Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
01/29/2008 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB161 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 161-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 161.
3:41:59 PM
GINNY AUSTERMAN, Staff to Chair Olson, Alaska State Legislature,
said in 2003, HB 191 instituted significant changes to the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The bill was sponsored
by governor Murkowski, and it restricted participation by local
communities in coastal activities, including the review of
permitted activities. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) then adopted regulations that severely limited the ability
of coastal districts to establish enforceable policies to
address impacts of projects on coastal resources. Those changes
stimulated a formal review by the federal Office of Oceans and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) as to its compliance with the
National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). Final acceptance of the
new ACMP did not occur until December, 2005. Since then,
Alaska's coastal districts have faced continuous controversy and
confrontation with the Office of Program Management and
Permitting (OPMP) in the DNR in achieving suitable management
plans. The DNR regulations go beyond the intent of HB 191. The
OPMP interpretations have inhibited some coastal districts from
getting approval of their plans. Disputes used to be amicably
resolved by the Coastal Policy Council, a body made up of state
and coastal district representatives. HB 191 disbanded the
council and now all decision-making powers are concentrated in a
single agency. SB 161 is an attempt to correct the inadequacies
of the sweeping changes. "I do not wish to turn back the clock
to what was before; instead this bill retains the program in the
DNR while resolving some of the major problems with the changes
to the coastal program." It will achieve a better balance and a
better relationship between coastal communities and the state.
3:44:15 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 161, version 25-LS0883\C, Bullock, as a working document.
Hearing no objections, Version C was before the committee.
3:45:22 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he was a fan of the Coastal Policy Council
that was disbanded by HB 191. How does SB 161 resolve that?
MS. AUSTERMAN said SB 161 will bring back the council. It is a
starting point to repair some of what has happened since the
council was disbanded.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the council will be like it was before.
MS. AUSTERMAN said it remains to be seen.
3:47:02 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
(DCOM), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said his division
is newly established.
The committee took a short recess.
3:48:37 PM
MR. BATES said he has worked ten years in the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) and was the deputy director of the
agency implementing the ACMP for over four years. He referenced
a letter to Chair Olson from DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin. Mr.
Bates will discuss the challenges of implementing ACMP changes;
ways to improve the program; and DNR comments on Version C.
MR. BATES said in February 2003, Governor Murkowski introduced
Executive Order 106, which moved the ACMP out of the Governor's
office and into the DNR, and it created problems. Exempt
employees were reclassified into the unionized system. "We had
to interview for our own positions; in many cases those of us
had been in those jobs for 4, 5, 10, 15 years. We had to compete
with everybody else for our jobs. Interestingly, we had to
integrate into DNR." He said it was a very good move. There is
synergy created through the ACMP and the divisional structure of
DNR. "We are pleased to be there, but it certainly took some
happening - new letterhead for example." HB 191 was enacted in
May of 2003, SB 102 in 2005, and SB 46 in 2007. All called for
some form of reform of the ACMP. In a very short timeframe the
statutes and three chapters of regulations were revised. The
revisions mandated district plan revisions and amendments. Two
of the bills gave extensions for district plan deadlines.
Revisions to the ABC list were mandated and a 2011 sunset
provision for the ACMP was included. Amongst all of that, the
federal granting agency, the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM) in NOAA, had final approval over any
changes in the program. That review and approval process
included an environmental impact statement. Amazingly, the
federal agency was able to do it in six months. It moved the
program forward at that point.
3:52:57 PM
MR. BATES said that magnitude of programmatic changes caused a
variety of problems. The turmoil caused a 95 percent turnover in
staff since 2003. There were more than 100 recruitments for 30
staff. For three years, every third desk and workload had two
employees. It was difficult to recruit and retain people and
have them embrace the revisions while working with the coastal
districts and federal government. He is pleased with his staff
because it was a herculean effort.
3:54:24 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for an organization chart. He asked if
OPMP is part of his group.
MR. BATES said he will provide charts. The challenge that SB 161
addresses are the district plan revisions. There was a very
short timeframe to write the guiding regulations for the
districts. The regulations had to be overhauled while helping
the districts in preparing the mandated amendments to their
programs. The ACMP regulations ended up more stringent than what
was intended under HB 191. Coastal districts were limited in
their ability to craft enforceable policies that address coastal
uses and resources that were important to the local residents.
This limitation manifested itself into severely strained
relationships between OPMP [Office of Project Management and
Permitting], DCOM, and many districts. This also resulted in
district apathy toward the program. The revisions were an
enormous workload for him. "It was done to the best of our
ability given the staff that we had at the time." There are 28
coastal districts participating in coastal management, and that
means that 28 complied under HB 191 to submit revisions. Of
those, 16 have been through the DNR and OCRM review and approval
process and are in effect. Activities that occur in those
municipalities of coastal districts must be compliant with the
district enforceable policies.
3:57:25 PM
MR. BATES said there are four plans that should have approval by
early February. There are five plans pending submission to OCRM,
and there are three outstanding plans whereby the districts have
elected to mediate the commissioner's decision on their plans.
3:58:28 PM
MR. BATES said he has four suggestions. With the approval of
Governor Palin, Commissioner Irwin split the OPMP into two. One
became the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) and
the other division remains the OPMP. Within the original OPMP,
there were two budgetary components. One was for large resource
development projects. The other component was the ACMP, and that
was moved into its own division called Coastal and Ocean
Management (DCOM). DCOM implements the ACMP, the Coastal Impact
Assistance program (a $3 or $4 million grant to the state), the
coastal and estuarine land conservation acquisition program that
is run through NOAA, and it tracks and addresses initiatives
that affect Alaska's oceans.
4:00:48 PM
MR. BATES said the ACMP is elevated within the divisional
structure to its level of importance. Coastal districts can talk
directly to the director, and it provides an easier chain of
command to the commissioner. Mr. Bates said his office is
working on stabilizing staffing and the workloads. Out of 35
positions, 32 are filled. Many staff are brand new, so training
is ongoing. He is working with other state agencies so that the
ACMP is implemented uniformly and consistently.
4:02:46 PM
MR. BATES said relationships with the coastal districts are
improving and not as conflicted. The third way of trying to
improve the program is the legislatively mandated revision of
the ABC list. It is a list of expedited consistency reviews
under the ACMP. It houses routine and de minimus projects that
qualify based on standard "stips." It allows the program to
focus on more complex, controversial projects. The quicker that
is done, the better off everyone is.
MR. BATES said the reevaluation of the ACMP regulations is
substantive to this hearing. There have been challenges and he
recognizes that the regulations are more stringent than HB 191
intended. DNR will look at what was done to see if the
promulgation of the regulations governing district plans was
appropriate and what can be done to improve the program.
Commissioner Irwin intends to formally and openly reevaluate the
regulations, and he will include the coastal districts, public,
industry, agency, and applicants. There will be an open dialogue
to re-craft the regulations and improve the program.
4:05:34 PM
MR. BATES said, "We have recognized this as a high priority." It
is built into a five-year document in order to have funding. "We
are committed to this" so that the regulations work for
everyone. Regarding SB 161, much of it was recommended by the
coastal districts. These issues that the districts have raised
are legitimate and important, and DNR is taking them seriously
and addressing many of them. "We look forward to making progress
with the coastal districts to improve the ACMP." SB 161 will
address issues by amending statutes, but some of the issues
should be dealt with through regulation revisions - that DNR is
contemplating -- and through dialogue with the districts.
4:07:34 PM
MR. BATES said he is concerned that parts of the bill will
"derail the progress that we're making." He generally
understands what is proposed in the bill, but he wants to
understand the sponsor's intent for each section. "I would also
appreciate a specific example that led to the crafting of the
amendment." He asked for the logic behind it.
CHAIR OLSON asked what amendment he is speaking to.
MR. BATES said any of the proposed changes within the CS. There
are no amendments on the table; he is talking about the proposed
changes in the bill.
4:09:02 PM
CHAIR OLSON said the bill was put forward because it was evident
that after HB 191 people had no say. Progress from the
department was lacking. It was not just his district, but
throughout the state. People say the rules keep changing. "If
that is not clear to you, I will state it again." He asked about
the 28 districts and the 16 that have been approved.
MR. BATES said 16 are approved through DNR and OCRM. Three are
under mediation. Once a district got through the submission of
their district plan amendment, DNR evaluated its compliance with
the ACMP standards and district enforceable policy rules. He
developed a recommendation for the commissioner, and the
commissioner signed off on the DCOM recommendation. For these
three districts, DNR approved some of the enforceable policies
in designated areas and disapproved others. At that time, each
coastal district has the regulatory option of selecting
mediation to resolve the issue with a mutually agreed upon
mediator. He gave examples of two successful mediations: Juneau
and Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area.
MR. BATES said the mediator sets the ground rules. It is not
typical mediation as under a labor dispute. They talk about the
requirements under the ACMP and what the coastal district wants.
For Juneau and Bristol Bay, a compromise was reached. He
explained that districts have to comply with certain
requirements and gave the example of mapping issues and how big
a legend needs to be or what colors are used. Regarding
enforceable policies, if a policy was adequately addressed by
another law, a coastal district cannot write a policy. For
example, the coastal districts cannot manage wetlands because
the Army Corps of Engineers does.
4:13:59 PM
MR. BATES said, "To the extent we were able to come to a
compromise for the coastal districts on their mapping issues and
their district policies, we craft that compromise, come to an
agreement, and we finalize their plan, and then we both sign off
on it." That happened in Juneau and Bristol Bay, he said. The
state viewed the mediation a success, and the coastal districts
certainly got more than what they originally had. He hopes the
coastal districts found it to be successful as well. There are
three districts: North Slope Borough, Northwest Arctic Borough,
and the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area that have
requested mediation. As soon as everyone can get together,
"we'll make progress."
CHAIR OLSON asked how long until a final outcome.
MR. BATES said, by regulation, the mediation can last no longer
than 90 days, and that will start from the date the mediator
convenes the first session. The mediator has a busy schedule, so
everyone needs to find the right time.
4:15:51 PM
MR. BATES said it doesn't have to take as long as 90 days.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if OPMP has been divided in two.
MR. BATES said yes, both OPMP and DCOM are divisions.
SENATOR STEVENS asked about the Coastal Policy Council being
reinstated.
MR. BATES said DNR doesn't have a position on that. There are
some provisions in the CS that concern him, including technical
flaws. He doesn't know why the sponsor wants to reconvene the
council.
4:17:44 PM
SENATOR THOMAS said the Interior doesn't have these problems. He
asked what criteria are used to rate projects to lessen the
workload.
MR. BATES said Fairbanks has a watershed that drains into the
coastal zone. There are two types of projects that are on the
ABC list. One is the A list, which are projects with no coastal
impacts, like burning garbage in a certain sized drum. The next
set of projects includes routine ones that can be made
consistent with standard alternative measures or stipulations.
Ice roads in the Arctic, for example, are routine even though
they have coastal effects. Certain stipulations can be applied
so that the projects don't have to go through the 50-day
consistency review. They can get it done the day they walk in
the door; the ACMP process is streamlined.
4:20:21 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what regulations are more stringent than
HB 191 called for.
MR. BATES agreed the regulations are more stringent. The
administration had testified about the possibility of
enforceable policies with regard to subsistence, habitat, and
other issues important to the coastal districts. DNR fully
expected that these types of enforceable policies could be
written by the coastal districts. The regulations themselves
became tighter, such that those enforceable policies were no
longer allowed. "They did not comply with the rules that were
written guiding the development of district enforceable
policies. So, particularly, the chapter of regulation 11AAC114
is the chapter that tightened up the district policies." DNR
wants to reevaluate the state standards to see if they can let
the districts write more policies, without duplicating state or
federal law. HB 191 was designed to get rid of duplication and
overlap between district policies and agency policies. Who do
you give deference to? It is probably the agency with the
authority. [The regulations] got rid of the duplication that was
out there. He wants the districts to be able to address what is
important to them, but it needs to "be considerate of what some
of the important issues were under 191."
4:23:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked when the regulations will be rewritten.
MR. BATES said the sooner the better, but the commissioner wants
experience with implementing the reform of the ACMP first. This
June, DNR will take a break from revisions and implement the
program for a period of time "just to get some experience
implementing it the way it was designed under HB 191. We know
there's flaws, but let's get experience -- be able to identify
the gaps so that when we come back, we're able to clearly and
articulately define what we have to do to change the program."
He referred to the letter from Chair Olson to the commissioner.
4:24:58 PM
MR. BATES noted that Chair Olson doesn't want to wait that long
for the reevaluation. Mr. Bates doesn't have a timeframe in
mind, but he wants to finish the ABC list, and that will be in
June. Staffing is a problem for coordinating with the districts
and getting their input. He wants to dedicate them as he needs
to in order to be successful. Waiting a year after June is not
good enough, but it is workload dictated. "We have a good plan
in place." The CS and the creation of a Coastal Policy Council
will take his focus away from what he is working on.
4:26:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON said he can empathize, but there are coastal
districts that are confused. He noted that Mr. Bates said he
didn't have a timeframe, but Chair Olson understands it to be a
year after June 30, and that is unworkable. That is one reason
for SB 161. [The timeframe] is uncalled for.
SENATOR WAGONER said this seems like a recurring nightmare. All
the districts agreed that if they were given an extension they
could all have the plans in.
4:27:55 PM
MR. BATES said SB 102 and SB 46 were sponsored by Chair Olson,
and they extended the district deadlines. It is important to
know the deadline was the submission of the plan, not the final
approval, which is where we are now. Most districts met the
deadline. The remaining three did not meet it.
SENATOR WAGONER said that he is being asked to make changes
again. "I've never been one to put something in place and before
it gets finalized, want to start changing it again."
4:29:25 PM
TERI CAMERY, Planner, City and Borough of Juneau, said she has
been involved in the coastal plan since 2000. There have been
changes and drama in the last few years. She supports HB 161 and
appreciates Senator Olson's work on it. The changes are a
positive step in solving a lot of problems created by the
Murkowski administration. The Palin administration is willing to
work with local governments. The coastal program is a key
element in providing a coordinated review process and
facilitating involvement among all the reviewing entities. It
puts the permitting processes in one package and reduces time
for everyone. It is of great value. The major changes in SB 161
make a lot of sense. Putting DEC back into the process is
foremost. Taking DEC out in 2003 mystified her. Removing air and
water quality from the review creates a whole range of problems.
A person can't even determine the scope of the project. "If you
can't include air and water quality issues how can you tell
what's under review in the first place?"
4:32:22 PM
MS. CAMERY said it is confusing for coastal districts and DNR
staff in determining what is under review. How are the other
reviewing entities able to separate out air and water quality
from their review? There are no habitat issues that do not
affect water quality in some form or another. She said it has
screwed up the review process. Juneau has five impaired salmon
streams, and DEC is required to put together a TMDL [total
maximum daily load] document to determine how that impaired
water body is managed. Development along that stream clearly
requires the TMDL document for the ACMP review. There was a
recent case about a controversial project that was going to have
a direct impact on such a salmon stream. It was approved through
the full ACMP process, and then DEC denied the project with good
reason. It threw a wrench into the process and did no favors to
the applicant. She sees that problem on a regular basis.
MS. CAMERY said the Coastal Policy Council is critical because
it provides broader representation in the program. If there is
controversy, it doesn't make sense to consolidate all authority
in a single agency. The Murkowski administration wanted to
consolidate that power and authority, but Governor Palin is
taking a very different perspective. Reinstating the council is
an important part of that. SB 161 will give it the same
representation as the former council, including district
representation, agency members, and the DNR commissioner. It
will give a much more balanced view on controversial topics, but
it won't change the day-to-day implementation of the ACMP, which
should stay in the hands of the agency. The changes regarding
district policy approval are important. Clarifying that
districts can have policies that don't specifically duplicate
state and federal law is in the current plan, but there is a
whole bunch of other language that muddies that.
4:36:21 PM
MS. CAMERY said DNR had a bad bill followed by bad regulations,
and they were charged with implementation. It is very hard to
come up with consistent interpretations, but the changes in SB
161 go a long way toward clarity. In Juneau, the simple
statement of "districts may have policies that don't duplicate
state or federal law" in combination with illuminating the very,
very strict requirements on designations would have taken two
years off of the plan approval process. Juneau did go through
mediation successfully, but it was a difficult process. It was
unnecessary because the case was there from the very beginning,
but everyone was suffering from a badly written law and badly
written regulations. These changes are too important to be left
for regulations and need to be put into statute immediately for
the benefit of the applicant, reviewing agencies, and districts.
4:37:58 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked her opinion on the mediation process, other
than her view that parts of it were unnecessary. He asked if she
understands what is happening with the other three districts.
MS. CAMERY said it was challenging and took a long time just to
get the mediation set up in the first place. She was pleased
with the mediator, but there was a lot of frustration. The
changing interpretations continued through the mediation
process. The issues that Juneau started out with were not the
issues they debated at the end. "We did not have the same
reasons for denial of our policies that we started out with. So
it was difficult and frustrating." It worked out in the end. She
is not familiar with the other districts. Juneau was very
specific on focusing on the Juneau wetland plan.
4:39:49 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said the policy council seems critical as a
forum and not a power over DNR. If it were reinstated would it
be a threat to DNR or just be more of a forum?
MS. CAMERY said she believes the council would have a critical
role in plan approval, but the DNR commissioner is still
involved, so it is not taking away the commissioner's authority
so much as having broader democratic representation on areas
that may become controversial.
SENATOR STEVENS said he looks forward to hearing more about the
council, and he would not see it as a threat to DNR.
4:41:43 PM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director, North Slope Borough, Department of
Planning and Community Services, provided the following:
The North Slope Borough supports this draft of SB 161.
It would solve many of the problems we have faced
during the past few years as the Murkowski
Administration implemented changes to the Alaska
Coastal Management Program. While it may not restore
everything in the original program, this draft fixes
some aspects of the ACMP that fall far short of the
program's intent.
The Borough supports responsible resource development,
and for over 20 years, the ACMP helped to establish a
balance between development and protection of coastal
resources. The program was useful in gaining local
support for development projects, because it gave
local communities a forum for their concerns about
potential impacts.
Since the changes were implemented, the ACMP has lost
its balance and its ability to generate local support.
Almost all of our proposed enforceable policies have
been denied by the State, so we have been forced to
rely on our Title 19 planning and zoning processes.
While this permitting process is an effective tool, it
does not allow us the opportunities in the former
coastal management program to work cooperatively with
the state and federal agencies in developing
compatible permit stipulations.
The work draft before the committee would help restore
a meaningful ACMP. Most importantly, it would make
clear that coastal districts can establish meaningful
enforceable policies. We believe HB 191, passed in
2003, would have made this possible, but the
regulations adopted by the previous administration
eliminated this possibility. Only 4 of the 37 policies
we proposed for our coastal plan revision were
approved, and we were told that remaining policies
must be changed significantly before they could be
approved.
4:46:15 PM
The work draft also puts air and water quality permits
back into the ACMP process. Since the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation permits have
been removed from the consistency review process,
there has been a lot of confusion. I appreciate Teri's
comments on this. For example, we have been told that
we can no longer comment on the effects of a potential
oil spill on habitat or subsistence.
The Borough also supports the provision in the work
draft to reestablish the Coastal Policy Council. The
former council played a big role in achieving a policy
balance, because it was composed of both state
government staff and locally elected officials.
Finally, the work draft makes it clear that all Outer
Continental Shelf activities affecting coastal
resources or uses would be considered in ACMP reviews.
As a result of changes to the program in recent years,
some effects of offshore oil and gas activities are no
longer considered.
I am very encouraged by this work draft, and I hope
the committee will look favorably on it. Again, I
appreciate the chance to speak with you today. Thank
you, Mister Chairman. I look forward to a fair and
positive change.
4:48:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if Mr. Aiken knows that DNR intends to start
its formal evaluations of ACMP a year after June 2008.
GORDON BROWER, Land Management Regulations Manager, Planning and
Community Services, North Slope Borough, said it doesn't make
sense to test what DNR has done already. He said Mr. Bates has
been steering this "since back then," and the bar keeps
changing. "It changed the regulations on us." He said he would
really frown on waiting, and he suggested making legislative
changes that DNR will have to act on. From his experience, if it
is left up to regulations, it is easily altered.
4:50:40 PM
TOM OKLEASIK, Planning Director, Northwest Arctic Borough
(NWAB), Kotzebue, said the NWAB supports SB 161 because it will
resolve most of the problems the borough has had in getting
approval of its coastal management plan. The NWAB submitted its
draft in September 2006, but only 1 of 51 proposed enforceable
policies were approved, and all areas proposed for historic
designations were denied. Only one small subsistence use area
was approved. The borough is supportive of resource development,
but it needs to be in due consideration of issues and standards
of subsistence as well as other uses and resources. The people
are dependent on subsistence, and most of the subsistence areas
were denied, so the NWAB felt it had no choice but to ask for
mediation, which has not been approved. "We have been waiting
for two years." The bill will also fix three important problems
related to the implementation of the ACMP. It will make it clear
that the coastal districts can make meaningful enforceable
policies. The bill will also reinstate the formal Coastal Policy
Council and bring air and water quality issues back into the
ACMP consistency review process.
4:53:51 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked about mediation being the only way to appeal
some of these decisions.
MR. OKLEASIK said it is the first time the mediation process is
being used, "and that should tell you about the changes that
happened to the program under the last administration - there
was never a mediation before." The process is new, and it is
very time consuming. Consistency reviews don't wait and the work
piles up despite this additional process that is very slow.
4:55:02 PM
BUD CASSIDY, Planning Director, Kodiak Island Borough, said the
borough would support any bill that tries to achieve a more
balanced and cooperative relationship between the state and the
borough, which is rare now. Our role under the current plan will
be limited. Kodiak will have a seat at the table but will have
very little say except to quote state regulations and
regulations interpreted by the state, not the borough. He said
the local planning and zoning codes will serve better. The ACMP
program has become centralized. There are administrative
advantages for a one-size-fits-all program, but there are miles
of diverse coastline with diverse communities in Alaska, so it
does not work. "We want an opportunity to comment on projects."
The borough has local experts like Natives and fishers who need
to be consulted. He said Mr. Bate's comments about reevaluating
the program are heartening, but a timeline is needed. Kodiak has
a plan on its way to OCRM, but it is concerned about what is
really in the plan. "Our goal was to have a seat at the table."
4:57:24 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the Coastal Policy Council is an
efficient way to get local input and to find balance.
MR. CASSIDY said the council will consist of a diverse group of
individuals that would mediate conflicts. The less centralized
the program is, the better. That is where the Coastal Policy
Council fits in.
4:58:52 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal
District, said he supports SB 161. He appreciates the challenges
that the division director and his staff faced with HB 191, "but
it was a product of HB 191, which we are here to try and correct
in its essence and in its unanticipated consequences." Any set
of policies that have not been revised for 15 years, like
Kenai's coastal program, needs to be reconsidered. For that, HB
191 was good, but what was not good was how it dictated the
process. "Leaving aside the issue of the reasons the governor
and key legislators set out to eviscerate the ACMP, I'll just
focus on a couple of issues I found most difficult in the
process." The legislation gave the staff too little guidance on
what is precise and enforceable language. It is particularly
one-sided when the terms are not negotiable and more
particularly problematic when the language was more precise than
DNR would allow. HB 191 doesn't allow a district to have a
policy that is adequately addressed in state or federal law, and
"adequately" is the key word.
5:01:42 PM
MR. WILLIAMS said what someone in the DNR thinks is adequate may
differ from someone who is trying to write a policy for a
specific issue of local concern. "The word 'adequately' meant
only what DNR said it meant." Anyone who thinks HB 191 was a fix
for problems, needs to consider that the ACMP revisions still
haven't taken place. Despite having submitted the Kenai's
amendment in September of 2006, there is still no approved
program. It is pending at OCRM. The bill addresses these
problems and would create a Coastal Policy Council to manage the
ACMP. He said he supports the sponsor statement and the
statement of the Alaska Coastal District Association on
September 2007.
5:02:57 PM
LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Anchorage, said her read of the bill is that the duties of DCOM
are moved to the Coastal Policy Council. It is composed of nine
members of the public and five from state government, but it
doesn't say anything about the staff. Previously "the staff
would be what DCOM does. They were the ones that did the reviews
and wrote regulations, and it would be sort of filtered through
the council." The bill doesn't set it up that way but says the
commissioner will appoint the public members to the council.
"The council's going to be writing regulations and that sort of
thing, as currently written under the draft. Those appointments
need to be made by the governor not a commissioner." She said
there's never been any board or council that has public members
writing regulations unless they were appointed by a governor.
5:04:59 PM
CHAIR OLSON said he will look at that. People should realize
that Mr. Bates has superiors giving him directions, so he is in
a precarious position.
MR. BATES said he appreciates the testimony by the coastal
districts. He has heard it before and he has heard the pain.
What they address and what is being addressed in the bill is
real, but the agency is committed to looking at them. He said
there are challenges in the bill and unless he can work with the
committee, DNR can't have a position. He applauded the chair for
representing his constituents, creating this bill, and staying
interested.
5:07:09 PM
CHAIR OLSON said there will be staff time to fine tune it.
SENATOR STEVENS said he really likes the Coastal Policy Council;
it is a great forum to get communities involved. He wants to
make sure the bill accomplishes that because is a critical
element. It is a forum and is not meant to be a threat to DNR.
It is not his intention that the council would take over the job
of DNR, but it should play an important role. It allows for
balance and gives the communities a seat at the table. It
provides local knowledge and expertise. He doesn't want the
council picking up the duties of the staff, and he asked for Mr.
Bates to look at a way the council can return.
5:09:05 PM
MR. BATES said he will look at it, but Ms. Wolter brought up two
important points. There was a provision in the old statutes to
identify the former Division of Governmental Coordination as the
staff to the council, and without that, the council will meet to
decide the fate of each and every project. "I don't think that's
your intent." He said he knows how the councils did work and how
successful they were. He will look at it.
CHAIR OLSON held SB 161 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|