Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/07/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB97 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1:48:35 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska
coastal management program; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and
providing for an effective date."
1:48:53 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
(DCOM), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), first provided an
overview of HB 106. He explained that in 2005, Senate Bill 102
amended Alaska statute 44.66.020(a) to include the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP) as a program subject to
termination, thereby providing the legislature with a mandatory
review of the ACMP's efficacy through the program sunset process
within that statute. This provision of Senate Bill 102 also
included an uncodified section that terminates the ACMP on July
1, 2011. This termination of the ACMP is not like a normal
sunset provision because there is no grace period or program
wind down - it is effective immediately July 1, 2011, which
means a bill must be passed this session extending the ACMP or
the program terminates. He said Governor Parnell has introduced
HB 106, extending the termination date of the ACMP by six years,
in recognition of the value of the Alaska Coastal Management
Program to extend the state's authorities to federal lands and
agency activities, as well as the importance of incorporating
local participation and input into those decisions.
1:51:33 PM
MR. BATES next reviewed the history of the ACMP and the changes
that have been made to it. He said, "The ACMP is a federally
authorized, voluntary state program where the state oversees the
responsible development of coastal uses and resources, federal
activities within the coastal zone, and activities on the outer
continental shelf." The consistency review process is the
primary tool for implementing this program. Through this
process, proposed resource development projects, such as a dock
or an oil and gas exploration project, are reviewed by federal
and state agencies, coastal districts, and interested public
members for compliance with the ACMP state standards and
district enforceable policies. Since 1979 the structure of
Alaska's coastal management plan has included the most expansive
coastal zone in the nation, extending for the most part from
Alpine to the ice fields of southeast Alaska, all the way around
western and southcentral Alaska, and several hundred miles
inland up anadromous waterways. Also important is that Alaska
has a "geographic location description" which allows extension
of the ACMP to the edge of the outer continental shelf.
1:54:36 PM
MR. BATES said the State of Alaska chose this network-structured
program where its departments and divisions participate in the
implementation of the ACMP. The state also included a local
component where several coastal municipalities and service areas
voluntarily participate in implementation of the ACMP. The
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) serves as the
lead agency and is responsible for all aspects of implementation
of the program.
MR. BATES related that in 2003 changes were initiated to the
coastal management program by passage of Executive Order 106,
which moved the Division of Governmental Coordination into the
Department of Natural Resources, and passage of House Bill 191.
House Bill 191 was intended to reduce delays, avoid regulatory
confusion and costly litigation, allow new investment in Alaska,
and update and reform the ACMP statewide standards and district
enforceable policies to be clear, concise, more uniform, related
to specific concerns and in the case of districts to local
concerns, and to be non-duplicative of state and federal laws.
A key change made by House Bill 191 was elimination of the
Coastal Policy Council, which was the governing body of the
coastal program, and the transfer of all of the council's duties
into DNR. The bill also required a complete re-write of the
statewide standards, the coastal district plans, and the
enforceable policies to ensure that all the standards and
district policies met with the legislative intent to be clear,
concise, not susceptible to subjective interpretation, and not
duplicative of otherwise existing requirements. The bill
clarified that district enforceable policies may not address a
matter regulated or authorized by state or federal law unless
the policy related specifically to a matter of local concern.
1:57:08 PM
MR. BATES continued, saying that House Bill 191 clarified the
consistency review process to provide more predictable timelines
and standards, including the scope of the project subject to
review, when a project can proceed in phases, and the extent to
which projects inland of the coastal zone are subject to review.
The bill encouraged expansion of the use of general permits and
otherwise expedited consistency reviews. The last key change
made by House Bill 191 was implementation of the "DEC carve-
out," which excluded Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) permits from the coordinated consistency review process of
the ACMP and prohibited coastal districts from establishing
enforceable policies addressing air, land, and water quality
that are already covered by DEC.
MR. BATES said that in 2004 the ACMP regulations were amended as
required by House Bill 191. In 2005 Senate Bill 102 was passed,
which provided the legislature with a mandatory review of the
ACMP's efficacy through the previously mentioned sunset
provision. House Bill 102 also amended the deadlines for
coastal districts to submit their amended coastal district
plans, immediately repealed district policies that were in
conflict with existing law, and mandated revision to the "ABC
List," including those activities that qualify for an expedited
review under the ACMP. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM), the federal granting and oversight body,
approved those changes in December 2005 after performing a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis on all of
those changes.
1:59:19 PM
MR. BATES noted that pre-2003 there were 35 coastal districts,
33 of which had coastal district plans approved. As a
requirement of House Bill 191, 28 coastal districts revised
their entire plan, 25 of which are in place now, and 1 of which
is pending and under final review.
MR. BATES reported that as a preliminary to the termination of
the ACMP under the sunset provisions in statute, Senator Olson
last year requested a full program audit on the ACMP. The
audit, delivered in two parts, was a significant investment in
time by the Division of Legislative Audit that conducted the
audit, as well as the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
(DCOM), network agencies, coastal districts, and other
participants that responded to, provided information for, and
participated in the audit. It is the administration's
perspective that the audit represents a comprehensive and
objective review and evaluation of the ACMP. He said the audit
findings include the following: "the program is operated and
functioning consistent with statutes, regulations, and
legislative intent; clarifying the ACMP standards, and district
enforceable policies, and reducing the redundancy in the program
were the legislature's intent; the ACMP changes have not
diminished the state's rights under the CZMA, the Coastal Zone
Management Act; DNR is an appropriate agency to administer the
ACMP."
MR. BATES pointed out that the audit did not recommend any
statutory changes and concluded that the legislature should re-
authorize the ACMP. Audit findings identified ways to improve
the ACMP, including that while the ACMP is operated openly and
transparently, certain aspects of its process are deficient in
openness and transparency. Another finding was that changes
have lessened consensus building among the review participants.
He said the division and the department are contemplating ways
to improve the program as identified within the audit findings.
With these audit findings in hand, and based on the governor's
guiding principles on resource management as it relates to the
ACMP, the governor has introduced HB 106, a six-year extension
of the termination date for the ACMP.
2:03:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether DNR has decided to make
any of the changes recommended in the audit.
MR. BATES replied that appropriate changes are being considered
to be responsive to the audit findings. The governor has not
introduced statutory changes at this time, but other types of
changes are being contemplated that would still accommodate the
findings from the audit.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that had the audit suggested
any changes those changes would have been in the regulations.
MR. BATES responded yes; the audit did not find statutory
changes necessary or warranted, but both the division and the
department recognize that improvements could be made to increase
the effectiveness and delivery of the coastal program. The
[division's] responses to the auditor are largely captured in
the audit findings themselves. While there are certain changes
that [DCOM] feels it could and should make, there are other
aspects of the audit that [the division] responded to that
clarify some of the issues. At this time [DCOM] has not decided
or determined what would be appropriate regulatory versus
procedural issues to address the points that were raised.
2:05:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired what the timeframe might be
for some of the changes that [DCOM] is looking at.
MR. BATES answered that the majority of [the division's] time
for the next 45 days will be dedicated to being responsive to
this committee and the legislature on this bill and its
companion on the other side. As time permits, [DCOM] will
debate what it can do based on the findings and what can be done
by procedure or regulation to solve some of the issues raised
because the desire is to have a functional and effective
division and program.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether personalities would make
a difference, such as a different person in a certain position.
MR. BATES replied that he is unsure who Representative P. Wilson
might be suggesting, but that his is a challenging position to
administer in compliance with state and federal law. The
decisions he has to make are not always easy and are certainly
not well received by all the players, which is important to
recognize considering that this program significantly affects
the industry, the coastal districts, the public, and state
agencies. If it is not his position that is being talked about,
everybody in this arena has an opinion about these changes as
very few people are ambivalent about whether the program is
functioning appropriately and this tension is good because it
creates the opportunity to decide what is wanted as a program.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON assured Mr. Bates that she has not
talked to anyone in this regard; it was just a question that
came to mind.
2:08:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested Mr. Bates to share two examples
of projects that were significantly delayed or stopped because
of the laws in place prior to passage of House Bill 191 in 2003.
MR. BATES responded that some information was earlier provided
to the co-chairs, at their request, regarding project reviews
during the five years prior to 2003, which might be applicable
to the question. One of the complaints about the program in
2002 was that there was no legal certainty to the timeframes
associated with project reviews. While he cannot remember a
specific example, he does know that there were projects stopped
for review for which there was no legal reason to do so from the
division's perspective; the division just stopped the review
because it needed more time to consider things. So, the
regulations were written at one time to address some of that as
an issue. He offered to come up with specific projects if
Representative Herron wished.
2:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he looks forward to receiving the
information that was provided to the co-chairs. He related that
the correspondence from the coastal districts about HB 106 is
universal in wanting the ACMP to be extended. However, the
districts also want some returns to pre-2003, such as a return
of the [Coastal Policy] Council so that the districts can have
legitimate local input. He inquired whether these returns to
pre-2003 have been considered for the legislation or whether
[DCOM] only wants the extension.
MR. BATES, returning to the prior question, asked whether
Representative Herron's request for information is the material
that was provided to the co-chairs, which was data relating to
consistency reviews for the past 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON repeated that the committee has received
written testimony from the districts stating that they want a
return to some of the issues as they were prior to House Bill
191, such as a Coastal Policy Council. He asked whether HB 106
does this.
MR. BATES again returned to Representative Herron's prior
question [about specific examples of delayed or stopped
projects], saying that he is trying to ascertain whether the
data provided to the co-chairs is the information that
Representative Herron is looking for.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the information received by the
co-chairs was basically a data dump of all of the permits that
were issued in the past, not a list of projects that were
analyzed or delayed. The co-chairs did not provide copies to
the other members because of the large volume of copying that
would have been involved; also, the data would not be meaningful
to the request that Representative Herron has at this time.
2:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reiterated that all the districts want the
ACMP to be extended, so that is not the issue. But, they also
want to see a return to some of the other items, including a
[Coastal Policy Council] to provide legitimate, genuine, local
input. He asked whether such a provision is included in HB 106.
MR. BATES said it is fortunate that all the coastal districts,
as well as others, support extending the program because it is
valuable and meaningful at the local level. At the state level
it is a meaningful opportunity to influence federal activities
and federal agency permit activities, particularly on federal
land and waters. The governor is not proposing any statutory
amendments to the ACMP through HB 106, it is an extension only.
[The department] understands that Representative Joule, and
possibly members of the other body, may be submitting bills
proposing substantive amendments to the ACMP. He continued:
"The governor and the department's engagement on any proposed
amendments to the ACMP will be guided by the following four
principles: the ACMP must maintain a predictable process, the
ACMP must be maintained as a strong state program where
participant input is valued, the ACMP standards and enforceable
policies must be objective and must not duplicate or re-define
existing authorities, and coastal districts should be afforded a
meaningful role for input on projects but should not possess a
veto decision over projects."
2:16:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON commented that he does not think any
district wants veto power or local control, they just want
legitimate and genuine local input. He said he reads the audit
to suggest four years, but the governor is asking for six years
and a senate bill is proposing one year.
MR. BATES answered that the governor put forward six years
largely based on the years 2005-2011 and 2011-2017. Six years
seemed reasonable for a future legislature to determine whether
the program is functioning effectively and whether it should be
continued or terminated. There is not much difference between a
four year extension and a six year extension other than [the
division] does not want to go through this too often just to
determine the value of the ACMP. A one year extension is
challenging for the administration to consider because staff and
the program need some security to be able to get down to
business. Two issues are at stake: extension of the program
and program change. [The division] does not want the program
survivability linked to program change because they are separate
issues and [the division] wants to deal with them separately to
the extent possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON disagreed that the two issues can be
severed from one another, and specified that the length of the
extension and the concerns addressed by many people are truly
non-severable.
2:19:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how many local enforceable policies
existed prior to 2003 and, of those, how many exceeded state and
federal law or regulation.
MR. BATES replied he does not have the number at the top of his
head, but he believes that the Division of Legislative Audit
calculated those numbers and made some percentage remarks. In
further response, he agreed to follow up with this information.
For clarification of Representative Munoz's question, he noted
that in 2005 [Senate Bill 102] immediately terminated any
district enforceable policies that were rendered duplicative
with existing state or federal law. While the division did not
cull the policies at that time, that bill had a significant
effect on the district policies. He presumed that the next
number Representative Munoz might be thinking of is the number
of policies that the division finally approved in district
plans.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed that she would like to be able to
compare how many policies existed prior to 2003 and how many
remained in place after the change.
MR. BATES said he will follow up in this regard.
2:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER read from a letter written to Mr. Bates
on 1/27/11 by Representatives Herron and Foster which asks why
ACMP Section 306 funds cannot be used for contracts. She then
read from pages 5 and 6 of Mr. Bates's 2/24/11 response to that
letter which discuss the $250,000 that could not be accounted
for by the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA).
She inquired whether this issue was due to lack of experience in
leadership or malfeasance.
MR. BATES responded that some of these long-standing financial
issues with the Bering Straits CRSA were just resolved and the
CRSA was funded again within the last month, which means the
Bering Straits CRSA is now back on track as a full participant
in the program. In a program financial audit of the Bering
Straits CRSA the independent auditor found that a little over
$250,000 could not be accounted for. Over the course of three
fiscal years there were no check stubs or check history of how
the money was spent. As the program facilitator and
implementer, the division took that issue seriously and shared
it with the Department of Law. After looking at the issue, no
criminal or civil proceedings were taken. The goal was to get
the CRSA cleared of charges and back on track to receive funding
as a full participant in the ACMP.
2:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to Co-Chair Feige,
reiterated that this issue is discussed in a 1/27/11 letter to
Mr. Bates and in his response of 2/24/11. She inquired whether
the $250,000 was used appropriately but the record keeping was
shoddy, or was there concern that the money had been used
inappropriately.
MR. BATES answered he does not think it his place to cast doubt
or make judgment, but that [DCOM] recognizes there was a problem
in terms of financial accountability. The personnel
representing the Bering Straits worked well on the program.
After the Bering Straits audit was finished, audits were
performed on the other three CRSA's because the four CRSA's are
entities solely for purposes of coastal management and have no
other organizational structure to them. [The division] funds
them with $73,000 to $75,000 a year for staff time, a
bookkeeper, and office space, and they have a minimal matching
requirement of about 25 percent. The other 24 coastal districts
are municipalities that are under control of their Title 29
municipal authorities and as such they are accountable for their
monies and are audited on a regular basis.
2:27:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood Mr. Bates to be saying he
cannot answer or is unable to answer the question about whether
the $250,000 was used appropriately for the coastal zone
management program.
MR. BATES replied he does not have an answer as to whether it
was spent appropriately. The money was not identified as to
where it went, how it went, and how it was used, so it is
difficult to make any judgments and it is not necessarily [the
division's] place to do so. There is no information to suggest
it was inappropriately spent. [The division] wanted to get the
Bering Straits CRSA's programmatic bookkeeping in line so that
it could receive monies again. When the issues came out, [DCOM]
terminated the opportunity for that CRSA to receive any further
funding until the issues could be resolved and financial
controls put in place so the CRSA could operate effectively and
efficiently utilizing [the division's] monies as well as any
other monies.
2:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Ms. Wolter of the
Department of Law had heard her question.
LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
responded that this was originally referred to the Criminal
Division and she is in the Civil Division, so she did not really
participate in the review of this particular issue and cannot
comment very deeply on it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to a letter from Mr. Bates,
noted that the issue was sent to Ms. Wolter after a
determination that criminal prosecution was not warranted. She
said she would like some confirmation that the $250,000 was not
misused or that if it was misused there was some sort of
consequence. She inquired whether Ms. Wolter can assure her
that this issue was not brushed under the rug.
MS. WOLTER answered she wishes she could make that assurance.
She recalled that there was some ability to piece together some
of the money and how it was spent, although not nearly the total
of $250,000. This lessened the concern that the funds were
inappropriately spent as opposed to just not maintaining the
bookkeeping. Thus, the goal was to get the CRSA back up and
running rather than determining how the rest of the money was
spent, given there are no records to prove either way what
happened to the money. In further response, she agreed to call
Representative Gardner's office to let her know whom to contact
for an answer in this regard.
2:32:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood from Mr. Bates that the audit report
has a number of recommendations for the program's problems, but
it does not suggest that those problems be fixed statutorily.
He recalled Mr. Bates saying that [DCOM] might do something
programmatically or through regulations or procedures, but that
it has yet to consider any such changes. He inquired why the
committee should have any confidence that without statutes the
problems will be fixed if the program is extended six years
given that [the division] has made no effort or determination to
make those fixes.
MR. BATES said the words he used earlier did not appropriately
characterize [DCOM's] response to the audit. One audit
recommendation is to do the consistency review regulations, and
those regulations are prepped and ready to go out for public
review, but [the division] has held off on them to see how this
legislative process goes. The division is at the ready to
address legislative inquiries and, while not overwhelmed, that
has necessitated putting those regulations off a little bit.
Another audit recommendation is to [complete] the ABC List, the
list of expedited consistency reviews, and a process for this
was begun within the last month. The audit also talks about
transparency of [DCOM's] functions with the working group.
Monthly working group meetings are held, but [the division] has
a bit of concern with the audit in terms of transcribing or
taking minutes from a working group function when it is [DCOM's]
opinion that that is not necessarily a productive use of state
time and the working group was not necessarily set up to do
that. [The division] is looking at ways to meet more
effectively with the working group and is intending to use the
working group as part of the regulation review committee. Two
tape recorders have been purchased to tape the meetings and, as
necessary, to transcribe them or rebuild the meeting dialogue.
The audits are important to [DCOM] and have not been shelved.
He pointed out that the audits are relatively new, with one
audit dated the first week of January and the second dated the
first week of February [2011], and they are being considered in
terms of what the division can do and what the legislature might
want to do.
2:36:22 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON observed that page 24 of the first audit states
that the Department of Natural Resources recognizes that the
district plan requirements contained in 11 AAC 114 are more
stringent than intended under House Bill 191. He inquired
whether the department is doing anything to roll that back,
given it recognizes that it has gone beyond the statute.
MR. BATES replied that he is on record in previous testimony
stating that what was contemplated statutorily was implemented
in a more stringent fashion through the regulations. The
regulations are still compliant and fully supported by the
statutes, but the way the regulations were manifested as they
were written they became more stringent by a variety of
different factors. When House Bill 191 went into effect in
2003, [the department] did not know that a state cannot regulate
that which the Marine Mammal Protection Act already regulates,
but the division knows that now. That is the type of issue that
has been so challenging and that has made these regulations more
limiting than what was contemplated back in 2003. The ACMP
regulations include state standards at 11 AAC 112 and they
include the coastal planning processes at 11 AAC 114. Those are
processes that the department could initiate changes to. And,
yes, the department is considering those and is considering how
to address some of the suggestions within the audit, whether it
be procedural or whether it be regulation, and, as supported by
the governor, [the department] is willing to engage
constructively with interested parties on statutory amendments.
2:39:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated he is confused that it is being said
statutory changes are not needed for the problems identified by
the audit; yet, what is being seen is that if they are not done
by statute, the probability is that [the division] is not going
to do them in its regulations or procedures. Throughout this
time the division has not backed off from a more stringent
interpretation than what is in statute. So, it seems that
[legislators] are left with the need to incorporate changes into
statute; otherwise, what is intended in the statute is not going
to be followed. He asked whether he is misunderstanding what is
being said.
MR. BATES responded that he values Co-Chair Seaton's opinion and
recognizes the changes that the co-chair might like to see.
Every person and district would like to see something out of the
coastal program. While contemplating changes back in 2008 under
the re-evaluation, [DCOM] realized that it could not achieve
consensus on program change because there are so many parties
and they are affected so significantly with even one minor
tweak. It is a package program and [the division] is trying to
find the right mix of process and regulation that will relieve
and resolve these issues. He said he understands that the
perspective of legislators is to change the statutes if [the
division] does not get it right. The department wants to make
sure that the program as a whole is designed to be most
effective for the residents of the state and appropriate given
all the interests that are out there, and that the changes are
relatively consensus driven.
2:42:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mr. Bates disagrees with the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comment cited at
the top of page 28 of the first audit that states "... the
current standard makes protecting the ecological integrity of
the coastal habitats nearly impossible ...."
MR. BATES said it is not his place to disagree with the comments
because those are the comments by a staff person at EPA who
feels passionately one way or the other. In its comments back
to the Division of Legislative Audit, [the division] pointed out
that to have a viable coastal program approvable under the
Coastal Zone Management Act it must demonstrate comprehensive
and robust habitat management. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, [the
division] demonstrated comprehensive habitat management when it
showed the OCRM the state authorities that are incorporated into
the ACMP, the state standards that address habitat, and the
important habitat that is the state standard at 11 AAC 112.300;
these were further supplemented by district enforceable
policies. There is no question that some folks would like to
see an even greater degree of habitat management in the state.
However, [the division] must find that balance where there is
predictability and responsiveness in a program that affects
everybody so significantly.
2:45:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the $250,000 is for one
year or the total for three years.
MR. BATES answered that it was about $250,000 over the course of
the three fiscal years of 2003, 2004, and 2005.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not understand why a
coastal district could not use those funds to hire a consultant,
but she does understand why [the division] thinks there has to
be a person in the community who is the point person. It seems
to her that the majority of the program is okay, but that the
subsistence is not. She asked how long would take to re-do just
the subsistence part.
MR. BATES explained that one of the funding opportunities under
the ACMP is the Section 309 funding, which is federal funding
specific to program changes, such as efforts that would result
in a change to an enforceable policy, state standard, or
particular implementation technique. [The division] provides
funding for all of the coastal districts and state agencies to
make these types of program changes and once the Bering Straits
CRSA has its district on line, is accepting funds again, and
gets its existing plan in place, [the division] can consider
funding the CRSA for these types of program changes to
incorporate subsistence information into its plan, to revise the
plan, or to enhance it in terms of designated areas or
enforceable policies. Under [the division's] own project this
past year, it identified and compiled relevant and appropriate
subsistence information on behalf of, and accessible to, the
districts; thus, when they want to do a plan revision that
information is already blessed and available and it is an
incorporation process. There is a public process associated
with that type of program change, and depending on the magnitude
of the change, that process will take two to two and a half
years just to make sure that the local communities and the
affected public have the right opportunity to participate. That
is the same timeframe that the program has had since before
1997.
2:49:42 PM
MR. BATES, responding to a further question from Representative
P. Wilson, confirmed that a district would only have to re-do
parts of its plan and not the whole thing. At this point the
districts will have a fully approved coastal plan and will be
able to target a revision, such as revising one policy, a
chapter, or the information within the plan. [The division]
would work with the districts, and for this type of effort would
support a district hiring a consultant to shepherd it through
the process.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding a plan that had incorrect
wording for subsistence, asked whether [the division] would show
a district the wording that was correct in other district plans
so the district could use that wording to revise its own plan.
MR. BATES replied, "Plagiarism at its best." Environmental
impact statements are full of good information related to
habitat, fish, wildlife, and so forth, and [the division] is
gathering as much meaningful information as it can for districts
to utilize in either developing a designated area for
subsistence use or enforceable policies related to that
subsistence use.
2:51:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether there have been projects
opposed by the local districts that were allowed to proceed.
MR. BATES allowed there are projects around the state that he is
aware of, with a recent one in Juneau. Many times when a
district feels it cannot provide alternative measures which
would modify a project into compliance, it will simply object to
the project. His agency affords due deference to the state
agency or district; so, while a local district may object to a
particular project, [DCOM] would provide the district comments
to the state agency with greater expertise or responsibility and
ask for some position to help [the division] craft a final
determination. [The division's] goal with consistency reviews
is certainly not to object to projects, it is to modify them
into consistency so that economic development occurs in the
state while protecting and preserving the coastal uses and
resources that are important.
2:55:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked Mr. Bates to cite some examples of
projects that were not supported locally but that received a go-
ahead.
MR. BATES responded that he believes one such project was along
Lemon Creek in Juneau. He recalled that he and Representative
Munoz might have been at the creek at the same time to look at
whether that activity was an emergency activity that required
immediate repair within two to three days. Although the city
was not available at the time of his visit, he is very aware
that the City and Borough of Juneau had some serious concerns
with the issuance of a permit and a consistency finding for that
project. While the city's concern was understood, either [DCOM]
or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game determined that placing
riprap on a stream bank was necessary to protect the life and
property of nearby residences. Other such projects are offshore
oil and gas development where a particular district might have
objected to an activity, but [the division] was able to resolve
the matter and issue a consistent finding. He offered to do a
review and provide a list of these types of projects.
2:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired, in general, whether the objection
of the local district causes the project not to happen.
MR. BATES answered that the coordination process requires that
public notice be given and public comment solicited. Within the
context of a consistency review, a coastal district and state
agencies would look at a project, and 30 days later submit their
comments to [DCOM]. By regulation, those comments must be in a
particular form: they either concur with the project and say it
is consistent with the ACMP standards and policies, or they
object to it and submit alternative measures suggesting how to
modify the project to allow it to proceed. A district that
submits an objection with no alternative measures is challenging
because what it is saying is that there is no way to stipulate
this project into compliance to allow it to move forward. That
is certainly a position of some of the districts, and it is
certainly an option for them. As the coordinating agency, if
[DCOM] determines the project does not comply, it would issue an
objection to a final consistency. As a coordinating agency,
[DCOM] must work with the district and must also do an
evaluation determining compliance with each of the state
standards and district policies that might be applicable. So, a
district or state agency may disagree, but [DCOM's] rationale
will be included as a legal document within the determination
demonstrating how and why [the division] found it consistent
with that standard or that policy.
2:58:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated he does not have a good understanding of
how the coastal zone program works under current regulations and
would like to see some flowcharts showing examples of large and
small projects from the past, the participants, and timelines.
He further requested that the legislative auditor be asked to
provide an explanation of the audit and what the recommendations
mean.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred, saying the committee would benefit
from a step-by-step explanation of the mechanics of the program
and the process that people seeking consistency reviews have to
go through.
[HB 106 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HRES 3.7.11 HB 97 Extend Invasive Plants Law.PDF |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| HRES 3.7.11 HB 106 Coastal Management Program.PDF |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/28/2011 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| ACMP Final Evaluation June 2008.pdf |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRES 3.7.11 DNR Response to Rep. Foster-Herron Letter.PDF |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LB&A ACMP Audit Report Part 1.pdf |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LB&A ACMP Audit Report Part 2.pdf |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRES 3.7.11 HB97 Perception of an Invasive Species.PDF |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |
| HRES 3.7.11 HB97 Report on AK Invasive Plant Project.pdf |
HRES 3/7/2011 1:00:00 PM SFIN 4/16/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 97 |