Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/26/1998 01:15 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business was 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 2339 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 28, version 0-LS0189\B, Glover, 2/20/98, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so adopted. Number 2376 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 28, explained when the bill was before the House Resources committee last year, it was an outright repeal of the program. In response to the testimony last year, federal funds and the coordination function of the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) would be retained under the proposed committee substitute. The local right of input would also be retained for state and federal permitted projects. TAPE 98-18, SIDE B Number 0000 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT continued. In reference to the zones, the proposed committee substitute would impact only 11 of the 30 or 35 coastal districts. He read the following verbiage from the federal government in 1976: "the landward extent of the coastal zone is to be determined by the state subject to statutory limitations. However, it is clear that the intent of Congress was for states to delineate boundaries with a relatively conservative approach including only those shore lands, the use of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal state." REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated the proposed committee substitute would still meet the standard. Information from DGC shows that the state had to make an argument with the federal government why it should go beyond the conservative wording. Therefore, dropping back to a more conservative approach would not cause the state any significant problems with continued federal recognition. Number 0087 SARA FISHER-GOAD, Legislative Assistant to Representative Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, stated she does not have anything to add to Representative Therriault's comments. She is here to answer any questions of the committee members. Number 0102 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked Representative Therriault whether he has been working with the Administration on this bill. Number 0117 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied he has been going back-and-forth with DGC, and has had numerous conversations with staff from the Governor's office. It is fair to characterize that there are differences in perspectives. Number 0130 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked Representative Therriault to address the concerns of the United Fishermen of Alaska in regards to the watershed. Number 0141 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied it is important to remember when the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) went into place in the mid-1970s, it was suppose to be a bridge over statutory gaps in environmental protections. Since that time numerous federal and state agencies' permitting requirements have come into being that offer additional protection such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Forest Practices Act, and Title 46. The protections have eliminated the gaps and offer enough overlap. There still needs to be an overall coordination function to make sure that applicants for multiple permits are not tied-up with each agency independently. It is somewhat separate, however, from the ACMP. The proposed committee substitute does not propose a deletion of the program, only some changes to the status quo. Number 0234 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS wondered whether programs such as the Forest Practices Act would take care of fish streams. He also wondered whether the proposed committee substitute would not lose the coordination of the ACMP, a concern of the city of Sitka. Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied the proposed committee substitute would retain coordination, access to federal funds, and the right of local people to comment on the consistency of their local coastal plan. The positives of the ACMP would be retained in the proposed committee substitute. Number 0291 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE stated the management plans for some areas took a lot of time and money. He asked Representative Therriault whether he would propose money in order to make the necessary changes, or would the expenses be left up to the coastal communities. Number 0314 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied the maps according to DGC are somewhat dated, but the geography and topography of the coastal areas have not changed much from when the initial zones were identified. The proposed committee substitute would only ask for the 11 districts that include the third zone to be dropped off. He is not sure whether there would be a lot of out-of-pocket expenses. It has not been shown, to his satisfaction, that a financial concern is real legitimate. He pledged to the committee members that it would be something the House Finance committee would address further. Number 0385 DIANE MAYER, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination (Juneau), Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, explained one of the primary duties of the division is to oversee the ACMP. The proposed committee substitute would affect the program substantively with administrative repercussions. Historically, in the 1970s Congress passed an act giving coastal states "power" over federal actions, permitting decisions, and money, if they did a coastal management program. The power is in the form of federal consistency. In other words, the federal government would come to the state before taking action to ensure it is as consistent as possible with the state's coastal management program. It is an enormous empowerment because Alaska is surrounded by an outer-continental shelf and there are a lot of federal lands along its coast. It is also used as a base for federal permitting. In 1975, the state legislature was interested in the empowerment of the act and debated the issue of either networking existing authorities or creating a separate coastal permit for two years. The federal government gave the state $2.6 million to debate the issue and continues to give money annually. The money is distributed to coastal communities, research agencies, and the agency to run the program. In 1984, the state legislature looked at the program again in terms of the consistency process. In 1994, the state legislature looked at it again refining it further. Each time there was a lot of debate and discussion because of the complex network of regulations involved. MS. MAYER stated the changes in the proposed committee substitute would be very significant. Section 2 would eliminate the zone of indirect influence. In the attempt to draw on some convenient mapping the state would have to go back to the lines drawn in 1977 because the maps are so crude. The division has estimated the cost to be over $1 million for the 11 districts to make the necessary changes. She is concerned about investing over $1 million in obsolete maps. The data set and technology have improved, therefore, it would lock the division into old data. Number 0923 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Mayer who would be required to rewrite the plans. Number 0927 MS. MAYER replied it would begin at the local government level eventually moving on to the state and federal levels. In addition, the proposed committee substitute would call for the 11 districts to make their changes in a 6-month time frame. To help meet the deadline, part of the $1 million cost would be in temporary personnel to help accelerate the mapping and public review process. The deadline is very, very tight and borders on being unrealistic. In addition, the number of consistency reviews may not decrease because when the boundary changes were made and accepted at the federal level there was an enormous amount of justification that went along with them. Most of the justifications were tied to the fisheries. Alaska argued for the protection and acknowledgment of salmon resources and their effects on the coastal economies. The proposed committee substitute would make the state go back to the federal government and argue the justifications for deleting the zone. Number 1110 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated the impact would only be to 11 districts, therefore, he questioned the $1 million figure. If a lot of the figure is derived from a compressed time line, he would entertain an amendment to stretch it out on a project-by-project basis for example. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT further stated there are instances where coastal councils reach outside of their existing zones. The proposed committee substitute would not curtail that ability, it would just say that their starting point is a more defined zone along the true coast of Alaska. Number 1169 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Representative Therriault whether a smaller area of jurisdiction would produce a cost savings in the agency and a less restrictive environment for Alaskan citizens and enterprises. Number 1201 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied, in regards to individual "permitees," if they fall outside of the more restricted zone they would not have to go through the ACMP. If they require a state permit, they would have to go through the state as usual. There is the potential for one less part of state government in terms of interaction, however. Number 1256 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Therriault whether he is postulating that the passage of the proposed committee substitute would reduce the operating expenses of the agency, after the transitional expense of about $1 million. Number 1280 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied, "Potentially." It is very hard to quantify, however. Ms. Mayer indicated most permits would not be impacted, therefore, most of the permits are not in the far reaches of the more restrictive zone at this time. Number 1311 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, if the proposed committee substitute would not save operating money in the long-term, and it is not presently impeding enterprise and citizen activity, he wondered why he was doing it. Number 1328 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied there are instances where the coastal zone reaches hundreds of miles into the Interior of Alaska. The legislature needs to make a policy call to determine whether that was the original intent and which part of Alaska should be swept in under the program. Number 1348 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated there is an agency going beyond its chartered purpose and wondered whether the proposed committee substitute would bring it "back on the reservation." REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied, "Yes." Number 1368 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Mayer whether the agency is reaching well beyond what was originally intended in the Coastal Zone Management Act. Number 1380 MS. MAYER replied Alaska is a large state. The nature of the maps and reaches have a strong link to anadromous fish streams. They are inland, but the federal government accepted them because of the fisheries link. MS. MAYER reiterated the only maps the division has are from 1977 and they are bad. They do not include township, range or anchor point. They were intended to be refined when local coastal districts did their programs. Right now, 13 of the districts are in some stage of having a geographic information system (GIS) using federal dollars. The Kenai Peninsula Borough has the most sophisticated system. The state will have to do some serious mapping anyway, and the proposed committee substitute would put a lot of money into obsolete data. Number 1540 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Mayer whether she reads the legislation as tying the state into the old maps. MS. MAYER replied, "Yes." The intent of the proposed committee substitute is to see a smaller coastal area of influence. As a policy matter, boundaries certainly can be discussed, but the attempted solution would tie the state to something that is on the books from 20 years ago. Number 1594 MS. MAYER further stated, in regards to the timing issue, an extension would not alter the process. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "The existing boundary was set as part of district program development and represents extensive issue, resource analysis, public involvement, and negotiation between this office and the state and the coastal district. In many cases the boundary was the most difficult issue to resolve during district program development. Nonetheless, working together we were successful in establishing a boundary that met state and local needs as well as the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) federal requirements. Any changes to the agreed upon district boundaries should be accomplished through a similar process of analysis, public involvement, and negotiation. In any case, at a minimum, a state's coastal boundary must encompass all the areas necessary to control uses which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Substantive changes to boundaries and authorities are specifically identified as two of the more significant types of program changes that would be subject to the amendment process described at 15 CFR 923 81-83." Therefore, there is nothing the state could do to avoid going through the process, and that would still be costly. Number 1721 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated he would have to evaluate the current dollar amount being expended on mapping with the further refinement of the mapping to determine whether the $1.1 million could be offset. Number 1752 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Ms. Mayer what would be the effect of the proposed committee substitute on the anadromous rivers. Number 1770 MS. MAYER replied the effect would require project proposals to be reviewed holistically. Number 1899 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Mayer whether she sees any potential loss of federal money received by the various communities. Number 1916 MS. MAYER replied the money would be threatened because the effect would be to argue that the boundaries are not significant. Number 2040 GAIL ALSTROM, Program Director, Cenaliulritt Coastal Management Program, testified via teleconference in Saint Marys. The program's goal is to achieve a balance between economic growth and resource protection. Cenaliulritt has managed to develop a plan specific to the area. It has been reviewed extensively by the public and forwarded to the state and federal government for approval. Ensuring a balance of local, state, and national interests, the process works to give every entity involved a fair voice in how the resources will and should be managed. Applications for projects are reviewed for consistency with the plan. At the local level, coastal management gives people a better understanding of the state and federal decision making processes, as well as encourages early and continuous consultation with local communities, government agencies, and the public to prevent or settle conflict. MS. ALSTROM further stated the proposed committee substitute would seriously harm the effectiveness of the coastal districts. It would reduce local influence in state and federal land management decisions, a limitation that is unacceptable. Specifically, Section 5 makes it unclear whether the powers granted by the ACMP to municipalities and Coastal Resource Service Areas (CRSA) would be changed, especially the authority to raise concerns during the consistency review. Cenaliulritt does not have independent zoning and planning powers to fall back on like municipalities have through Title 29. Without authority, CRSAs could not suggest stipulations for state and federal permits, and without authority to run their programs there is no reason for their existence. Section 6 would eliminate the process of petitioning for consistency determination appeals. Although it is not routinely used by Cenaliulritt, it does offer an opportunity when necessary to have its concerns heard fairly by the council, otherwise it would undermine the whole integrity and usefulness of the program. In closing, the district looks forward to the committee members opposing the proposed committee substitute. Number 2424 CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director, Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area, testified via teleconference in Unalakleet. The program is in opposition to the proposed committee substitute. There are many rivers in his area that carry salmon and other anadromous fish, an important coastal resource. TAPE 98-19, SIDE A Number 0000 MR. DEGNAN continued. The Bering Straits CRSA does not want the local knowledge cut off. The local people do not control how far the coastal resources go up river which determines the coastal zone. The program is wholeheartedly opposed to the reduction in the coastal zone boundary of the Bering Strait Coastal Resource Service Area. It would be a loss not only to the local people, but to the state as well. Number 0125 TINA ANDERSON, Coastal Coordinator, Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Program, testified via teleconference in Sand Point. The borough supports local involvement in state and federal land management decisions through the ACMP and opposes the changes by reducing its involvement. The proposed committee substitute would force the borough to reduce its coastal zone. The purpose of including all coastal zones is to effectively manage uses and activities that have or may have a direct impact on the marine coastal waters and anadromous streams. The borough's residents rely on salmon for commercial and subsistence uses and they should be able to influence the management of those uses within the boundary of the borough, including the zone of indirect influence. Number 0272 JIM VORDERSTRASSE, Mayor, city of Barrow, testified via teleconference in Barrow. He supports Gail Alstrom's comments from Saint Marys. The changes would limit the city's ability to comment on activities that might impact fisheries, and the bowhead whale hunt that are very important to the region. The city of Barrow is opposed to the bill. Number 0415 ALICE RUBY, Chair, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area; Director of Operations, Choggiung Limited, testified via teleconference in Dillingham. She agreed with Gail Alstrom's testimony from Saint Marys. The Bristol Bay CRSA encompasses a portion of an unincorporated borough including one first class city, five second class cities, two unincorporated cities, hundreds of acres of state lands, and four river drainages. The economy relies heavily on the salmon fisheries and growing visitor industry. There is also potential for oil and gas, and mineral development. The Bristol Bay CRSA successfully assisted and developed the Commercial Recreation Permit Program operated by the village corporations on the Nuyshagak River. The CRSA was able to bring the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Game, and the corporations to the table, along with the Nuyshagak management plan, to develop a program that generates about $100,000 of gross profits for Choggiung Limited each year. There is also a growing number of participants in the commercial recreation industry. This is all because the Bristol Bay CRSA was able to find a balance between habitat, environment, and economic developmental needs. The passage of the bill would reduce the CRSA's ability to influence those types of things within the region. The fishing industry could not stabilize the commercial fishery or grow a recreational industry without the ability to influence. In closing, the Bristol Bay CRSA urges the committee members to not pass the bill and to maintain the vehicle for cooperation to promote development in the Bristol Bay region. Number 0598 WILLIAM SHELDON testified via teleconference in Kotzebue. He agrees with Mr. Degnan's testimony from Unalakleet. Local input is not being considered which is why he opposes HB 28. He wondered what Section 2 (A) would mean in terms of permits for sheefish. Number 0742 MS. MAYER replied Mr. Sheldon's concern would require looking at the local maps to determine whether it would fall in or out according to the subsection. It would take quite a bit of follow up. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the committee will not take any final action on the proposed committee substitute today. Number 0821 JENNIFER CARMAN, Coastal Coordinator, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified via teleconference in Ketchikan. The borough actively participates in the ACMP. The passage of HB 28 would eliminate the district's ability to appeal to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council when a state or federal permit decision does not fairly consider the borough's interest. It would also reduce the coastal zone boundary by excluding the zone of indirect influence. The borough's zone of indirect influence includes areas that influence the water quality of the lakes and creeks that supply potable water to residents of the borough, cities of Ketchikan and Saxman, as well as provide a habitat for anadromous fish. She also serves as Southeast's representative to the Alaska Coastal Management Program Working Group. In this position she can testify that most of the watershed serving Southeast communities are affected by the zone of indirect influence. Excluding the zone, would have negative effects on the ability to manage their water systems. Number 0913 THOMAS LOGAN testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. He is a Big Lake resident. When the bill first came out he was wholeheartedly for it, but the proposed committee substitute would cost the borough a whole lot of money. He does not want to see the bill move forward. Number 0944 KEN HUDSON, Chief of Code Compliance, Matanuska-Susitna Borough; Coordinator, Matanuska-Susitna Coastal Management District, testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. He supports the comments made by the other local districts and Ms. Mayer. The borough, however, has recommended reducing the boundaries and other changes that are being proposed in the committee substitute and has been pursuing those types of changes within the ACMP. The borough lauds the goal of the ACMP, but it is not appropriate for the state to dictate what the local district boundaries should be, or restrict its ability to affect decision making by the state and federal governments that would negatively impact its local resources. Number 1013 ROBERT FAGERSTRUM, Member, Nome Common Council; Member, Alaska Coastal Policy Council, testified via teleconference in Nome. The coastal program in Nome is important because it largely depends on mineral and oil development. He encouraged the committee members to not rush through the bill. He is opposed to the proposed committee substitute. Number 1078 JIM GLASPELL testified via teleconference in Anchorage. He has worked with ACMP issues since 1981. In reference to the changes in Section 2, reducing the coastal zone management boundary to the zones of direct interaction and direct influence reverts to the interim or initial boundaries approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council in 1979. At the time, the interim boundaries were clearly recognized to be a starting point to develop a district's program. Therefore, to arbitrarily change the boundaries would ignore recognition of the critical interaction and development of resource uses of the coastal areas, habitats, and fish and wildlife populations. He suggested looking at the status of the salmon populations in Washington and Oregon to see a demonstrable effect of the importance of proactive coastal resource protection. In reference to the changes in Section 5 regarding policy, a key component of the ACMP is the ability to protect coastal resources through locally developed plans and by using enforceable policies to supplement existing state and federal regulations. It is the only way they have to implement their program standards through inclusion of state permits and authorizations. The proposed changes would preclude any district policies or permit stipulations across the broad spectrum of local coastal resource issues of which the district does not or cannot exercise authority. Limiting state agency involvements ignores their knowledge and expertise to implement the programs. The approach proposed in the bill would restrict district involvement in state agencies to the point of degrading their programs. Overall, the arbitrary shrinking of the coastal boundary without justification, the limitation of agency or district involvement, and the elimination of the petition process for consistency would emasculate key components of the ACMP almost to the point of completely eliminating it at a time when the state is striving to give a greater voice to local knowledge and expertise. Number 1261 LISA PARKER, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough, testified via teleconference in Kenai. The proposed committee substitute would reduce the involvement of local districts in state and federal land management decisions. With 80 percent of the land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough owned by state or federal agencies, it would drastically reduce the borough's cooperative efforts. In regards to reducing the zone, the decision should be made at the local level. Local governments are concerned about being dictated to by state agencies. The borough does not support the elimination of the appeal process. It would only serve to make the permitting process lengthier and more cumbersome. Without an appeals process, the only option would be to take the matter to the courts when everybody knows they are clogged up. In regards to the overall impact of the proposed committee substitute, it would adversely impact the Kenai Peninsula Borough by making the implementation of the program more complex. The proposed time frame is not realistic. The borough asks that the committee members not proceed in a hasty manner. If changes are made, then sufficient funds need to be appropriated so that local plans can be amended to reflect the changes. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is not opposed to change; it deals with change everyday. Number 1401 OLIVER HOLMS, Commercial Fisherman in Kodiak, testified via teleconference in Kodiak. He opposes the proposed committee substitute. He agrees with the comments made by Gail Alstrom from Saint Marys. The bill would amount to an unfunded mandate to the borough. If boroughs were states, it would be an attack on states' rights. Local governments need this current to participate meaningfully in the development of their own areas. There is a considerable amount of federal land in the Kodiak Island Borough and without the authority that the ACMP gives the borough, it would have very little say in things like offshore oil and federal land development. He also fishes for salmon so the habitats in the uplands are very important to him, and really the whole community. The current Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings for Pacific salmon in the Northwest demonstrates the need for a coastal zone management program that considers the needs of salmon in the uplands. Waiting for an ESA listing is extremely expensive for society. Number 1510 JOHN DUNHAM, Deputy Director for Land Management, North Slope Borough; Coastal Coordinator, North Slope Borough, testified via teleconference in Barrow. The North Slope Borough opposes the proposed committee substitute to HB 28. It supports oil and gas exploration and development, primarily because it has the ability through its coastal management program to protect its coastal resources. The residents would most likely be opposed to oil and gas development without a strong voice in what happens in its coastal area. The borough is opposed to the mandated change in the coastal boundary, and the elimination of an independent third party review of a coastal consistency determination. He reiterated it would severely restrict the borough's ability to comment on oil and gas issues in federal waters and the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) in terms of subsistence resources. The North Slope Borough opposes the proposed committee substitute. Number 1610 KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Director, Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area, testified via teleconference in Anchorage. The CRSAs are organized to be a local voice to protect the balance and orderly use of the resources in their area. If the CRSAs can not add then they will be very limited in terms of designing a program to guide development. The state is currently investigating the inclusion of Adak into the Aleutians West CRSA. If it should occur, she could envision the local people, state agencies, and the CRSA, as a liaison, working together to use, manage, restore, and enhance its coastal development. In addition, coastal district policies become state laws at the completion of a review process, and the authority to enforce the laws is provided through the process. The implementation is in accordance with the comprehensive-use plan and statement of needs, policies, objectives, and standards adopted by the district. Given the constraints of the proposed committee substitute, the local people could still identify their needs through their CRSA, but she is not sure what policies, objectives, or standards the districts could adopt. The elimination of the petition review process would be a step towards silencing the local voice and the opportunity to be heard by an independent body not involved in the original decision. Number 1752 SUSAN FLENSBURG, Environmental Program Coordinator, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), testified via teleconference in Dillingham. She is testifying today on behalf of BBNA in opposition to HB 28. It would gut the coastal management program. It is a misguided effort that would fail to take into consideration the loss of a few million dollars in federal funding for the state, and legal standing over federal activities - two of the major incentives for Bristol Bay to participate in the coastal management program. In terms of limiting permit stipulations, it would backfire and thwart development rather than help facilitate it. The BBNA also takes issue with the proposed boundary reduction changes. It would drastically reduce the coastal zone boundaries of both the Lake and Peninsula Borough and the Bristol Bay CRSA. Their boundaries are linked to anadromous water bodies and fish habitats and Bristol Bay supports the world's largest salmon run. Finally, the issues that promoted the introduction of the bill could be addressed through the ACMP assessment rather than radical surgical changes through legislation. Given the public's concerns, BBNA is pleased to hear that the bill will not be passed out of the committee today. It is even premature to send it to the House Finance committee without giving it more airing. If it is going to pass out of the House Resources committee, BBNA specifically requests it be referred to a Community and Regional Affairs' subcommittee. Number 1909 PATRICK GALVIN testified via teleconference in Dillingham. He is an attorney with extensive experience with the ACMP in representing costal districts and applicants. He opposes the bill because it is not in the best interest of the state. It would effectively get rid of the ACMP, indirectly. It would eliminate the players' involvement in the program and their ability to have any impact on the projects. It would take the state out of compliance with federal funding resulting in the program disappearing. Historically, when the state established the coastal boundaries it decided that anadromous fish were an important resource. The bill effectively says that anadromous fish are not an important resource and are not worth protecting when they leave the ocean. Section 5 would make local plans meaningless and would create a non-function status for the CRSAs. It would also take the program out of compliance with federal law according to CFR 923.41. It would also mean that the state would not have the ability to put stipulations on federal projects on federal lands or the outer-continental shelf. This combined with the subsistence debate would "hand the keys over to the federal government." Section 6 would eliminate the petition process, a required element under federal law (CFR 923.42). In closing, the proposed committee substitute does not favor Alaska, it favors the federal government. Number 2090 DICK COOSE testified on behalf of Concerned Alaskans for Resources and Environment (CARE). The concept of the proposed committee substitute is supported by CARE. There needs to be better management of the coastal zones. Mr. Coose stated, having worked in Southeast Alaska for 18 years, he believes there are a number of things such as the Forest Practices Act that protect fish streams upland. In summary, it needs to be reduced, but the local people need some control so it should be protected. Otherwise, he urged the committee members to move forward with the proposed committee substitute because there needs to be less government control. Number 2157 DICK HOFFMAN, Commercial and Recreational Fisherman, stated he is concerned because he sees a diminished protection for the riparian and anadromous streams. The surest way to impair the health of a fish stock is to destroy its spawning bed - the area of indirect effect. For that reason, he is opposed to the bill. It would have a detrimental impact and aggravate the issue of access to fish and game resources creating more trouble for the legislature and the people of Alaska. Number 2226 MURRAY WALSH, Representative, Alaska Chapter of the American Planning Association, stated planners are not biologist, environmentalist, or tree huggers in general, but rather address the needs of employers. Most planners work for local governments and need every tool necessary to carry out the wishes of the elected masters such as coastal management. The proposed committee substitute could cause a loss of federal approval for the ACMP. Mr. Walsh is a planner who represents mining companies, logging companies, and other forms of development. He has had to seek permits from state, local, and federal agencies. And of the lot, the coastal management programs care the most because they consider economic development and expediency, and pro-development policies in their plans. The people at DGC also care. If there is one person who could be blamed for the presence of the ACMP, he is the one. He knew 20 years ago that the program would not mean much if it did not include pro-development policies. It is bothersome today that local governments and the state have not learned yet how to exercise pro-development policies in a regulatory setting. Therefore, if "we lose this, then I will make more money because my clients won't have anybody in their corner at the state level. No other agency at state government, involved in the regulatory program, gives a damn." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the bill will be heard again on Tuesday, March 3, 1998.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|