                               
included in addition to what she had said.                                                                                      
MR. JEFFRESS confirmed that this was correct.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  then commented  that  this  seemed to  be                                                               
fairly complete.                                                                                                                
CHAIR  SEATON  referred to  the  comment  that the  coastal  zone                                                               
management program has  been perceived as a  stumbling block, and                                                               
asked if  a list of  projects that  have had problems  or haven't                                                               
gone forward would be provided.                                                                                                 
MR.  JEFFRESS said  that some  of  the permitting  process is  so                                                               
daunting that opportunities have  been missed regarding potential                                                               
resource  development "for  the  small  mom-and-pop operators"  -                                                               
opportunities  that would  provide some  economic benefit  to the                                                               
state.   Regarding other  projects that  have been  permitted, he                                                               
said  "time is  money"  and  some of  the  delays for  additional                                                               
information have involved a number  of agencies involved in these                                                               
multi-agency  permits;   the  agencies  didn't  think   that  the                                                               
information was pertinent  to making the decision  and there have                                                               
been  delays on  those  permits.   He said  the  intention is  to                                                               
streamline this and minimize those delays.                                                                                      
CHAIR SEATON  said he  was hearing from  the committee  that what                                                               
was  desired  was a  timeline  and  also  examples of  delays  of                                                               
permitting projects.                                                                                                            
Number 2952                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if anyone  was planning on doing an                                                               
overview for  the committee that would  increase understanding of                                                               
how the program  works.  She said that  without such information,                                                               
there was a  real vacuum regarding how the  program is developed,                                                               
how  the  permits  are processed,  and  general  permitting  that                                                               
occurs right  now.  She  requested an overview  because otherwise                                                               
"this is a  real disservice to the committee,"  since there would                                                               
be  no way  to judge  the changes  in order  to determine  if the                                                               
changes were too broad or adequately specific.                                                                                  
TAPE 03-14, SIDE B                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  continued  that   her  second  area  of                                                               
concern was  that she understood  Title 16 as  only bank-to-bank,                                                               
instream - as  "that's where the jurisdiction is" -  and that she                                                               
has  seen  cases  that  have  been  a  (indisc.)  of  developers,                                                               
especially  along   transfer  facilities  where,   under  coastal                                                               
district  policies and  under habitat  standards, ways  have been                                                               
developed  to protect  streams  that are  broader  than Title  16                                                               
allows.   She said she was  concerned about this and  asked, "Are                                                               
we going to be certain that  under this statute and proposal that                                                               
we are  actually going to  be protecting the  habitat correctly?"                                                               
She  wondered how  this was  being envisioned.   She  agreed that                                                               
changes  needed to  be  made,  but said  that  there are  certain                                                               
instances where  the coastal zones  provide not only the  kind of                                                               
help  to applicants  that  is needed,  but  also protection  that                                                               
isn't always available from the agencies.                                                                                       
Number 2927                                                                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS  responded that protection  offered in  the interior                                                               
of the  coastal management  area was  being looked  at.   He said                                                               
that Title  16 is bank-to-bank.   With  the experience of  DNR as                                                               
the  lead agency  of the  multi-agency teams  that have  been put                                                               
together, those  outside of the  stream bank  considerations have                                                               
been noted  and taken care  of.  He said  "one of the  pluses for                                                               
having DNR as the lead  resource agency" was that those different                                                               
disciplines could be pulled together to cover the concerns.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  commented in  favor  of  the team  idea                                                               
because  it works  and also  empowers  people, but  she said  she                                                               
wanted to  know where the statutory  authority is, as well.   She                                                               
reiterated  that it's  important  to understand  how the  program                                                               
currently works in order to  assess the correct changes that need                                                               
to be made.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  expressed concern regarding  the second-to-the-last                                                               
question that  was submitted to DNR.   He said there  seems to be                                                               
some  confusion  because  that  question  asks  why  the  habitat                                                               
standard has been eliminated from  ACMP, the postulate being that                                                               
this was  a tool important  to ADF&G  in allowing for  comment on                                                               
what happens outside  of streams in the riparian zone.   He asked                                                               
if  "this has  not been  the tool  that has  allowed Fish  & Game                                                               
[ADF&G] to go  beyond the stream bank into the  riparian zone and                                                               
that there's another tool that's going to be used?"                                                                             
Number 2833                                                                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS  replied that he  was referring to the  habitat tool                                                               
as not being statewide but  as being coastal zone statewide, that                                                               
is, interior to the coastal zone,  which is considerable area,  -                                                               
that habitat standard  didn't apply.  The  existing statutory and                                                               
regulatory authority  given to  the Alaska  Department of  Fish &                                                               
Game  (ADF&G)  and the  other  resource  agencies was  protecting                                                               
habitat,  outside of  the stream  bank-to-stream bank.   He  said                                                               
that's  been true  in the  Interior  and some  other areas  where                                                               
there's  a  redundancy of  programs.    Statutory and  regulatory                                                               
authority that is truly statewide is  some of the toughest in the                                                               
nation, and  Alaska has  a track record  of proving  that habitat                                                               
has been  protected.   He added that  what would  further augment                                                               
the  process  is  this  team  concept  of  pulling  the  resource                                                               
agencies  together  and making  sure  that  specialty areas  were                                                               
covered.    He added  that  this  would  be  part of  the  public                                                               
CHAIR  SEATON  asked  if  this was  the  "Forest  Practices  Act"                                                               
[Alaska Forest  Resources and Practices Act]  that basically gave                                                               
that  statutory authority  in the  riparian zone  outside of  the                                                               
stream  banks  or if  some  other  statutory authority  had  been                                                               
MR. JEFFRESS  said the Forest  Practices Act gave  that authority                                                               
when dealing  with the  forest, but the  habitat standard  of the                                                               
ACMP program is what gave authority in the coastal zone.                                                                        
CHAIR SEATON  asked, if the  standard is being eliminated  in the                                                               
coastal zone,  whether the  Forest Practices  Act would  now give                                                               
authority within the coastal zone.                                                                                              
MR.  JEFFRESS  replied  that existing  statutory  and  regulatory                                                               
authority  that  is  truly statewide  currently  give  authority.                                                               
With  DNR as  the  lead  agency and  a  multidiscipline team  put                                                               
together,  there can  be certainty  that those  concerns will  be                                                               
addressed.  He  said the attorney general's  office can determine                                                               
whether or  not there  is existing  statutory authority  to allow                                                               
for that.                                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked who drafted the legislation.                                                                     
MR. JEFFRESS replied that it was drafted by Breck Tostevin.                                                                     
Number 2680                                                                                                                     
BRECK   TOSTEVIN,  Assistant   Attorney  General,   Environmental                                                               
Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage),  Department  of Law,  said                                                               
that  he had  hoped to  go through  the sectional  analysis in  a                                                               
systematic way in order to address some of the questions.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that  the Mr. Tostevin walk the                                                               
committee through  how the program  works now and from  where the                                                               
concerns  have  come.    She expressed  the  need  for  committee                                                               
members to  understand how coastal districts  and the consistency                                                               
process  works.   She  noted  that she  has  heard concerns  with                                                               
regard to the habitat standard,  due deference, and what happened                                                               
in the past with elevations and the ACPC, and the evolution.                                                                    
MR. TOSTEVIN  explained that  the basic  premise of  the original                                                               
program was that there would  be a networked program, not another                                                               
state program,  whereby a permit  wasn't a permit.   However, the                                                               
state  would use  existing state  authorizations  and permits  to                                                               
review activities in  the coastal zone.   The statewide standards                                                               
applied in the  coastal zone were put into regulation,  6 AAC 80,                                                               
by  the  DGC.   The  ACPC  also  created some  standards  whereby                                                               
district programs were  created.  To implement  the program there                                                               
was, as developed  over time, a consistency review  process.  The                                                               
consistency review process [required]  that an applicant fill out                                                               
a coastal  questionnaire, which identified the  state and federal                                                               
permits  that   were  needed.    The   Division  of  Governmental                                                               
Coordination would  coordinate that coastal review  if there were                                                               
more than  two state  permits or a  federal permit  was involved.                                                               
If  there was  only  one  state permit,  then  that single  state                                                               
resource  agency  would perform  the  review.   Essentially,  the                                                               
permitting authority  for each resource  agency would  go through                                                               
its notice and at the same  time send notice to coastal districts                                                               
and  the public  seeking  information  regarding the  consistency                                                               
under the coastal program.                                                                                                      
MR. TOSTEVIN  turned to some  of the difficulties.   Although the                                                               
state  permit  standards and  the  state  environmental laws  are                                                               
generally clear,  the state  standards are  policy and  thus more                                                               
general  in  nature, as  is  often  the  case with  the  district                                                               
policies.   He  noted  that often  the  district programs  simply                                                               
incorporated  the   state  standards.    Therefore,   there  were                                                               
problems with applying  the standards twice, as  well as problems                                                               
interpreting the standards.                                                                                                     
Number 2395                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  commented that the  aforementioned process                                                               
sounds very  frustrating and time-consuming.   She  surmised that                                                               
this  process   would  take  a   mom-and-pop  operation   out  of                                                               
commission for quite some time.                                                                                                 
MR. TOSTEVIN  acknowledged that  this is a  complex process.   He                                                               
related that another  criticism has been that  the state agencies                                                               
aren't allowed to issue a  permit until the consistency review is                                                               
completed.  Therefore, everyone is  waiting until the last permit                                                               
is ready  to be  issued.  Under  this legislation,  each resource                                                               
agency would  issue its  permits as it  could work  through them,                                                               
and  once the  final permit  was issued,  the consistency  review                                                               
would be issued.                                                                                                                
Number 2324                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to  how many projects, on an                                                               
annual basis, ACMP  reviews.  He also inquired as  to the sort of                                                               
projects that ACMP reviews.                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN said  that he  probably wasn't  the best  person to                                                               
provide numbers.   However, [ACMP review] applies  to any project                                                               
on   the  coastal   zone  that   requires  a   state  permit   or                                                               
authorization or a federal permit or authorization.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  surmised,  then,  that  an  individual                                                               
constructing a dock would have to obtain a permit.                                                                              
MR. TOSTEVIN replied yes.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  requested  a   breakdown  of  how  many                                                               
projects actually go through the  complete review.  She indicated                                                               
her  understanding that  many of  the projects  are brought  over                                                               
with  the "ABC  list" and  merely reviewed  as a  general permit.                                                               
"This is a little overblown  because many projects ... go through                                                               
just ... a general permit and are out," she remarked.                                                                           
MR. TOSTEVIN agreed some do.                                                                                                    
Number 2236                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN turned to the  document entitled "Sectional Analysis                                                               
of HB  191/SB 143,"  which is included  in the  committee packet,                                                               
and paraphrased from  it.  With regard to  Section 13, Subsection                                                               
(a), Mr.  Tostevin explained that  the CZMA of 1972  provides two                                                               
benefits to  the state because  it offers  funding as well  as to                                                               
settle the consistency  review process.  Therefore,  the state is                                                               
allowed to  have a  say in  federal activities.   He  pointed out                                                               
that there  are three types  of federal consistency reviews.   He                                                               
mentioned that the  committee packet should include  a chart with                                                               
his sectional  analysis.   He noted  that Section  13, Subsection                                                               
(c) is an existing provision  that refers to the coastal resource                                                               
district, the  definition of which  has been expanded  to include                                                               
municipalities in an unorganized borough.                                                                                       
Number 2051                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  SEATON related  his understanding  that HB  191 eliminates                                                               
the CRSAs and  the ACPC, and puts in place  a new organization of                                                               
the coastal zone management district.                                                                                           
MR.  TOSTEVIN  explained  that   there  is  an  existing  coastal                                                               
resource district  definition.   A coastal resource  district can                                                               
receive coastal management monies and  is defined as a borough or                                                               
municipality.   The idea is  that those resource  districts would                                                               
use  the  coastal  management  monies  for  planning  within  its                                                               
boundaries  and use  the [borough's  or municipality's]  own land                                                               
use  ordinances  to  regulate activities  within  the  district's                                                               
CHAIR SEATON  surmised that all  areas outside  municipalities or                                                               
boroughs   can't  receive   any  funding   under  this   proposed                                                               
MR. TOSTEVIN said  that is correct.  For areas  in an unorganized                                                               
borough  that  are  outside  city  limits,  there  isn't  funding                                                               
available.   He  suggested that  perhaps the  option would  be to                                                               
create a borough.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  asked if the legislature  could act for                                                               
the unorganized boroughs.                                                                                                       
MR. TOSTEVIN  interpreted Representative  Berkowitz to  be asking                                                               
whether the  definition of a  resource district could  be amended                                                               
such that other entities could  be included if the legislature so                                                               
desired.    Mr. Tostevin  reiterated  that  the idea  behind  the                                                               
legislation  was  to  provide  money  to  those  who  had  zoning                                                               
functions in order to participate in the program.                                                                               
CHAIR  SEATON surmised,  then, that  this legislation  would only                                                               
apply to those boroughs that exercise zoning functions.                                                                         
MR. TOSTEVIN  replied no and  specified that any borough  or city                                                               
is  eligible;   however,  the  program  is   implemented  through                                                               
ordinances  at the  local  level.   He  said  he  assumed that  a                                                               
borough or  city could  have an  ordinance regulating  a land-use                                                               
activity without a comprehensive zoning ordinance.                                                                              
Number 1857                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA inquired  about  how areas  such as  the                                                               
Matanuska-Susitna  [Borough],  which doesn't  have  comprehensive                                                               
MR.  TOSTEVIN  clarified  that the  legislation  doesn't  require                                                               
comprehensive zoning,  but simply  specifies that  DNR can  use a                                                               
government's  ordinance  as  an enforceable  policy  for  federal                                                               
activities and OCS  development.  Therefore, if an  area wants to                                                               
participate in imposing such requirements,  an ordinance would be                                                               
used to do so.  Otherwise,  the municipality or borough would use                                                               
its zoning  and land-use  authority as it  saw fit  in expressing                                                               
its concerns within its boundaries, which is the case now.                                                                      
CHAIR SEATON  surmised, then, that those  in unorganized boroughs                                                               
wanting a  restriction would need  to come to the  legislature to                                                               
request   a   specific   statute  to   regulate   that   specific                                                               
[activity/use] for  the people of that  unorganized borough area.                                                               
He asked if the statute would be specific to each project.                                                                      
MR.  TOSTEVIN   responded  that's  correct.     He  reminded  the                                                               
committee  that the  premise of  this [legislation]  is that  the                                                               
public has a right to participate in the permitting process.                                                                    
Number 1735                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  pointed  out  that  if  the  department                                                               
adopts  the  local  district's  zoning,  then  those  will  apply                                                               
against the federal  projects that are federally  permitted.  She                                                               
asked if [the  local district's zoning] would  also apply against                                                               
the state's permit.                                                                                                             
MR. TOSTEVIN  specified that it  would apply to  federal projects                                                               
and  OCS development,  but not  to a  state [project].   However,                                                               
there are state permits that  will apply to federal activities as                                                               
well as state permits that  will apply to OCS development through                                                               
this process.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  if  there  can  be  a  district-                                                               
enforceable policy  through a  local zoning  ordinance.   Can the                                                               
state  adopt [a  district-enforceable policy]  against the  state                                                               
permit, she asked.                                                                                                              
MR. TOSTEVIN answered  that the local entity  would influence the                                                               
state project by  commenting on the permit.  There  wouldn't be a                                                               
separate enforceable policy.                                                                                                    
Number 1650                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON posed  a situation in which there  was a development                                                               
project  that was  going  to take  place on  state  land, not  on                                                               
federal  land.    Therefore, the  enforceable  policies  wouldn't                                                               
apply to  those projects on state  land because it wouldn't  be a                                                               
federal  project or  OCS development.   Since  the project  would                                                               
only be on state land, the enforceable policies wouldn't apply.                                                                 
MR. TOSTEVIN directed attention to  the first row of the document                                                               
entitled, "HB  191/SB 143  Consistency Review  Provisions," which                                                               
is included  in the committee packet.   He explained that  to the                                                               
extent a local  ordinance could apply to a  state activity, there                                                               
are  certain  statutes that  allow  local  governments to  affect                                                               
state projects.  He agreed  that the aforementioned would only be                                                               
within the  municipal boundaries.   Title 29 grants the  scope of                                                               
the municipality's authority, and  he believes municipalities are                                                               
allowed extraterritorial authority with  limited parameters.  Mr.                                                               
Tostevin explained  that if  the state permit  can be  issued and                                                               
the  local  permits  can  be   obtained,  then  the  activity  is                                                               
consistent with the coastal program.                                                                                            
MR.  TOSTEVIN, in  response to  Representative Wilson,  confirmed                                                               
that  communities  such as  Wrangell  and  Petersburg, which  are                                                               
municipalities, could go through  the regular process with public                                                               
hearings.  He highlighted that  Title 9 municipalities would have                                                               
the  authority to  enact ordinances  as  well as  the ability  to                                                               
comment  on the  state  permits  during the  public  process.   A                                                               
provision of  HB 191  specifies that it  doesn't affect  Title 29                                                               
powers.   He also  confirmed that projects  two miles  outside of                                                               
the  Wrangell city  limits  wouldn't apply  because  there is  no                                                               
local permitting.                                                                                                               
Number 1380                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, "Another  way of putting this would                                                               
be that there's no more  ... consistency determination for state-                                                               
permitted projects, right?"                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN  replied no  and  stated  that the  consistency  is                                                               
determined through the issuance of the permits.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, then,  how [the district] comments                                                               
and how  deference is given  to the  districts.  She  pointed out                                                               
that on most of the permits, the state law will preempt.                                                                        
Number 1349                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN specified that the  local governments can comment on                                                               
the permits.  The issuance of  the permit is the determination of                                                               
consistency.   He noted that  the CZMA  allows a state  to decide                                                               
what uses and activities it  wants to regulate and to demonstrate                                                               
how  its   laws  regulate  coastal   uses  and   protect  coastal                                                               
resources.  One of the methods  is a direct method using existing                                                               
state laws and  regulations to regulate the coastal  zone.  There                                                               
isn't  a  state consistency  review  requirement  in the  federal                                                               
program.   The  only consistency  review process  in the  federal                                                               
program is one whereby the  state reviews federal activities, OCS                                                               
plans, and  federally administered  permits for  consistency with                                                               
its  state's programs.    Mr. Tostevin  highlighted  that HB  191                                                               
proposes a self-implementing concept  such that existing laws and                                                               
regulations  are  used  to  regulate the  coastal  zone  and  the                                                               
consistency is determined  by issuance of the  permit, except for                                                               
reviewing federal activities or activities on the OCS.                                                                          
Number 1251                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN  said that  in the review  of federal  activities or                                                               
activities on  the OCS, DNR  can adopt local ordinances  to apply                                                               
to federal activities and the  OCS plan.  Furthermore, in Section                                                               
13,  Subsection (f),  there are  specific intercontinental  shelf                                                               
policies that have  previously been adopted by the  ACPC and have                                                               
been included in  the legislation as enforceable  policies.  That                                                               
provision was  one resulting  after the  administration consulted                                                               
with  coastal districts.   He  noted that  a copy  of HB  191 was                                                               
circulated to the coastal districts.                                                                                            
Number 1118                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued with the  sectional analysis.  In response                                                               
to Representative  Berkowitz's question  relating to  Section 13,                                                               
Subsection  (d)(4), Mr.  Tostevin  related his  belief that  it's                                                               
envisioned  that  DNR will  adopt  regulations  to implement  the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  emphasized that the legislature  is the                                                               
policy-making body.                                                                                                             
MR.   TOSTEVIN  pointed   out  that   certain  policies   in  the                                                               
legislation are  mandatory, while others allow  a municipality to                                                               
submit [policies] to DNR for  incorporation into the program.  He                                                               
noted that those ordinances are  screened in order to ensure that                                                               
they  aren't making  unreasonable restrictions  on uses  of state                                                               
concern  and aren't  duplicative;  if that's  so,  DNR can  adopt                                                               
those policies and enforceable policies  for those programs.  The                                                               
aforementioned enables municipalities to  apply those programs to                                                               
federal activities  or OCS plans  where they  wouldn't ordinarily                                                               
Number 0949                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to  whether DNR is going to                                                               
be able to  filter the local ordinances or whether  there will be                                                               
a review or an appeal from the local ordinances.                                                                                
MR. TOSTEVIN  answered that it's  up to DNR to  determine whether                                                               
to  adopt  the   ordinance  as  an  enforceable   policy.    [The                                                               
department] must  determine whether  the ordinance  is reasonably                                                               
restrictive.    The  department  must  also  determine  that  the                                                               
ordinance isn't  duplicative of  a state standard.   The  idea is                                                               
that it's  a unique and  important local ordinance that  would be                                                               
adopted into  the program for  reviews of federal  activities and                                                               
OCS [development].                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE   GUTTENBERG  posed   a  situation   in  which   a                                                               
municipality adopts regulations and  although DNR doesn't approve                                                               
them, the municipality "stands on  them."  He asked, "Haven't you                                                               
put  a  barrier up  in  their  place?"    He remarked  that  some                                                               
municipalities  don't want  things  to happen  and asked  whether                                                               
[this] isn't simply placing an insurmountable barrier.                                                                          
MR. TOSTEVIN  replied that he  didn't think  so.  He  pointed out                                                               
that first  there has to  be a  municipal ordinance and  then DNR                                                               
will  determine whether  it should  be  part of  the program  for                                                               
those purposes.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised, then,  that for local control                                                               
purposes,  it's in  place as  a  local ordinance  and thus  there                                                               
seems to be an inherent conflict.                                                                                               
Number 0787                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  asked if  this [legislation]  means that  the state                                                               
permit can waive and not agree with the local ordinance.                                                                        
MR. TOSTEVIN  explained that  [the municipality]  is incorporated                                                               
into  the program  for something  that  the municipality  doesn't                                                               
have  power to  do alone.   Therefore,  the program  provides the                                                               
municipality  the authority  to have  a policy  that impacts  the                                                               
federal  project   or  the  OCS  [development]   outside  of  the                                                               
municipality's  boundaries.   The department  has the  ability to                                                               
determine whether  that should be  a policy.  He  reiterated that                                                               
municipalities  do have  the authority  to implement  ordinances,                                                               
which  are  regulated  under  Title   29.    He  noted  that  the                                                               
legislature establishes the powers of the municipalities.                                                                       
Number 0693                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her  belief that it would helpful                                                               
for the  committee to know  what the coastal  districts currently                                                               
have   the  right   to   have  authority   over,   and  how   the                                                               
municipalities utilize their coastal  policies in permits, versus                                                               
this  proposal  in which  the  state  permit is  the  consistency                                                               
determination.   She inquired as  to what  is left out  with just                                                               
local zoning.  Representative  Kerttula related her understanding                                                               
that  under HB  191, the  state permit  is the  determination and                                                               
there is  no longer  a policy with  regard to  enforceable policy                                                               
for coastal  districts.   The DNR  decides if  it will  accept an                                                               
already existing  local ordinance, and  DNR will perform  its own                                                               
permit review rather than a consistency review.                                                                                 
MR. TOSTEVIN  explained that  if a  municipal ordinance  has been                                                               
adopted, then  DNR consults with the  municipality and interprets                                                               
and  applies that  as part  of the  consistency review.   If  DNR                                                               
does, then that's  part of the permit issuance.   Therefore, each                                                               
resource agency issues  its permit, and if  there's an additional                                                               
municipal policy, DNR will have to interpret that.                                                                              
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to  Subsection (g) [of Section 13                                                               
on page  11], which  reads:   "In selecting  enforceable policies                                                               
under (d)(3)  of this section,  the department may,  for purposes                                                               
of the ACMP, limit the  applicability of an enforceable policy to                                                               
appropriate  activities or  to appropriate  sectors  of the  area                                                               
described  in  (d)(2)  of  this   section."    He  asked  if  the                                                               
aforementioned  language  meant  that  there  could  be  a  local                                                               
ordinance and DNR  could decide that the  ordinance doesn't apply                                                               
to particular  activities, if [the municipality]  wants to permit                                                               
those activities.                                                                                                               
MR.  TOSTEVIN  pointed  out that  [Section  13],  Subsection  (g)                                                               
refers  to the  state laws  and regulations  on page  7-9.   That                                                               
provision  allows DNR  to say  that a  policy applies  or doesn't                                                               
apply in certain areas.                                                                                                         
Number 0480                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ  posed a situation  in which there  is a                                                               
conflict between  DNR's permit and a  municipal zoning ordinance.                                                               
He  asked   if  DNR's  permit  would   trump  the  municipality's                                                               
Number 0445                                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN answered  that it  would  depend upon  the type  of                                                               
review.  He directed attention  to the chart entitled, "HB 191/SB
143  Consistency Review  Provisions."   He pointed  out that  the                                                               
first  row   refers  to  the   state's  consistency   review  for                                                               
activities in the coastal zone  that only require a state permit.                                                               
In this  situation, the municipalities apply  their ordinances to                                                               
the activity.   However, a  federal consistency review,  which is                                                               
illustrated  by  row two,  is  one  involving activities  in  the                                                               
coastal  zone, federal  land,  or  the OCS  for  which there  are                                                               
federally administered permits.  Again,  if the state permits can                                                               
be issued,  then the federal  permit will be consistent  with the                                                               
state's program.  Mr. Tostevin  highlighted that local ordinances                                                               
will  retain  their  direct  application  in  the  coastal  zone.                                                               
Furthermore,  OCS   plans  actually  incorporate   certain  local                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ related  his  understanding that  there                                                               
would still  be a consistency determination  but that consistency                                                               
would now  mean whatever DNR  wants and would override  the local                                                               
MR.   TOSTEVIN    disagreed   with   that    interpretation   and                                                               
characterized  it  as  an oversimplification.    The  consistency                                                               
review process is created as  a mechanism to determine whether an                                                               
activity  is  consistent  with  [the  state's]  coastal  program.                                                               
Municipalities   have  the   authority  to   regulate  uses   and                                                               
activities of the coastal zone absent the coastal zone program.                                                                 
Number 0285                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that  Section 13 on page 11,                                                               
lines 13-16, reads:  "Sec.  46.39.060.  State consistency review.                                                             
(a) For  activities in the  coastal zone that only  require state                                                               
permits,   the  issuance   of   the   applicable  state   permits                                                               
implementing   the   enforceable   policies   in   AS   46.39.010                                                               
constitutes  consistency  with the  ACMP."   He  interpreted  the                                                               
aforementioned language to mean that  once a permit is issued, it                                                               
equates  to   consistency  regardless   of  the   local  decision                                                               
MR. TOSTEVIN  said that's correct;  for purposes  of consistency,                                                               
it  would be  consistent.   However, if,  for example,  the North                                                               
Slope Borough  had a  zoning ordinance for  the oil  company, the                                                               
oil  company  would need  to  obtain  [the borough's]  ordinance;                                                               
otherwise, development wouldn't go through.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ   remarked,  "I  don't  see   it  being                                                               
consistent;  I see  it as  a removal  of local  control over  the                                                               
process."    For  example,  if  the  North  Slope  Borough  wants                                                               
something  but the  state  refuses, then  the  state trumps  [the                                                               
borough] because it's inconsistent.   Alternatively, if the North                                                               
Slope Borough "said  no" but DNR issued a permit,  then the North                                                               
Slope Borough would lose, he surmised.                                                                                          
MR.  TOSTEVIN disagreed.    He explained  that  the ACMP  doesn't                                                               
preempt a  municipality's Title  29 powers.   If the  North Slope                                                               
Borough could  legally require  a permit and  the state  issued a                                                               
permit while  the borough  didn't, then  the project  couldn't go                                                               
forward  because  the borough  hadn't  issued  its permit.    Mr.                                                               
Tostevin  directed attention  to "Sec.  46.39.072.   Construction                                                             
with other laws." on page [13].                                                                                               
Number 0066                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  whether  the  question is  really                                                               
about   preemption.     If  the   consistency  determination   is                                                               
eliminated, then there  will have to be a decision  as to whether                                                               
the  community has  Title 29  powers, whether  it has  any zoning                                                               
ordinances in place, and it will  be preempted by the state.  She                                                               
asked if there had been  review of that.  Representative Kerttula                                                               
highlighted  that  the state  preempts  on  many activities  that                                                               
[tape ends midspeech].                                                                                                          
TAPE 03-15, SIDE A                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  reiterated   that  it's  necessary  for                                                               
everyone to  know what's  left for  the local  areas.   For those                                                               
districts without zoning ordinances, it  will just be the state's                                                               
permit, she surmised.                                                                                                           
The committee took an at-ease from 10:15 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.                                                                     
Number 0106                                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN returned  to the  sectional  analysis [Section  13,                                                               
Subsection (d)(4)].                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG  said he was wondering  about stranding                                                               
or orphaning something.  If a  local municipality adopts a set of                                                               
ordinances  that deal  with activities  and DNR  doesn't adopt  a                                                               
specific  one, then  the local  ordinance  is in  a situation  in                                                               
which it  might have  another permit  dealing with  these issues.                                                               
Although  the  [borough] needs  to  issue  a permit,  the  permit                                                               
request  specifies  that  there   must  be  compliance  with  all                                                               
previous  ordinances.    Therefore,   a  permit  is  issued  that                                                               
supercedes the ordinance but the  borough can't give a permit for                                                               
something else because they have violated that.                                                                                 
MR.  TOSTEVIN continued  the sectional  analysis and  highlighted                                                               
that  Section 13,  Subsection  (d)(6),  is the  self-implementing                                                               
concept of HB  191.  With regard to Sec.  46.39.065, Mr. Tostevin                                                               
pointed  out   that  the  Act  specifically   lists  the  federal                                                               
environmental  permits that  trigger this  type of  [consistency]                                                               
review that's part of the federal program.                                                                                      
Number 0777                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA turned  to Sec.  46.39.065(e) of  HB 191                                                               
and  asked, if  there is  a federal  permit, whether  there would                                                               
still be a conclusive determination.                                                                                            
MR. TOSTEVIN  explained that Sections 46.39.065(d)  and (e) refer                                                               
to  the  consistency  review  process  in  coastal  areas  for  a                                                               
federally administered permit.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  surmised, then, that if  no state permit                                                               
is required, then there is a conclusive determination.                                                                          
MR. TOSTEVIN said that's correct.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA inquired  as  to why  [the state]  would                                                               
want to  do that.  Why  doesn't [the state] want  to maintain the                                                               
ability to  review federal permits  as they come  through, rather                                                               
than having a conclusive determination, she asked.                                                                              
MR. TOSTEVIN reiterated that the  idea is that it isn't requiring                                                               
a  state permit  and thus  the determination  has been  made that                                                               
[the state's]  laws and permitting  process doesn't apply  to the                                                               
activity.   Therefore,  the  activity  isn't deemed  inconsistent                                                               
with [the state's] plan.                                                                                                        
Number 0895                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked,  "Policywise, isn't  that one  of                                                               
the big  beauties of coastal zone  [ACMP], is it allows  us, as a                                                               
state,  to have  some input  into  those federal  permits?"   She                                                               
recalled from her  time working with the program that  one of the                                                               
major reasons  for the state's  becoming involved in ACMP  was to                                                               
be involved  with the  federal consistency.   She inquired  as to                                                               
the policy  determination.   "Is it just  ... we're  letting them                                                               
have a consistency determination," she surmised.                                                                                
MR.  TOSTEVIN agreed  that one  of the  important aspects  is the                                                               
federal consistency process.  All  that Sections 46.39.065(d) and                                                               
(e)  say  is  that  for purposes  of  [the  state's]  determining                                                               
whether the  federal permit is consistent,  the [department] will                                                               
review  the  state  permitting  requirements  for  that  activity                                                               
triggered by the  federal permit.  If there isn't  a state permit                                                               
for  that activity,  the [department]  will say  it's consistent.                                                               
Therefore, [the state] is exercising  the federal review process.                                                               
Basically,  this says  that  if the  activity  doesn't trigger  a                                                               
state permit, then it's consistent.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA   inquired   as  to   what   types   of                                                               
[activities] that would include.                                                                                                
CHAIR SEATON  answered that  this is  [referring] to  an activity                                                               
that would require a federal  permit for [an activity] on federal                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  suggested  that it  could  also  impact                                                               
state lands.                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  SEATON  pointed  out  that it  wouldn't  require  a  state                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  agreed and commented  that it may  be de                                                               
minimis  or  it might  be  huge.    She reiterated  that  federal                                                               
consistency was a large reason for this to begin with.                                                                          
MR. TOSTEVIN explained that the idea  is that if a federal permit                                                               
is required  for a private  applicant in  a coastal zone  and the                                                               
state doesn't require  a permit for the activity,  then the state                                                               
is saying that [the activity] is consistent.                                                                                    
Number 1089                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  inquired  as   to  U.S.  Department  of                                                               
Defense activities.  She recalled:                                                                                              
     I  thought  that there  were  examples  where no  state                                                                    
     permits   were   required,    largely   because   we're                                                                    
     preempted.   But where there  are activities  that take                                                                    
     place  on even  state lands,  where because  of coastal                                                                    
     zone we've had  a right to comment and  to be involved.                                                                    
     And without that, we may not.                                                                                              
MR.  TOSTEVIN said  that U.S.  Department  of Defense  activities                                                               
would  probably  fall under  Sec.  46.39.070,  which creates  the                                                               
consistency review  process for federal activities  or OCS plans.                                                               
He  paraphrased  from  the  portion  of  the  sectional  analysis                                                               
relating  to  [Sections]  46.39.070(c)  and (d),  which  read  as                                                               
     Subsections   (c)   and   (d)  provide   that   federal                                                                    
     activities are to be judged  by the standards for state                                                                    
     permits  in  .010(d)(3)  and  by  the  local  standards                                                                    
     adopted  under   .010(e)  and  (f).     Subsection  (d)                                                                    
     provides  that  if  DNR   determines  that  a  proposed                                                                    
     federal activity  or OCS plan  is inconsistent  with an                                                                    
     enforceable  policy then  the DNR  shall, if  feasible,                                                                    
     issue a  conditional concurrence under 15  C.F.R. 930.4                                                                    
     setting out  conditions that  would render  the federal                                                                    
     activity or  OCS plan consistent, thus  avoiding formal                                                                    
     mediation.  If the  proposed federal activity cannot be                                                                    
     rendered consistent, the department  must object to the                                                                    
     consistency   determination,  and   the  parties   then                                                                    
     proceed to dispute resolution under federal law.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  said she believes Mr.  Tostevin is right                                                               
about the federal activities.                                                                                                   
Number 1230                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued with the  sectional analysis.  With regard                                                               
to  [Sec.] 46.39.080(b),  Mr. Tostevin  explained  that when  the                                                               
federal,  nationwide, or  general permit  was first  proposed, it                                                               
would  proceed through  a  federal  activity consistency  review.                                                               
However,  if an  applicant is  merely obtaining  a nationwide  or                                                               
general permit,  then that's  consistent.   In regard  to Section                                                               
20,   Mr.    Tostevin   explained   that    general   concurrence                                                               
determinations  are activities  that  have standard  stipulations                                                               
tied to them.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if anything  was being added to the                                                               
current ABC list of activities that need not be reviewed.                                                                       
MR. TOSTEVIN replied no.                                                                                                        
Number 1541                                                                                                                     
CHAIR SEATON  pointed out that HB  191 has two zero  fiscal notes                                                               
and  one  with $73,000  in  2006.    He  surmised that  there  is                                                               
basically  no fiscal  impact because  it  was gained  in EO  106,                                                               
which had to take place prior to [HB 191].                                                                                      
MR. TOSTEVIN responded that is correct.                                                                                         
CHAIR  SEATON referred  to a  document  from the  Yukon-Kuskokwim                                                               
Delta  [Cenaliulriit CRSA,  which  is included  in the  committee                                                               
packet].  He informed the  committee that [Cenaliulriit CRSA] has                                                               
some  problems  with subsistence  aspects  and  relates that  the                                                               
Association  of  Village  Council  presidents,  which  serves  56                                                               
villages,  opposes HB  191.   He  turned to  public testimony  in                                                               
order to  give Mr. Tostevin time  to review the document  so that                                                               
he could comment on it.                                                                                                         
Number 1639                                                                                                                     
TADD  OWENS,  Executive  Director, Resource  Development  Council                                                               
(RDC), informed the committee that  RDC has worked in conjunction                                                               
with the Alaska Oil and  Gas Association (AOGA) and several other                                                               
development associations  in order to evaluate  the existing ACMP                                                               
program   and   to   consider   improvements   or   user-friendly                                                               
alternatives.  Mr. Owens announced RDC's  support of HB 191.  Mr.                                                               
Owens offered to provide more thorough input at a later date.                                                                   
CHAIR SEATON requested  some examples in which the  ACMP has held                                                               
up development for the RDC's associates.                                                                                        
MR.  OWENS recommended  that Judy  Brady, AOGA,  address this  as                                                               
well.  However,  he informed the committee that  the ACMP process                                                               
for oil and gas projects on the  North Slope adds at least a year                                                               
to  the permitting  process.   Therefore, the  permitting process                                                               
needs to  be refined to  be more user-friendly,  predictable, and                                                               
time-sensitive.   In  many  instances, the  ACMP  has become  the                                                               
poster child for  a process that has become  very inefficient and                                                               
isn't time  sensitive and  thus adds  a great  deal of  delay, he                                                               
CHAIR SEATON surmised  that Mr. Owens believes that  would be the                                                               
case even  if the local  management [ordinances] are  selected as                                                               
enforceable standards.                                                                                                          
MR. OWENS  answered with  his belief  that the  administration is                                                               
attempting,  with HB  191, to  eliminate many  of the  cumbersome                                                               
aspects  of the  process  while protecting  the  rights of  local                                                               
communities to  have a voice  regarding development  within their                                                               
Number 1850                                                                                                                     
JUDY BRADY,  Alaska Oil and  Gas Association, noted that  she has                                                               
three pages' worth of responses  to the questions asked and would                                                               
submit those to the committee.   Ms. Brady informed the committee                                                               
that  AOGA  has  worked  with   DGC  and  various  governors  and                                                               
administrations trying  to fix  the ACMP for  a number  of years.                                                               
This  legislation  moves toward  the  original  intention of  the                                                               
ACMP.  She pointed  out that the ACMP was never  intended to be a                                                               
permitting  system,  but  rather  that  the  state  statutes  and                                                               
regulations would be  used for consistency.   Furthermore, it was                                                               
always  intended  that  local governments  would  have  a  voice,                                                               
although they  wouldn't have the  final say.   The state  has the                                                               
final  say on  federal  consistency projects,  and that  wouldn't                                                               
change,  she pointed  out.   Ms. Brady  said that  AOGA is  still                                                               
diagramming this  process in order  to determine how it  works in                                                               
real life.                                                                                                                      
MS. BRADY  noted that  AOGA has  never been  able to  diagram the                                                               
ACMP process as it currently works.   With regard to the question                                                               
of  what  projects haven't  gone  forward,  Ms. Brady  said  that                                                               
several  projects have  been delayed  fairly  consistently and  a                                                               
couple of companies have said that  they need to be in the ground                                                               
faster,  know  the  rules  faster,  know how  long  it  takes  to                                                               
[obtain] a  permit, know  whether the project  is in  the coastal                                                               
zone, and  know what will be  required of them.   Those companies                                                               
have turned  their backs on Alaska.   Ms. Brady related  that the                                                               
companies  don't  mind  the  standards,  but  they  do  mind  the                                                               
permitting gridlock  related to ACMP.   She suggested  that later                                                               
AOGA would have specific comments  on language.  This legislation                                                               
is back to basics and  what the permitting process was originally                                                               
supposed to be, she concluded.                                                                                                  
Number 2033                                                                                                                     
NOAH  NAYLOR,   Planning  Director,  Northwest   Arctic  Borough,                                                               
paraphrased his written testimony as follows:                                                                                   
     The  Northwest  Arctic  Borough  and  the  North  Slope                                                                    
     Borough can  serve as models where  our district plans,                                                                    
     which  strive  to  protect our  subsistence  resources,                                                                    
     upon  which we  still depend  on today,  can allow  for                                                                    
     major economic  development and  for the  protection of                                                                    
     our resources.   Our district  plans, coupled  with our                                                                    
     Title  29  planning  authority,  allowed  the  leverage                                                                    
     needed   to  promote   and  mitigate   for  responsible                                                                    
     economic development.                                                                                                      
     By  adopting a  statewide "one  size fits  all" set  of                                                                    
     enforceable policies,  you will take away  what we feel                                                                    
     is the  heart of our  district plan, a set  of policies                                                                    
     that address  the unique circumstances  in each  of our                                                                    
     districts.   Simply adding a  paragraph of each  of our                                                                    
     plans   cannot  and   should  not   be  viewed   as  an                                                                    
     implementation  policy  that  will  address  our  local                                                                    
     needs.  By adopting these  policies, you will take away                                                                    
     a very strong tool provided  to us in our district plan                                                                    
     -  the  ability  for local  due  deference,  expertise,                                                                    
     experience, and control.                                                                                                   
     This bill hurts  us in several separate  ways: it takes                                                                    
     away our  unique enforceable  policies; it  removes the                                                                    
     vital  role  for   local  involvement,  expertise,  and                                                                    
     government; and it will result  in the loss of federal,                                                                    
     state,   and  borough-invested   resources,  time   and                                                                    
     expertise  in developing  and implementing  the borough                                                                    
     coastal management plan.                                                                                                   
MR. NAYLOR concluded by requesting more time to review HB 191.                                                                  
Number 2148                                                                                                                     
WALTER  SAMPSON, President,  Northwest  Arctic Borough  Assembly,                                                               
informed the  committee that  the Northwest  Arctic Borough  is a                                                               
home rule  borough.   He related  his belief  that ACMP  is being                                                               
attacked by interest  groups.  If there is going  to be a change,                                                               
there should be a process for  public testimony.  Having one ACMP                                                               
won't fit  all the  regions.   Limiting liability  and mitigating                                                               
responsibility to the  needs of the region is important.   If the                                                               
public process has been used  to develop these coastal management                                                               
plans, then  there's no reason why  the state can't go  through a                                                               
process to  review and  change the  ACMP.   He remarked  that the                                                               
questions raised today need to be addressed.                                                                                    
Number 2298                                                                                                                     
MR.  JEFFRESS  said that  he  has  reviewed the  [testimony  from                                                               
Cenaliulriit CRSA,  which is included  in the  committee packet].                                                               
He  pointed out  that  this  is the  review  process.   With  the                                                               
administration taking over at the  beginning of December, this is                                                               
the  most  expeditious  manner  in which  to  move  this  process                                                               
CHAIR  SEATON announced  that the  committee will  accept further                                                               
comments in writing.                                                                                                            
[HB 191 was held over.]                                                                                                         
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Special  Committee on  Fisheries meeting  was adjourned  at 11:00                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects