Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/22/1997 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 1997
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments
because of those repeals."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 34 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 35 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 511
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 28.
DIANE MAYER, Director
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
Telephone: (907) 465-3563
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 28.
R.K. GILDERSLEEVE, President
Gildersleeve Logging Incorporated
Pouch B
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1224
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
ERIC MUENCH
Alaska Woods Service Company
P.O. Box 6811
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
DAVID CROSBY, Attorney
5280 Thane Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6262
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 28.
DAVE HANNA
P.O. Box 20834
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-1902
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 28.
LINDA FREED, Community Development Director
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-9360
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
WILLIE GOODWIN, JR., Land Manager
Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation
P.O. Box 1050
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3165
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
VICTOR KARMUN, Coastal Management Coordinator
Northwest Arctic Borough
P.O. Box 1110
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-2500
CHERI SHAW, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3447
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
DENNIS RANDA, President
Alaska Council
Trout Unlimited
P.O. Box 3055
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
DALE BONDURANT
HC1, Box 1197
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
DOUGLAS MERTZ
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council
319 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4004
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
GRETCHEN KEISER, Planner
Community Development Department
City and Borough of Juneau
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5230
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
WELLS WILLIAMS, Planning Director
City and Borough of Sitka
100 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-1824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
CLAIRE JOHNSON, Board Member
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
1705 Sawmill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5011
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
JIM GLASPELL, Environmental Consultant
19738 Ivy Home Circle
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-2127
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director
Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board
P.O. Box 187
Unalakleet, Alaska 99684
(No telephone number provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
JOHN DUNHAM, Permitting and Zoning Manager
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-0440
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 28.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Masek, Green,
Nicholia and Joule. Absent were Representatives Dyson and
Williams, as well as Representative Barnes, who was in a
subcommittee meeting.
HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM
Number 0068
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the hearing was primarily for public
testimony on House Bill No. 28, "An Act repealing the Alaska
Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council,
and making conforming amendments because of those repeals."
Number 0183
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor of HB 28, said he had
previously believed the sole fiscal note was that from the Office
of Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC). However, there were additional fiscal notes from affected
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that morning, he had questioned
division directors at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
subcommittee meeting to determine "general fund effort" relating to
the coastal zone program. For example, money received by the DNR
under the Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) all went to the
Division of Lands. However, the Division of Oil and Gas also had
duties under the program and used general funds to participate.
That was part of his concern with the program's expense.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT had requested information on effort, man-
hours and general funds in individual divisions; he had written to
the commissioners of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), the DNR, and the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G); and he
would probably request information from the Department of Law. He
would provide that information to the committee upon receipt.
Number 0343
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Harry Noah's comments at the
previous hearing encapsulated the questions he himself was posing.
He emphasized that while the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP) requires coordination, coordination does not require the
ACMP. The coordination portion is the "baby" that should not be
thrown out with the bath water.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred to Mr. Noah's discussion of the
agency permitting process. There are regulatory hoops to jump
through. On top of that is the coastal zone process, which should
be viewed as another permit to obtain. He suggested considering
the expense of that additional permit and process to the state and
to individuals.
Number 0552
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred to the previous hearing's
discussion of the additional layer of permitting process for
adjacent lands straddling the coastal zone. He asked what
additional was being protected along the coast.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT cited an example. Acting on legal
advice, the Coastal Policy Council hired a hearing officer to
review a petition under a statute in effect prior to 1994.
However, the DEC's attorney determined the council had no authority
to do so, and the DEC was hiring a second hearing officer. This
was a case where a good program had perhaps spun out of control,
with unnecessary state expenditures of time and resources.
Number 0737
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT reported that: 1) he had come up with a
chart of required permitting processes; 2) he would request a copy
of a large chart put together by the DGC; and 3) he would request
a copy of a "white paper" that compared the permitting processes
and coordination required in Interior Alaska with those required on
the coast.
Number 0869
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON believed it was important to highlight
additional requirements within the ACMP, associated costs and time
delays. "Maybe they're totally necessary," he commented. He also
inquired about a breakdown of the distribution of state and federal
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said his information indicates $967,000
in federal funds flows to 34 coastal districts, with a general fund
match. Approximately $760,000 goes to state agencies. He
suspects, however, that state agencies actually expend quite a bit
more time, effort, and, therefore, man-hours and money in
participating in the program.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said for a proposed project in Fairbanks,
zoning requirements were followed. This could be appealed to the
borough planning and zoning commission, then to the borough
assembly, which could be sued if unhappy with the outcome. The
state never entered into it. But as he understood it, under the
coastal zone system, the state stepped in and picked up all legal
costs. He questioned the necessity of that.
Number 1075
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said for him, the bottom line was whether
environmental or habitat degradation would occur should the program
be eliminated. He asked whether essentially the DNR, the DEC and
the ADF&G require everyone to obtain permits, while the ACMP
coordinates that effort and oversees it in a duplicative way.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is somewhat his suspicion. He
noted that many districts have adopted departments' regulations and
are therefore consistent.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT commented that the ADF&G has the right to
interject comments into a DEC water permitting process. However,
he believes the ADF&G uses the ACMP to give themselves a trump card
to stop the issuance of permits, a trump card the legislature, as
policy makers for state law, had specifically not given them.
Number 1263
DIANE MAYER, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC),
Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, noted that
the DGC is responsible for implementing the ACMP.
Number 1311
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked how many positions would be
lost under HB 28.
MS. MAYER said the DGC has 24 positions in the FY 98 budget. This
bill would eliminate 23 of them.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether Ms. Mayer could provide a
list of where those positions are and their titles.
MS. MAYER said yes. She referred to one of Mr. Noah's charts,
which showed ACMP as a small layer of process above a larger layer
of process. She suggested if the issue is redundancy, ACMP is the
only entity on the books that brings all existing processes
together on a project basis. It synchronizes scheduling and
organizing of public notice, comments, and other aspects, which
includes identifying issues and having discussions based on agency
expertise about problem-solving.
MS. MAYER believes if the ACMP layer were removed, the other layer
would "scatter into ribbons." The ACMP works with applicants up-
front to decide what "ribbons" to tie together in their process,
putting them in touch with agencies, determining applicable
personnel and scheduling those personnel as a synchronized team.
She questioned the bill's presumption that an efficiency exists in
"shredding these ribbons and having them all work independently."
MS. MAYER explained that companies such as Fort Knox find someone
to tie those ribbons together, paying not only a designated
coordinator, but also the person in charge in each agency. For
many projects, that cost of coordination may not have a big impact.
However, the DGC handles 400 projects, both large and small. And
by statute and regulation, it could bring these people together.
Number 1584
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether she was talking about the ACMP or
the DGC.
MS. MAYER, noting that HB 28 repeals the coastal management
program, said the coordination piece, the function of the DGC, is
nested right in the law legislators are being asked to repeal.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether the coordination piece would not
exist otherwise, unless separate legislation created or maintained
it.
Number 1659
MS. MAYER said, "Right." She explained, "To the extent that we're
just talking about the coordination function, if you move HB 28,
you lose both of these and then you're faced with recreating the
wheel, basically, for the coordination piece."
MS. MAYER referred to the chart and said this is where local
communities plan, establish criteria reflecting their desires for
development in their own coastal area and receive "a million-plus
annually." In addition, when a federal permit is required, the
ACMP is the strongest means of integrating federal agencies into
project-based reviews.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN opened the meeting for public testimony.
Number 1751
R.K. GILDERSLEEVE, President, Gildersleeve Logging Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in support of HB 28.
Raised in Alaskan logging camps owned by his father, he had
purchased the operations in the 1980s. Including subcontractor
employees, their camps normally employ up to 125 people but are
facing severe declines as timber supplies diminish.
MR. GILDERSLEEVE believes HB 28 would remove a redundant layer of
state regulation. He said coastal zone management reviews have
been used by state agencies to impede development and make it less
economic. State agencies need and have regulatory authority to
ensure that industry maintains measurable standards, but coastal
zone management costs the state and the public without protecting
any resources not already protected by other regulations.
MR. GILDERSLEEVE discussed his own company. Regulated to maintain
air and water quality standards, they can be cited by state and
federal agencies if found out of compliance. They must regularly
report on compliance with many standards. Permits are required for
fuel storage and transfer, drinking water, (indisc.) treatment,
camp location, maritime operations and electrical generation. In
addition, the Forests Practices Act specifies logging practices to
protect habitat and water quality. Their operation has been
visited by five or six agencies in a single day.
MR. GILDERSLEEVE believes the state entered into the ACMP for
reasons no longer valid, including the lure of federal funding and
distrust of the U.S. Forest Service by at least one state agency,
which currently manages "the fish and game on the Tongass." Now
that the two long-term timber sales are reduced, the need for ACMP
management is no longer there.
Number 1941
MR. GILDERSLEEVE said another reason for creating coastal zone
management was the state had the money then. In addition, land use
planning under Title 38 was not very far along nor well understood.
Now, most parts of the state fall under a formally adopted land use
plan. He sees no need to re-examine every possible designation
whenever a landowner wants to use his land. Nor does he see a need
for agencies to meet repeatedly for what are usually temporary
uses, just because that use lies in the coastal zone. He said such
uses are always held to measurable standards, by a myriad of
regulations, whether or not the land lies in the coastal zone.
Number 2021
ERIC MUENCH, Alaska Woods Service Company, testified via
teleconference from Ketchikan in support of HB 28. He said the
program has outlived its usefulness. Its purpose of protecting
coastal waters is now accomplished separately by the Clean Water
Act, the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404
permitting process and other protective measures.
MR. MUENCH believes the program performs poorly at allowing the
state and communities to "provide guidance into the actions of
higher levels of government." Federal agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) show no willingness to take guidance from local or
state plans.
MR. MUENCH said the greatest fault of the program is pretending to
protect marine waters through regulation of upland activity. That
requirement is addressed by clean water requirements of state and
federal law. He suggested the coastal zone boundary lacks a
biological, topographical or other feature defining where upland
activity's effects on marine waters begin or end.
Number 2102
MR. MUENCH said most environmental controversy involves land use
preferences on specific parcels of land. Many environmental laws
allow participants to take part in that controversy who would
otherwise have no place doing so, he said, indicating the ACMP is
one such program.
MR. MUENCH believes the single useful feature of the program is the
coastal project questionnaire, through which developers can become
aware of state regulatory functions that could affect their
projects, and which coordinates state responses through the DGC.
He suggested this feature be expanded statewide, separate from the
coastal management program, to provide guidance and expedite the
public's passage through "a maze of confusing governmental
regulations, regardless of where the project is located."
Number 2152
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for clarification about the questionnaire.
MR. MUENCH replied that the coastal project questionnaire lists
state agencies having regulatory power over some form of land or
water use. The developer, or whoever wants to initiate a project,
can go through a checklist of agencies, compare it with the planned
activity, and find out which agency must be dealt with as far as
permits or other interactions are concerned.
Number 2205
DAVID CROSBY, Attorney, came forward to testify, saying he was in
private practice. For the past 15 or 20 years, he had represented
clients with development interests statewide, including North Slope
oil and gas, local mines and logging in the Hydaburg area.
However, he was not speaking on behalf of any client but presenting
his own thoughts. Most of the projects he represented involved
multiple federal, state, and sometimes local permits.
MR. CROSBY suggested most problems he had encountered were not with
this process but with "rogue staffers" within agencies, at lower
levels, who had their own agendas. He was uncertain HB 28 would
solve that problem, and it could make it worse. The DGC had been
able, through its processes, to address concerns over rogue
staffers, "to work them through in a process that involved
commissioners from the various agencies." Where they were unable
to work them out, they had a well-defined process where Mr. Crosby
knew that ultimately, he could get up to the commissioner level, if
need be, where he "had some political accountability." He said,
"If you throw this entire program out, I'm not sure where that
process goes to."
Number 2289
MR. CROSBY expressed concern that if HB 28 passed, the power of
individual agencies may increase. Problems he had experienced had
more often than not been with the ADF&G. He feared that doing away
with governmental coordination and making the process less visible
might increase that department's power, in particular.
MR. CROSBY suggested there might also be increased difficulty in
dealing with federal agencies. Concerns expressed in the Coastal
Zone Management Act were not going to go away. To the extent that
the state was perceived as acting irresponsibly or throwing out the
standards, there was a tendency on the federal side to do what the
state would not do. He said those processes had many fewer points
where one could interact.
Number 2365
MR. CROSBY cautioned that eliminating the Coastal Zone Management
Act could result in more litigation, not less. One reaction to
feeling powerless was to sabotage. One way to sabotage was through
litigation. He explained, "We have had projects where we have been
able, through the processes of the Coastal Zone Management Act, to
explain the project, to improve the project in many ways, to learn
how to answer the environmental concerns, and in some instances,
through a process of compromise, sometimes just because we've been
able to explain our project better, to get people that might have
sued us to accept the result."
MR. CROSBY said he was not sure what happens when the avenue for
that kind of expression is cut off. He suggested sometimes courts
show deference to a person's position because they know that person
has worked the process. With no process, the courts may approach
it de novo, with uncertain results.
Number 2428
MR. CROSBY said from a personal standpoint, it would trouble him to
turn the clock back on this effort at comprehensive planning for
the coastal zone, which attempts to tie together various concerns
of development and conservation. He tends to view the Coastal Zone
Management Act as a tool, not an obstacle.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated he was intrigued by Mr. Crosby's
"rogue staffer" approach. He wondered whether the DGC has
statutory power to manage or overcome a rogue staffer.
[Reply cut off by tape change]
TAPE 97-18, SIDE B
Number 0006
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said a number of people, including Mr. Crosby,
spoke about the benefits of the DGC. He wondered whether anyone
had looked at empowering it. Citing the old Transportation
Commission as an example, he suggested considering a whole new
relationship, with some sort of citizen board, for example, to
provide the oversight and connection.
MR. CROSBY said he would not advocate more regulation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "But more power."
MR. CROSBY said, "Certainly there could be more power to deal with
the various agencies, and to require them to come to reason on
these things. And I think that's what DGC is doing now in many
instances. And incidentally, there's a network that exists among
staffers of these various agencies, between Fish and Game and the
Environmental Protection Agency and what have you. And there's a
lot of cross-over that goes on. And a staffer who is unhappy with
the result here can go over there. And I think that the present
process within the Division of Governmental Coordination tends to
minimize that." He agreed Co-Chairman Hudson's idea was something
to think about.
Number 0131
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN pointed out that a Title 16 permit could
not be superseded by an action of the DEC, for example. He
believes it would be unwise to empower any one agency, giving them
a "trump card." Furthermore, there would still be requirements of
maintaining reviews within various expertise groups. He discussed
the impeding of progress by the "rogues" and indicated response
time lines help somewhat. He concluded that the DGC does act as a
"mover" in the process.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that HB 28 amends AS 46.40.
Referring to AS 46.35, he paraphrased, "It is the purpose to
establish a simplified procedure to assist those who have to
satisfy requirements of state, federal and local law to obtain
permits, to provide to the members of the public a better
opportunity to present their views, to provide to applicants for
the use of air, land or water resources of the state a greater
degree of certainty on permit requirements, to increase the
coordination between federal, state and local agencies and their
administration of the programs, and to establish an opportunity for
members of the public to obtain information."
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT suggested these statutes, not contingent
on maintaining AS 46.40, speak directly to what the "baby" should
be and do. Governmental coordination will happen if the Governor
wants it to, he said. And the 23 or 24 ACMP staff would not
necessarily "disappear" under HB 28, unless the legislature removes
from the budget those general fund dollars and that staffing.
Number 0352
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE referred to Mr. Crosby's comment about
the possibility of more litigation and asked for examples.
MR. CROSBY believes two kinds of people get involved in
environmental disputes. First are those acting in good faith,
needing more information to be satisfied a project will not be an
environmental problem. Sometimes information coming from a
governmental agency has greater credibility than that provided by
a developer, he noted.
MR. CROSBY said second are people who are frustrated and angry
about their perceived lack of power in the system. They oppose any
development and cannot be satisfied. Through the development
permit processes, oftentimes they can be forced to articulate their
arguments. "And you begin to understand their arguments so that
you can respond to them," he said.
MR. CROSBY explained, "You may not be able to keep them from suing.
But when they do sue, you can point out to the court that you've
been through ... the various processes with the permitting agencies
and up to the Coastal Policy Council. And I think you can tend to
isolate the nay-sayers. But at the same time, I think that you
perform a valuable function by providing information to people who
are really only in the process, in good faith, to find out whether
or not there is a problem."
Number 0457
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Representative Alan Austerman was
present and invited him to join them at the table.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said except where a Title 46 application
is required because of activity in a stream, he believes the ADF&G
has circumvented the legislature in using the ACMP to interject
itself into the process.
MR. CROSBY said that is a legitimate point. However, in some
situations, the ADF&G has permitting authority. In addition, there
is communication between agencies, which defer to one another on
points where they believe the other agency has expertise.
Number 0543
DAVE HANNA came forward to testify, saying he was a fifth-
generation Alaskan whose family had worked the length and breadth
of the state. No member of his family had ever been a proponent of
more government. Self-employed in construction and resource
development, he has been active in mineral resource extraction,
timber harvest, road building, bridge building, shoreline
development and protection, and commercial and residential
development.
MR. HANNA has worked with and without coastal zone management and
the DGC. Often, development in Alaska involves federal agencies
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. In addition, it involves Alaska
departments and local planning and zoning agencies.
MR. HANNA said prior to the ACMP, no program coordinated agencies
nor forced federal cooperation with municipal or private
development. Developers attempted to procure permission from
agencies. There was lack of communication, endless modification of
projects, and needless repetition of effort by agencies and private
developers alike, with applicants bounced like a ball back and
forth between agencies with their own agendas. The federal
government was free to react at their leisure. This endless
repetition often discouraged private developers to the point where
they abandoned their efforts.
Number 0681
MR. HANNA said since the inception of coastal zone management, and
the benefit of the DGC, municipalities and private developers have
the assurance of fair and timely review of proposed developments.
He believes this one act may have done more than anything else to
promote responsible development in Alaska and to help diversify and
stabilize a fluctuating economy.
MR. HANNA concluded, "Coastal zone has given us a new voice in
federal activities in our state. Quarrels over state-versus-
federal authority seem to comprise a large portion of our problems
in developing our state. I cannot imagine any responsible
legislator relinquishing any tool available to help maintain our
ability to self-regulate our development of our resources."
MR. HANNA stated, "If anything, I feel that the benefits of this
program should be expanded to help all residents of our state and
strengthen our ability to foster responsible development. We do
have problems in the government, but eliminating coastal zone would
indeed be throwing the baby out with the bath water."
Number 0749
LINDA FREED, Community Development Director, Kodiak Island Borough,
testified via teleconference. She said to borough residents, hard-
hit by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the ACMP is the most significant
tool to influence state and federal decisions with regards to oil
and gas development and transportation. The borough became
involved with the ACMP in 1979 because of concerns about proposed
federal offshore oil and gas lease sales. As a cooperative state,
federal and local program, the ACMP gives the region some local
control over activities and decisions of larger government
entities.
MS. FREED said the ACMP also provides a tool to get the attention
of oil companies whose activities could negatively impact resources
upon which residents depend.
MS. FREED said recently the borough was involved with several
contentious appeals relating to the DEC's approval of the Prince
William Sound Tanker C-Plan Decision. Prior to this decision, the
borough had never filed an appeal on a project decision. However,
the borough believed this was a major state public policy decision
meriting attention from department commissioners and the Alaska
Coastal Policy Council. She commented that the council is the
existing mechanism for dealing with "rogue staffers."
Number 0944
MS. FREED said in June 1996, after months of negotiations using the
ACMP as a tool, the borough signed an agreement with the DEC and
the major crude oil shippers in the state. The agreement, which
established a framework for protecting the borough from future oil
spills, was possible because the ACMP gave local residents and the
municipality the tools to bring the industry and the state to the
table to address their concerns.
MS. FREED said the ACMP had funded a special project to identify
sensitive areas in her region, with the information to become part
of a federal-state contingency plan to guide the shipping industry
and allow them to develop better individual contingency plans. The
project allowed Ouzinkie residents input into governmental
regulation and the opportunity to better understanding the oil
industry. Without the ACMP, it would not have been possible,
either on a cooperative or financial basis.
MS. FREED said this was only one area in which the borough had
benefited from the ACMP. She suggested other coastal regions would
have stories as well. She stated that the Kodiak Island Borough
opposes HB 28.
MS. FREED believes if only the coordination function is retained,
the ACMP would cost more in general funds than it does now, since
permit coordination in Alaska is basically subsidized by the
federal government. She noted that the local control aspect of the
process is embodied in the substance of the program.
Number 1100
WILLIE GOODWIN, JR., Land Manager, Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation,
testified via teleconference from Kotzebue, saying he was a Coastal
Policy Council member for six years and served as co-chair. He
opposes HB 28. With the ACMP, state agencies can better monitor
development without requiring personnel at the sites. For example,
a resident could comment, or the local government could monitor the
permitting process or order permits to protect the local
environment or resources.
MR. GOODWIN said the process took years to refine. It benefits the
state and local residents. Each plan, for each area, was carefully
thought out, and the state was very much involved as policies were
developed. Through this process, local residents are able to be
heard when a proposed project will affect their lives.
MR. GOODWIN referred to Timber Creek, cited by the sponsor the
previous week, and said, "It's unfortunate that the legislator who
represents this guide wants to scrap the whole program because a
resident from Fairbanks couldn't get his tracking permit in another
area." He said the state made a deal with the federal government
to manage Alaska's coast under this program, and a deal is a deal.
MR. GOODWIN concluded that although perhaps the program needs
refining in parts of the state, it works for the Northwest Arctic
Borough. With all the federal lands within the borough, he
believes there would be more problems dealing with the federal
government than with state agencies should a permit come before
them. Their plan allows development like the Red Dog Mine to
proceed yet still protects sensitive habitat areas.
Number 1284
VICTOR KARMUN, Coastal Management Coordinator, Northwest Arctic
Borough, testified via teleconference from Kotzebue, saying he
opposes HB 28. He believes the Red Dog Mine exists because of the
program. He also believes that had the ACMP existed in the late
1940s and 1950s, there would be no big cleanup programs or
procedures today.
MR. KARMUN said the ACMP gives state and local governments a more
equal partnership with the federal government. Through the DGC, it
requires federal agencies to address Alaska coastal concerns, gives
small coastal villages a voice in permitting decisions and provides
streamlined review of new development projects. Finally, it
prevents a state or federal agency, or a private entity, from
running roughshod over any locality with the ACMP in place.
Number 1393
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the process allows a small local
organization to run roughshod over someone trying to do a
development.
MR. KARMUN replied, "No, sir, not the way it is right now."
Number 1419
CHERI SHAW, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United
(CDFU), testified via teleconference, speaking on her own behalf as
well as on behalf of the CDFU. She said the CDFU strongly opposes
House Bill 28. The ACMP is an effective tool for coastal
communities that empowers residents to set local standards.
Unorganized boroughs should retain their right to consider
development that will affect their areas. The coastal zone
management program provides unique benefits not found in other
programs, including one-stop shopping in the permitting process.
MS. SHAW said the program was unanimously re-authorized the
previous year by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S.
Senate. The federal government supports and subsidizes it. The
state receives $3 million per year to fund it, which would be lost
if HB 28 passes.
MS. SHAW referred to the ACMP's structure. She said the federal
government mandated new management measures in the re-
authorization. Although changes might be necessary, eliminating
this program is not the way. She cautioned that if the program is
repealed and hindsight proves that to be a mistake, Alaska may
never be able to recreate the ACMP in the future.
MS. SHAW said recently, Cordova and the CDFU benefited from the
ACMP and the Coastal Policy Council in the debate over Lease Sale
79 and review of the Prince William Sound Contingency Plan. The
CDFU found both to be important resources to which to turn.
MS. SHAW said she personally finds it disturbing that a legislator
from the Interior would introduce a bill limiting citizens' rights
in coastal communities, where he has no constituents. She said she
would fax her testimony.
Number 1547
The Kenai teleconference operator advised that she would fax
testimony from Linda Wright, who had to leave.
Number 1582
DENNIS RANDA, President, Alaska Council, Trout Unlimited, testified
via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to HB 28. He said
Trout Unlimited represents 600 Alaskans and 100,000 people
nationwide. A Kenai Peninsula resident since 1974, Mr. Randa
participated in the original coastal zone policy drafting by the
Kenai Peninsula Borough in 1988. He believes it is effective,
especially in involving local people. Under HB 28, Trout
Unlimited, a grassroots organization, would be severely hampered in
its efforts to ensure its concerns are met by developmental actions
along our coastal plain.
MR. RANDA said when he first looked at this bill, he asked what was
broken. After reading it, he asked how the bill fixed it. He does
not believe HB 28 addresses either question. He said the program
gives people "something to deal with in their coastal issues" and
provides developers a known route through the process.
Number 1794
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai in
opposition to HB 28. He believes the sponsor's intention is to
create a process with less responsibility and less cost for
resource development. He cited other bills that similarly propose
fast-track extraction of Alaska's resources, with little
responsibility regarding resource conservation or environmental
protection.
Number 1976
DOUGLAS MERTZ, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory
Council (RCAC), came forward to testify. An independent nonprofit
corporation, the RCAC promotes environmentally safe operation of
the Alyeska Terminal and associated tankers. It has 18 member
organizations, including municipalities and other interest groups
in the area impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
MR. MERTZ said the RCAC opposes HB 28 because eliminating the ACMP
would shut down perhaps the most important program by which
Alaskans participate in development decisions that affect them. In
short, HB 28 would eliminate the local role and leave decisions to
state bureaucrats in Juneau and Anchorage.
MR. MERTZ indicated government should protect people's right to
have a voice in decisions affecting them. The RCAC is not anti-oil
or anti-development. It wants natural resource development without
sacrificing other valuable resources. Mr. Mertz noted that the
ACMP provides a system for mediating conflicting interests short of
litigation.
MR. MERTZ said the ACMP does need improvement. However, he
believes the system could work better while still protecting the
interests of local residents. In addition to the coordination
function, the local role in the decision process is a second "baby"
to avoid throwing out with the bath water.
Number 2239
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked that Mr. Mertz submit specific suggestions
on improving the ACMP in writing.
MR. MERTZ agreed to get back to the committee.
Number 2267
GRETCHEN KEISER, Planner, Community Development Department, City
and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), came forward to testify. Aware of the
ACMP since the 1970s, she had also previously worked at the DGC.
She discussed points made in a resolution, Serial No. 1852,
recently passed by the CBJ assembly in opposition to HB 28.
MS. KEISER offered a document on the CBJ's coastal program and said
there are areas not necessarily attended to by the state. For
example, in Juneau, policies address landslide and avalanche areas.
TAPE 97-19, SIDE A
Number 0006
MS. KEISER said another example is habitat policies. For statewide
coastal districts, this cuts both ways. Juneau has a policy
regarding 50-foot setbacks for development along designated
"important anadromous streams." On the other hand, language in
habitat policies talks about the ability to overcome some
restrictions in habitat policies if there is a significant public
need.
MS. KEISER said it is the local community that brings forth the
issue of public need. Although much of coastal management is about
environmental protection, this is where a district can step forward
with a community's development needs.
MS. KEISER said the ACMP provides a formal role for local
government, giving it a more equitable share of government
authority when dealing with the state. "It's very different than
Title 38's best interest findings, where districts, local
governments, can comment in the coastal management program," she
noted. The DGC acts as a mediator agency, allowing everyone a say.
MS. KEISER said the ACMP streamlines the review and approval of
coastal development projects. For her, a local planner, the DGC
provides a single point of contact in the state bureaucracy.
Removing that would create an additional workload on local
governments.
Number 0319
MS. KEISER noted that federal pass-through monies are given to the
CBJ, which currently receives $40,000 per year to fund one-half of
a salary for a person who works on coastal development project
reviews and wetlands permitting. Roughly $150,000 had been
provided over the last five years for special projects. For
example, the CBJ received $25,000 to develop a map atlas for
wetlands to facilitate permitting, plus $3,000 for information
sheets on permitting.
MS. KEISER said the CBJ resolution opposes HB 28. The assembly
urges that if the bill goes forward, it go into subcommittee for
further analysis. She suggested focusing on permit coordination
and improving that process. She further suggested the legislature
may want to participate more formally in the Administration's
streamlining effort.
Number 0469
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Keiser to look at AS 46.35 to
determine whether there is a "gap in that other alternative
coordination function" from her perspective. He asked whether the
CBJ could not control issues such as avalanche zones through a
master plan using the planning and zoning process.
MS. KEISER believes the key point of coastal management is that it
allows Juneau to interject those actions that they would take
locally into the state permitting process. Without any formal role
for local government, there could be a "disconnect" in the
permitting process. The state could say no. The local government
could say yes. And the applicant would be out of luck.
Number 0644
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred again to AS 46.35. He said if
the state had land within the CBJ and was proposing to permit
something on that land, it had to fit within the overall CBJ
zoning.
MS. KEISER said certainly where the state is the applicant, it
would talk to the CBJ. However, she believes most projects going
through consistency review belong to private individuals. Those
individuals should get a simultaneous, coordinated message from
state and local governments, which occurs under the ACMP.
Number 0719
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said if he wanted to lease state land for
a project requiring a state permit, for example, it would be
precluded if it did not fit within the CBJ zoning. The borough has
the right, separate from the ACMP, to control facilities and
functions on land within its boundaries through planning and
zoning.
MS. KEISER agreed but said it is incumbent on levels of government
to work together to facilitate a timely review, which happens with
the ACMP's coordination function. From her perspective, it is not
good government to do otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he appreciated that comment and her
suggestion to look at ensuring that the coordination continues.
Number 0943
WELLS WILLIAMS, Planning Director, City and Borough of Sitka (CBS),
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 28. He said the
coastal management process is valuable to the community and the
state. He expressed appreciation for the sponsor's motives but
believes HB 28 does not achieve the objectives.
MR. WILLIAMS said the CBS sees coastal management through three
distinctly different eyes. First, it is a way to involve citizens.
Second, the CBS is a regulator, and the ACMP provides an
opportunity to influence decisions. He said the CBS has a
structure different from Juneau's. About the only way they can
influence a project on state land in outlying areas, for example,
is through the coastal zone management process, since that vehicle
is not incorporated into the CBS zoning guides.
MR. WILLIAMS said third, the CBS builds projects along the
waterfront and is, in many ways, an applicant like anyone else
going through the process. The DGC has helped in recent projects,
providing ways to resolve disputes and allowing projects to go
forward.
MR. WILLIAMS concluded that the ACMP is important as a planning
tool, in addition to its importance, often cited, as a coordination
tool.
Number 1150
CLAIRE JOHNSON, Board Member, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and
Tourism Association (AWRTA), testified via teleconference from
Sitka, speaking on behalf of the AWRTA and herself. A nonprofit
organization with over 300 statewide members, the AWRTA's goals
include advocating conservation and responsible use of resources;
becoming an integral part of the economic and resource use
decision-making process; promoting professionalism of natural
resource-dependent tour and lodge operators, travelers and
recreational users; promoting guidelines for low-impact and
sustainable recreation and tourism; and supporting (indisc.)
interested in marketing, permitting and legislative issues, as
consistent with its other goals.
MS. JOHNSON said these goals closely resemble those of the Sitka
Coastal Management District Program. The ACMP is an integral
process the AWRTA supports. There is no specific process for
tourism planning and looking out for the long-term health of the
industry and the resources on which it depends. Coastal resources
are critically important to tourism and recreation in Southeast
Alaska. The ACMP is the one process where local communities can
bring about their concerns and have input about the coastal zone.
MS. JOHNSON said the ACMP is a way to bring the interests of
different industries and communities together to try to balance and
resolve differences. If anything, these types of processes need to
be strengthened, not gutted. Ms. Johnson said the AWRTA urges that
HB 28 be withdrawn.
Number 1279
MS. JOHNSON spoke on her own behalf, saying Alaska is being
inundated by industries and people with money, who want more money
at the expense of Alaskans and wilderness itself. She discussed a
floating lodge resort proposed in the local borough, which involved
at least eight state and federal agencies. In this case, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife comments on the project directly conflicted with
the ADF&G findings, and the federal agency had no knowledge of the
state's comments. She said this is one of several instances where
she ran across conflicting decisions by different agencies,
resulting in her making repeated telephone calls to resolve them.
MS. JOHNSON said she understands Mental Health Trust lands are
exempt from the ACMP, but she does not know why. She concluded by
stating her strong opposition to HB 28.
Number 1475
JIM GLASPELL, Environmental Consultant, testified via
teleconference. Since 1981, he has been involved with 15 local
coastal programs, helping them prepare, revise and implement plans.
Recognizing the ACMP's "growing pains," he hopes the current
program assessment will lead to procedural improvements and better-
written policy standards, which are much needed.
MR. GLASPELL believes state agency permit coordination procedures
do not provide the same opportunities as the ACMP process for local
notification, review and permit input. Agency coordination
requirements vary, differ in time lines, and are not always closely
followed. Local citizens who do not read the legal section of the
newspaper daily would have difficulty even finding out what permits
or activities were being considered in the coastal zone.
MR. GLASPELL does not believe federal and state laws and permits
duplicate or negate the need for local coastal zone plans and
development standards. Those local plans and standards supplement
state and federal regulations in the permit process. They
specifically reflect local issues.
MR. GLASPELL cited examples. Outside the ACMP process, no
statewide standards address coastal habitat protection. Nor do
they recognize variable functions and values of wetlands or wetland
mitigation opportunity. No standards address cumulative impact nor
protect subsistence resources and uses. Nothing statewide looks at
petroleum storage facilities that hold less than 400,000 gallons of
fuel and their proximity to streams and water bodies. Mr. Glaspell
said these are gaps that the ACMP performance standards, included
in coastal plans, help to fill.
MR. GLASPELL said one should not assume current state and federal
statutes and regulations will remain in place. He believes the
coastal zone management program is not redundant. Eliminating the
ACMP would significantly reduce local input, resulting in loss of
important coastal development performance standards. He urged
rejection of HB 28. He further urged reinforcement of state
support for local oversight of coastal development activities.
Number 1705
CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director, Bering Straits Coastal Resource
Service Area Board, testified via teleconference from Unalakleet.
He said the board opposes HB 28. Coastal management is a joint
effort of local, state and federal governments and the private
sector. For rural Alaskans, it is an important opportunity for
meaningful participation in federal and state decisions affecting
their lives. The ACMP process works very well, even when there are
disagreements among participants, and provides an appeal procedure
when a party disagrees with a ruling.
MR. DEGNAN noted that the board opposed the Timber Creek trapping
cabin permit. However, the DNR had issued the permit and the
matter was currently before the courts.
Number 1760
JOHN DUNHAM, Permitting and Zoning Manager, North Slope Borough,
testified via teleconference from Barrow. The borough opposes HB
28 because the ACMP provides a meaningful tool to protect the
quality of life on the North Slope, which has the most biologically
sensitive coastal areas in any state. "I believe this is the
reason for the federal legislation," he stated.
MR. DUNHAM said the ACMP is the only program providing local
government an equal footing in state and federal permitting
decisions. Loss of the ACMP would eliminate local government's
ability to effectively comment on development in federal waters.
He noted that local and state governments' planning and zoning
authority extends only three miles offshore. Loss of authority to
comment on development projects in federal waters would have a
significant impact on the quality of life for borough residents, as
well as for the people of Bristol Bay, Kodiak Island, the Kenai
Peninsula and communities along the Bering Sea.
MR. DUNHAM said HB 28 reduces local government to an advising body
to state and federal permitting agencies, if comments even are
solicited from local governments. He believes if HB 28 became law,
developers in Alaska's coastal areas would be challenged more
frequently in court regarding development decisions.
MR. DUNHAM said he understands there is a provision for
coordination in the bill that retains what is perceived to be the
good aspects of the current program. He asked whether coordination
could be required of a local home rule government.
Number 1860
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify. He
announced HB 28 would be heard again February 25 at a listen-only
teleconference. He intended to put it into subcommittee at that
time, with Representative Green as chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that AS 46.35 specifies that
"department" means the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and that "commissioner" refers to the DEC's commissioner. He
did not want to convey that this set of statutes is the ideal
framework for coordination or that it should be done by the DEC.
He suggested there might be modification to this framework.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1956
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|