Legislature(2003 - 2004)

04/16/2003 01:08 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 191-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS                                                                                            
CHAIR FATE  announced that  the only order  of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  191,  "An  Act relating  to  the Alaska  coastal                                                               
management   program  and   to   policies   and  procedures   for                                                               
consistency   reviews   and    the   rendering   of   consistency                                                               
determinations under  that program; relating to  the functions of                                                               
coastal  resource  service  areas;  creating  an  Alaska  Coastal                                                               
Program  Evaluation  Council;   eliminating  the  Alaska  Coastal                                                               
Policy  Council; annulling  certain regulations  relating to  the                                                               
Alaska coastal  management program; relating to  actions based on                                                               
private  nuisance;  relating  to  zoning  within  a  third  class                                                               
borough  covered by  the Alaska  coastal management  program; and                                                               
providing  for effective  dates."   [The  bill  was sponsored  by                                                               
House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.]                                                                     
Number 0132                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  MASEK  moved  to  adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS) labeled 03-0069  bil2.doc, 4/12/2003, 5pm, as the                                                               
work  draft, and  asked for  unanimous consent.   There  being no                                                               
objection,  the  proposed  CS  dated  4/12/2003  was  before  the                                                               
Number 0185                                                                                                                     
MARTY  RUTHERFORD,  Consultant  to  the  Administration  and  the                                                               
Department   of  Natural   Resources  (DNR),   testified.     She                                                               
characterized the Alaska Coastal  Management Program (ACMP) as an                                                               
older program  that has not  appropriately responded  to Alaska's                                                               
maturing  statutory and  regulatory regime.   She  suggested that                                                               
the existing program is often  redundant, using local enforceable                                                               
policies  that  are a  reiteration  of  the regulatory  agencies'                                                               
permit standards.   She  offered her  opinion that  the programs'                                                               
consistency review  process is unpredictable, is  overly broad in                                                               
scope, takes  too much time,  and delays the issuance  of permits                                                               
and the startup of projects.                                                                                                    
MS. RUTHERFORD  suggested that the statewide  standards and local                                                               
enforceable   policies  are   vague  and   subject  to   multiple                                                               
interpretations.    However,  she  said  while  the  program  has                                                               
problems,  the  sweeping  changes  that  were  suggested  in  the                                                               
original  HB  191 eliminated  some  of  the primary  reasons  for                                                               
Alaska's  embracing  coastal  management   in  the  first  place,                                                               
including  state  and local  control  over  projects requiring  a                                                               
federal authorization,  and state  and local influence  on direct                                                               
federal  activity.    During  the  discussions  of  the  original                                                               
HB 191, she explained, this administration  took to heart some of                                                               
the comments  received from the  districts, the  coastal resource                                                               
districts,  and  the citizens;  as  a  result, this  proposed  CS                                                               
returns  to   the  basic  structure   of  the   existing  coastal                                                               
management program.                                                                                                             
Number 0523                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD  explained that [the proposed  CS dated 4/12/2003]                                                               
retains the  four existing coastal resource  service areas, which                                                               
are located  in the  unorganized borough,  and that  all existing                                                               
coastal districts  continue, retaining  the same  authorities and                                                               
responsibilities as  under the current program;  it retains local                                                               
enforceable  policies  and all  the  statewide  standards of  the                                                               
program,  including  the  habitat standard  and  the  subsistence                                                               
standard; and it ensures that  all activities requiring a federal                                                               
or  state  permit will  have  a  consistency  review.   She  said                                                               
district enforceable  policies remain applicable to  all projects                                                               
that  are subject  to a  consistency review,  not just  the outer                                                               
continental  shelf  (OCS)  projects and  federal  activities,  as                                                               
envisioned  in HB  191.    She suggested  that  this proposed  CS                                                               
ensures that the districts will  retain their "seat at the table"                                                               
as project decisions are made.                                                                                                  
Number 0596                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD explained that this  proposed CS makes significant                                                               
changes to the program and  attempts to retain important elements                                                               
while addressing  the [aforementioned]  problems.   For instance,                                                               
it  eliminates the  [Alaska Coastal  Policy  Council (ACPC)]  and                                                               
transfers its  duties to  DNR; places a  sunset provision  on the                                                               
current  statewide  standards  and  coastal  district  plans  and                                                               
mandates that their replacement  standards be clear, concise, not                                                               
susceptible  to subjective  interpretations, and  not duplicative                                                               
of   otherwise  existing   requirements;  clarifies   that  local                                                               
enforceable policies may  not address a matter  that is regulated                                                               
or authorized by  state or federal law unless  the policy relates                                                               
specifically  to  a  matter  of local  concern;  and  provides  a                                                               
definition for what constitutes a matter of local concern.                                                                      
MS.  RUTHERFORD  further  explained that  it  provides  important                                                               
clarifications  on the  consistency  review process  in order  to                                                               
ensure more  predictable timelines and standards,  which includes                                                               
the  scope of  a project  that is  subject to  review and  when a                                                               
project  can proceed  in phases;  encourages the  use of  general                                                               
permits;   clarifies  that   the   Department  of   Environmental                                                               
Conservation's   (DEC's)   permits    and   authorizations   will                                                               
constitute  the  consistency  determination for  air,  land,  and                                                               
water quality;  and insulates the coastal  management consistency                                                               
review   from   delays   associated  with   these   permits   and                                                               
Number 0741                                                                                                                     
BRECK   TOSTEVIN,  Assistant   Attorney  General,   Environmental                                                               
Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage),  Department  of Law,  told                                                               
members that the  proposed CS is premised  upon statutory changes                                                               
in  Executive  Order (EO)  106,  introduced  by the  governor  on                                                               
February 12, 2003; it transfers  responsibility for ACMP from the                                                               
Division   of    Governmental   Coordination   (DGC)    to   DNR.                                                               
Mr. Tostevin said the EO did  not make substantive changes to the                                                               
law,  but  repealed  existing  statutes found  in  AS  44.19  and                                                               
readopted them in a "new title 46.39."                                                                                          
Number 0835                                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN   said  the  proposed   CS  clarifies   the  scope,                                                               
applicability,   and  requirements   of   the  existing   coastal                                                               
management  program   in  AS  46.40;  retains   coastal  resource                                                               
districts and  the current  structure of  how they  operate under                                                               
ACMP;  retains  the  existing   Coastal  Resource  Service  Areas                                                               
(CRSAs) in  the unorganized borough, but  eliminates the creation                                                               
of new  CRSAs; eliminates the  Alaska Coastal Policy  Council and                                                               
transfers  its   authority  to   the  development   of  statewide                                                               
standards  of  the ACMP  and  the  approval of  district  coastal                                                               
management  plans  to  DNR; requires  DNR  to  adopt  regulations                                                               
within one year of enactment,  establishing clear and enforceable                                                               
statewide standards of ACMP as  well as criteria for the approval                                                               
of new  district coastal management  plans; and  requires coastal                                                               
resource districts to submit new  coastal management plans to DNR                                                               
for approval.                                                                                                                   
MR.  TOSTEVIN  explained that  the  plans  must have  enforceable                                                               
policies  that  are  clear  and  concise,  that  provide  greater                                                               
uniformity throughout  the state, and that  don't duplicate state                                                               
and federal requirements.   The districts are  required to submit                                                               
these new plans to DNR for  approval within six months for first-                                                               
class  [cities]  and  boroughs,  and  within  a  year  for  other                                                               
districts;  this date  is  from  the effective  date  of the  new                                                               
regulations.   He said  the proposed CS  streamlines the  ACMP by                                                               
relying on  DEC's air,  land, and  water quality  requirements as                                                               
the enforceable policies  of the ACMP for those  purposes, and by                                                               
relying  on  DEC's  determination  for  implementation  of  those                                                               
requirements in  order to determine  consistency for  those parts                                                               
of a development project.                                                                                                       
Number 0991                                                                                                                     
MR.  TOSTEVIN  paraphrased from  Sections  1-8  of the  sectional                                                               
analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                           
     Section  1 contains  legislative findings  on the  need                                                                  
     for reform of the ACMP.                                                                                                    
     Sections 2  [and 4], 5-6 make  conforming amendments to                                                              
     existing  statutes reflecting  the  elimination of  the                                                                    
     Alaska Coastal  Policy Council and the  transfer of the                                                                    
     [ACPC's]  functions   to  the  Department   of  Natural                                                                    
     Sections 7  and 8 transfer  from the [ACPC] to  DNR the                                                                  
     authority  to  develop   statewide  standards  and  the                                                                    
     criteria  for adoption  of district  coastal management                                                                    
MR.  TOSTEVIN  explained that  Section  3  reflects a  change  in                                                               
terminology  when   referring  to  district   coastal  management                                                               
programs.   The  proposed  CS  refers to  new  district plans  to                                                               
distinguish them  from the existing  district programs,  and also                                                               
to distinguish them from the existing statewide ACMP program; so                                                                
that changes throughout.                                                                                                        
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 9-12 of the                                                                   
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  9   directs  coastal  resource   districts  to                                                                  
     develop  and adopt  coastal  management  plans and  set                                                                  
     forth  the   required  contents  of  the   plans.    AS                                                                  
     46.40.030(b) states that  enforceable policies of those                                                                    
     plans must  meet the requirements  of AS  46.40.070 and                                                                    
     may   not  duplicate,   restate,   or  incorporate   by                                                                    
     reference   statutes   or  administrative   regulations                                                                    
     adopted  by   state  or  federal  agencies.   The  term                                                                    
     "enforceable policy"  is defined  in section 43  of the                                                                    
     Section   10  directs   DNR   to  establish   statewide                                                                  
     standards for the ACMP  and district coastal management                                                                    
     plan criteria.                                                                                                             
     Section 11 establishes  the Department of Environmental                                                                  
     Conservation's    air,   land    and   water    quality                                                                    
     requirements as  the exclusive policies of  the ACMP of                                                                    
     those  purposes.    This provision  provides  that  the                                                                    
     issuance  of  permits,  certifications,  approvals  and                                                                    
     authorizations  by DEC  constitute  a determination  of                                                                    
     consistency with  the ACMP for  those purposes  and for                                                                    
     those  components  of  a proposed  development  project                                                                    
     subject  to  those  permits and  other  authorizations.                                                                    
     This language ensures that  the ACMP consistency review                                                                    
     process  does not  duplicate DEC's  permitting process.                                                                    
     This  provision conforms  with  the  provisions of  the                                                                    
     existing  program  at  6 AAC  80.140  and  the  federal                                                                    
     Coastal  Zone Management  Act's requirement  that these                                                                    
     environmental  standards  be  included in  the  state's                                                                    
     coastal program.                                                                                                           
     Section   12   repeals   and  readopts   AS   46.40.050                                                                  
     concerning  submission  of  district plans  by  coastal                                                                    
     resource  districts.    The  section  removes  obsolete                                                                    
     language from  the initial creation  of the  program in                                                                    
     1977  and  adds  a  new   requirement  that  a  coastal                                                                    
     resource  district must  review and  resubmit its  plan                                                                    
     for approval every five years.   This is to ensure that                                                                    
     the district plans are regularly updated.                                                                                  
Number 1226                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Section 13 of the                                                                      
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  13   amends  the  district  plan   review  and                                                                  
     approval provision  at AS 46.40.060.   It provides that                                                                    
     the   department  may   approve   a  district   coastal                                                                    
     management plan  provided it meets the  requirements of                                                                    
     AS 46.40,  the statewide standards adopted  by DNR, and                                                                    
     the district  plan criteria adopted by  the department.                                                                    
     A district  plan may not arbitrarily,  unreasonably, or                                                                    
     unduly  restrict  or  exclude uses  of  state  concern.                                                                    
     Uses of  state concern  are defined in  AS 46.40.210(8)                                                                    
     at section 42 of the bill.                                                                                                 
Number 1276                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 14-19 of the                                                                  
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  14   establishes  specific   requirements  for                                                                  
     department  review  and  approval of  district  coastal                                                                    
     management plans  in AS 46.40.070.   The department may                                                                    
     approve  a  district plan  under  AS  46.40.060, if  it                                                                    
     meets the  requirements of AS  46.40, AS  46.40.060 and                                                                    
     the  enforceable   policies  of   the  plan   meet  the                                                                    
     requirements  of .070(a)(2).   070(a)(2)  requires that                                                                    
     the enforceable policies be clear  and concise, are not                                                                    
     susceptible  to   inconsistent  application,   and  use                                                                    
     precise,  prescriptive, and  enforceable language.   In                                                                    
     addition,  the enforceable  policy  may  not address  a                                                                    
     matter regulated or authorized  by state or federal law                                                                    
     unless the enforceable  policies relate specifically to                                                                    
     a matter of  local concern.  "Matter  of local concern"                                                                    
     is specifically defined in the bill.                                                                                       
     Section  15 makes  conforming changes  to AS  46.40.090                                                                  
     concerning how local district  plans are implemented in                                                                    
     the unorganized borough.                                                                                                   
     Section 16 amends existing  AS 46.40.094 that describes                                                                  
     how a project may be  reviewed for consistency with the                                                                    
     ACMP  in "phases."   This  amendment would  broaden the                                                                    
     phasing   statute   to   allow  projects   other   than                                                                    
     traditional  oil   and  gas  leasing  projects   to  be                                                                    
     reviewed in phases.   The phasing test  is changed from                                                                    
     whether future  information is "obtained in  the course                                                                    
     of  a  phase"  to  whether  the  information  "was  not                                                                    
     available to the  project applicant at the  time of the                                                                    
     previous  phase."    This  change  makes  the  language                                                                    
     consistent   with   the  federal   coastal   management                                                                    
     regulations allowing for  phasing of federal activities                                                                    
     subject   to  a   consistency  review   in  15   C.F.R.                                                                    
     Sections  17-22 amend  the  existing statute  providing                                                                  
     for consistency reviews of  development projects in the                                                                    
     coastal zone.                                                                                                              
     Section  17  provides  that  DNR  is  to  establish  by                                                                  
     regulation a  consistency review process  conforming to                                                                    
     AS 46.40.096.                                                                                                              
     Section  18  clarifies  that  consistency  reviews  are                                                                
     triggered by state resource agency authorizations.                                                                         
     Section  19  provides  that  DNR's  consistency  review                                                                  
     regulations must provide for  public notice, which is a                                                                    
     requirement  of  the  federal coastal  zone  management                                                                    
Number 1452                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 20-21 of the                                                                  
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  20  provides  that "subsequent  reviews"  also                                                                  
     known  as "elevations"  during  the consistency  review                                                                    
     project  are decided  by DNR  and that  they are  to be                                                                    
     completed within 45 days after  the initial request for                                                                    
     Section 21  amends AS  46.40.096(g) to  exclude certain                                                                  
     activities  and  permits  from the  consistency  review                                                                    
     process.   Consistent  with  federal  law, an  activity                                                                    
     that  is  authorized  under  a  general  or  nationwide                                                                    
     permits  previously determined  to  be consistent  with                                                                    
     the ACMP is not required  to be reviewed a second time.                                                                    
     As  provided  in  section  11,   an  activity  that  is                                                                    
     authorized  by  DEC  under  its  air,  land  and  water                                                                    
     quality    requirements   are    exempted   under    AS                                                                    
     46.40.040(b).   Activities excluded from  a consistency                                                                    
     review  under the  existing  provisions  of the  Forest                                                                    
     Practices  Act   in  AS  41.17  are   excluded  from  a                                                                    
     consistency review under AS 46.40.096.                                                                                     
Number 1500                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Section 22 of the                                                                      
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section 22 adds  three new sections to  AS 46.40.096 to                                                                  
     clarify   what   permits   or  activities   trigger   a                                                                    
     consistency  review,  the  scope  of  the  review  once                                                                    
     triggered and  the geographic  scope of  the activities                                                                    
     subject to a review.                                                                                                       
     New subsection  (i) clarifies that, except  as provided                                                                    
     in the Forest  Practices Act, the exclusions  in (g) of                                                                    
     .096,   and  for   federal   consistency  reviews   and                                                                    
     certifications  subject to  federal law,  a consistency                                                                    
     review is triggered  by an activity that  is subject to                                                                    
     a state  resource agency permit,  lease, authorization,                                                                    
     approval or certification.                                                                                                 
     New subsection (j) provides that  except as provided in                                                                    
     the phasing  statute (AS 46.40.096) and  the exceptions                                                                    
     above, the scope of a  consistency review is limited to                                                                    
     activities subject  to the permit or  authorization and                                                                    
     a  coastal resource  district  policy  approved by  the                                                                    
     department under the State Coastal Management Act.                                                                         
     New subsection  (k) defines  the geographic  area where                                                                    
     an  activity  triggers  a consistency  review  and  the                                                                    
     geographic  scope of  the review  once triggered.   The                                                                    
     consistency review  process is  to apply  to activities                                                                    
     within the  coastal zone  of the  state (defined  in AS                                                                    
     46.40.210),   activities    on   the    federal   outer                                                                    
     continental  shelf or  on federal  lands  that are  the                                                                    
     within  the  geographical  boundaries  of  the  state's                                                                    
     coastal zone.                                                                                                              
     New  subsection   (l)  directs  DNR  to   establish  by                                                                    
     regulation  categories  and  descriptions of  uses  and                                                                    
     activities that  are determined  to be  consistent with                                                                    
     the  ACMP or  that would  be made  consistent with  the                                                                    
     inclusion  of  standard   alternative  measures.    The                                                                    
     existing list of such activities  is known as the "A" &                                                                    
     "B"  list.   The  new  legislation  directs that  these                                                                    
     categories and  descriptions of uses and  activities be                                                                    
     reviewed by DNR and made as  broad as possible so as to                                                                    
     minimize the  number of projects  that must  undergo an                                                                    
     individualized consistency review.                                                                                         
Number 1660                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 23-43 of the                                                                  
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  23   includes  cross-references   to  existing                                                                  
     requirements in  the enforcement  section of  the State                                                                    
     Coastal Zone Act.                                                                                                          
     Sections 24-28  are conforming  amendments transferring                                                                  
     authority from the [ACPC] to DNR.                                                                                        
     Sections   29-37  are   amendments  to   the  statutory                                                                  
     provisions  governing  the  creation and  operation  of                                                                    
     coastal   resource  service   areas   (CRSAs)  in   the                                                                    
     unorganized  borough.   These sections  are amended  to                                                                    
     retain existing  CRSAs but to preclude  the creation of                                                                    
     new CRSAs.                                                                                                                 
     Section  38 is  a  new savings  clause clarifying  that                                                                  
     nothing in  AS 46.40  diminishes state  jurisdiction or                                                                    
     affects  state  requirements  as   they  apply  to  the                                                                    
     federal  government under  a  federal authorization  or                                                                    
     federal  waiver of  sovereign  immunity.   The  savings                                                                    
     clause also makes clear that  the coastal zone act does                                                                    
     not  diminish  the  zoning  or  planning  authority  of                                                                    
     municipalities under AS 29.                                                                                                
     Section  39 is  a conforming  amendment concerning  the                                                                  
     use of the term district coastal management plan.                                                                          
     Section   40   amends   the  existing   definition   of                                                                  
     consistency   review    to   track   the    scope   and                                                                    
     applicability clarifications  in the other  sections of                                                                    
     AS 46.40.                                                                                                                  
     Section  41 defines  department  as  the department  of                                                                  
     natural resources.                                                                                                         
     Section 42  amends the existing definition  of "uses of                                                                  
     state concern."                                                                                                            
     Section 43  adds new definitions of  the terms "coastal                                                                  
     use or resource,"  "coastal zone," "district management                                                                    
     plan," and "enforceable policy."                                                                                           
Number 1782                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 44-46 of the                                                                  
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section 44 repeals statutory references  to the CPC and                                                                  
     obsolete provisions of AS 46.40.                                                                                         
     Section 45 annuls the  existing statewide standards and                                                                  
     district program guidelines  in 6 AAC 80 and  6 AAC 85.                                                                    
     This  annulment  takes  effect on  July  1,  2005  (see                                                                    
     section 49).                                                                                                             
     Section  46  is  a  transition  provision.    First  it                                                                  
     directs DNR to adopt  regulations implementing this Act                                                                    
     no later than July 1, 2004.                                                                                                
     Second,  until  the  statewide standards  and  district                                                                    
     program  guidelines are  annulled under  section 45  or                                                                    
     DNR  adopts  new  regulations, DNR  can  implement  and                                                                    
     enforce the  statewide standards and guidelines  to the                                                                    
     extent not inconsistent with this Act.                                                                                     
     Third,  district coastal  management programs  approved                                                                    
     by  the  [ACPC] stay  in  effect  until July  1,  2006,                                                                    
     unless DNR disapproves  or modifies all or  part of the                                                                    
     program before July 1, 2006.                                                                                               
     Fourth, consistency  reviews pending on the  day before                                                                    
     the  effective date  of this  Act may  continue and  be                                                                    
     completed  under the  prior  rules,  at the  applicants                                                                    
     option  exercised  no  later than  60  days  after  the                                                                    
     effective date of the act.                                                                                                 
Number 1881                                                                                                                     
MR. TOSTEVIN continued paraphrasing from Sections 47-50 of the                                                                  
sectional analysis, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                 
     Section  47 is  a  transition  provision directing  the                                                                  
     submission of  new district  plans by  coastal resource                                                                    
     districts for initial implementation  of this Act.  The                                                                    
     Act staggers the  submission of the new  plans based on                                                                    
     whether the  coastal resource  district is  a home-rule                                                                    
     municipality  or  first-class   city.    Those  coastal                                                                    
     resources districts  must submit  new plans  within six                                                                    
     months of the effective  date of regulations adopted by                                                                    
     DNR.  Other coastal  resource districts must submit new                                                                    
     plans  within one-year  of the  effective  date of  the                                                                    
     regulations.   Subsection (c) provides that  the 90-day                                                                    
     review  time in  AS  46.40.070 does  not  apply to  the                                                                    
     submissions  under  (a)  and   (b)  of  the  transition                                                                    
     Section  48  contains   revisor's  instructions  making                                                                  
     changes in  article headings and  Alaska Administrative                                                                    
     Code  changes reflecting  the transfer  of the  coastal                                                                    
     management program from the [ACPC]  to DNR.  Subsection                                                                    
     (c)  provides that  if  DNR's  regulations are  adopted                                                                    
     before  old [ACPC]  regulations are  annulled, the  old                                                                    
     [ACPC] regulations  at 6 AAC  80 and  6 AAC 85  will be                                                                    
     removed by the regulations attorney as obsolete.                                                                           
     Section 49 is  the delayed effect date  of section 45's                                                                  
     annulment of 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85 on July 1, 2005.                                                                        
     Section 50 provides that with  the exception of section                                                                  
     49,  the   Act  takes   effect  immediately   under  AS                                                                    
MS.   RUTHERFORD  noted   that  the   bill  packet   contained  a                                                               
provisional timeline  for implementation  in the new  program and                                                               
how it interrelates with the current program.                                                                                   
Number 2116                                                                                                                     
MS.  RUTHERFORD, in  response to  a question  from Representative                                                               
Seaton with  regard to Section  14 of the sectional  analysis and                                                               
enforceable  policies,   referred  to   page  10  of   the  bill,                                                               
subsection   (a),   paragraph   (2),   subparagraph   (D),   sub-                                                               
subparagraphs (i)-(iii), and mentioned  a "three-part test."  She                                                               
said an  example of an issue  that could meet this  test would be                                                               
if  a particular  district had  eelgrass beds  that it  wanted to                                                               
protect  and felt  that the  statewide habitat  standard did  not                                                               
"reach  to that."    She explained  that if  it  was of  critical                                                               
concern, then [the district] could  develop an enforceable policy                                                               
-  as long  it  was  clear, concise,  and  easily understood  and                                                               
implemented -  that would preclude  activities in that  area such                                                               
as having a log-transfer facility.                                                                                              
Number 2166                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD, in  further response, offered her  belief that it                                                               
is  intended to  mean the  crafting of  the language  will be  as                                                               
uniform  as possible,  so  that  not as  much  is  placed on  the                                                               
applicants; the implementing agencies  will have to interpret the                                                               
enforceable policies to try to  determine what various approaches                                                               
to  crafting language  is being  used.   She remarked,  "So, that                                                               
doesn't  mean that  they  have to  be  cookie-cutter versions  of                                                               
issues of  local concern; it means  that they have to  be crafted                                                               
similarly."   She  said the  goal  is to  try to  move the  local                                                               
enforceable policies in  the statewide standard to  be similar to                                                               
how  statutes are  crafted, so  that  they are  more readily  and                                                               
easily applied.                                                                                                                 
MS.  RUTHERFORD, in  further response  with  regard to  a set  of                                                               
standards or  guidelines for enforceable policies,  said DNR does                                                               
not have those standards yet, but  there is no intent to have the                                                               
districts  go  through  a  (indisc.)   type  of  analysis.    She                                                               
explained  that  it would  basically  be  a process  wherein  the                                                               
department  helps,  guides, and  works  with  local districts  to                                                               
determine what  might be an  "appropriate set."    Ms. Rutherford                                                               
said it is the hope of  the [department] to begin to develop some                                                               
enforceable  policies  and  model  plan elements  that  could  be                                                               
embraced and  amended slightly for  local issues.   She explained                                                               
that yes,  that's part  of the  goal, but  nothing is  created at                                                               
this time.                                                                                                                      
Number 2301                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HEINZE, referring  to  a  previous House  Special                                                               
Committee on  Fisheries meeting on  HB 191, talked  about concern                                                               
expressed by municipalities and boroughs  that [the bill] takes a                                                               
lot of  authority away  from them.   She asked  for clarification                                                               
about how this new [legislation] addresses that.                                                                                
MS.  RUTHERFORD  explained  that  it  basically  returns  to  the                                                               
existing  program structure  whereby the  coastal districts,  the                                                               
coastal resource  service areas,  and the  incorporated districts                                                               
will   continue   to   exist,  will   continue   their   existing                                                               
authorities,  will  continue  to  have the  right  to  promulgate                                                               
enforceable policies,  and will retain  their seats at  the table                                                               
in project review and decision making.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE    HEINZE   offered    her   understanding    that                                                               
[municipalities  and boroughs]  would  not be  [included] in  any                                                               
area at all.                                                                                                                    
MS. RUTHERFORD said no, they're not.                                                                                            
Number 2349                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  expressed   concern  about  interaction                                                               
between DEC's  statutes and regulations  and how the  new coastal                                                               
management program will  work.  She said it appears  DEC has been                                                               
separated   out  so   that   its  statutes   are   going  to   be                                                               
determinative.    She  asked  what   interaction  is  allowed  to                                                               
districts  according   to  those  standards,  and   also  whether                                                               
[districts] will  be allowed to [maintain]  their own enforceable                                                               
standards if "they're in any  way touching something that's a DEC                                                               
permit."   She asked for an  explanation of how this  is going to                                                               
Number 2407                                                                                                                     
PATRICK GALVIN, Petroleum Land Manager,  Division of Oil and Gas,                                                               
Department of  Natural Resources,  answered that the  way coastal                                                               
management and  DEC permitting interact  currently is  that DEC's                                                               
statutes, regulations,  policies, and procedures are  included as                                                               
enforceable components of the coastal  management program.  As it                                                               
is  currently implemented,  when a  consistency determination  is                                                               
being  done,  it  cannot  be   completed  and  it  cannot  become                                                               
consistent until  DEC has decided  that the project meets  all of                                                               
its permitting requirements.                                                                                                    
MR.  GALVIN  explained  that when  a  project  requires  multiple                                                               
permits  from  various  agencies,  coastal  management  precludes                                                               
those agencies  from issuing  any permits  for the  project until                                                               
the  consistency  determination  is   completed.    He  said  the                                                               
relationship with  DEC means that the  consistency determinations                                                               
cannot  be  completed  until DEC  has  completed  its  permitting                                                               
decision;  in effect,  no permits  can  be issued  for a  project                                                               
until  DEC   has  found   that  it  meets   all  of   the  permit                                                               
requirements.   He explained that oftentimes,  on large projects,                                                               
a  DEC permit  such as  the air  permit -  which requires  a very                                                               
complicated permitting  process -  takes a  great deal  more time                                                               
than the  remainder of the  project review; however, none  of the                                                               
"prints" for  the project, which  may be  completely unassociated                                                               
with  air permitting  or  with  whatever the  source  of the  air                                                               
discharge is, can  be permitted and begin to work  until that air                                                               
permit issue has been resolved and completed.                                                                                   
MR. GALVIN  explained that  the proposed  CS suggests  that while                                                               
coastal  management  currently  doesn't question  DEC  when  it's                                                               
issuing its  permit, that decision  can be  made on its  own, and                                                               
the consistency determination should  be allowed to proceed based                                                               
upon the issues  absent the DEC component.  He  said that doesn't                                                               
mean that a  district could not look at aspects  of the discharge                                                               
that are  not within DEC's  standards or guidelines, such  as the                                                               
sitings of  the source.   Therefore, he said, the  local district                                                               
would  be able  to adopt  enforceable policies,  submit them  for                                                               
approval  by  DNR,  and  include them  in  the  program  policies                                                               
dealing  with the  location of  the  sources.   However, when  it                                                               
comes to the number of parts  per million that a discharge should                                                               
be  or what  the air  permit standards  should be,  the districts                                                               
would be precluded  from adding requirements beyond  what DEC has                                                               
established as the statewide requirements in those areas.                                                                       
Number 2591                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked how many districts  currently have                                                               
policies  that add  something to  a  DEC standard  that could  be                                                               
MR. GALVIN answered that he was  only aware of two, which have to                                                               
do  with  secondary  containment  requirements  for  fuel  tanks.                                                               
Those  are the  Kenai Peninsula  Borough and  the Aleutians  West                                                               
CRSA,  which require  additional capacity;  he said  DEC requires                                                               
105 percent and those two  districts want 110 percent capacity of                                                               
the  tank.   Mr. Galvin  explained the  North  Slope Borough  has                                                               
policies dealing  with spill contingency planning  that have very                                                               
explicit  requirements stated  in the  policy, but  they conclude                                                               
with the statement that nothing  in these policies is intended to                                                               
require anything  beyond state or federal  existing requirements.                                                               
He  indicated at  the time  this plan  was created,  there was  a                                                               
recognition that  the standards established in  state and federal                                                               
law in  these areas are the  standards that will be  applied even                                                               
at the district level.                                                                                                          
Number 2666                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if DNR  can issue permits even if DEC                                                               
has  completed its  permitting  and therefore  a  project may  be                                                               
"thinking that they're going ahead"  and may be doing things that                                                               
would then be precluded by the DEC water discharge permit.                                                                      
MR.  GALVIN  said none  of  the  activities  could be  done  that                                                               
require the DEC permit.  He elaborated:                                                                                         
      Think of any large project - ... the creation of the                                                                      
        Fort Knox Mine. ... If that project were in the                                                                         
     coastal  zone, it  was permitted  -  their issues  with                                                                    
     regard to the creation of  the tailings dam and all the                                                                    
     construction  that had  to do  with the  tailings part,                                                                    
     where they had  gotten the DEC permits.   All the water                                                                    
     permits had been  in place, but they  didn't yet [have]                                                                    
     the   air  permits   associated  with   the  processing                                                                    
     facility, and they hadn't reached  the final design and                                                                    
     identified the  exact generators  and the  exact source                                                                    
     containment in order  to get the final  buyoff on that.                                                                    
     But they ... knew that they were going to get it. ...                                                                      
     If  that project  had been  in the  coastal zone,  they                                                                    
     couldn't  have  begun  to   work  on  the  containments                                                                    
     because they  couldn't have gotten those  permits until                                                                    
     they'd  gotten  that  air  permit  in  place,  and  the                                                                    
     consistency  determination  to  allow for  those  other                                                                    
     permits  to be  issued.    But because  it  was in  the                                                                    
     Interior, they could get the  work going and they saved                                                                    
     18  months  in  the  process  by  getting  the  project                                                                    
     started there  and then getting  the air permit  at the                                                                    
     time  that the  air  permit issue  became relevant  and                                                                    
     they needed to get that in place.                                                                                          
Number 2757                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO asked  about  the remark,  "They knew  they                                                               
were going to get it," with regard to the air quality permit.                                                                   
MR. GALVIN  responded that they knew  that they would be  able to                                                               
find a  way, knew what  the standard  was, and were  working with                                                               
the  agency to  determine, if  they  had one  particular type  of                                                               
equipment,  what  the operational  requirements  would  be to  do                                                               
that,  and  if they  had  another  type  of equipment,  what  the                                                               
operational requirements  would be.   He said they knew  they had                                                               
three or four options available  and were working with the agency                                                               
to  determine that;  it wasn't  a question  of whether  they were                                                               
going  to get  the authorization  or not.   Mr.  Galvin explained                                                               
that they knew they would find  the "mix" that would get them the                                                               
authorization; it  was just a  matter of  which one would  be the                                                               
most cost-effective  and most  efficient at  doing the  work that                                                               
needed to  be done.  He  said that's the discretion  that goes on                                                               
in this permit process.                                                                                                         
Number 2820                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked:                                                                                                  
     You currently,  probably, hold all kinds  of agreements                                                                    
     with   the  federal   government,  ...   agreements  on                                                                    
     satisfying  federal   regulations  as  well   as  state                                                                    
     regulations.   But these are agreements  that were done                                                                    
     by  the previous  organization.   I'm  curious how  the                                                                    
     federal government  will look at those  agreements when                                                                    
     the organization they made  the agreements with doesn't                                                                    
     exist  anymore, or  will they  say,  ... "I  understand                                                                    
     that  those  agreements  now transfer  over  to  a  new                                                                    
Number 2851                                                                                                                     
MR.  GALVIN   replied,  "That's  actually  a   question  for  the                                                               
executive orders that became effective yesterday."                                                                              
MR. TOSTEVIN explained  that the executive orders  have a savings                                                               
clause in  them that says rights  and obligations of the  DGC are                                                               
transferred to  DNR; as far  as approval from the  federal office                                                               
of  coastal management  that oversees  the coastal  program, it's                                                               
indicated  that the  transfer  of authority  from  one agency  to                                                               
another is a  routine plan change and won't cause  a problem with                                                               
regard to approval.                                                                                                             
Number 2886                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page  10 and noted that the                                                               
bill contained terms such as "may"  and "if".  He asked about the                                                               
MS.  RUTHERFORD said  there is  no question  that now  the agency                                                               
will  have  the  discretion  of accepting  a  district  plan  and                                                               
enforceable  policies  associated  with   it;  inherent  in  that                                                               
discretion is  a determination as to  whether or not the  term is                                                               
applied here,  and that intent and  the finding have been  met in                                                               
the effort  to craft policies  that are  clear and concise.   She                                                               
indicated  that if  they're going  to  address a  matter that  is                                                               
regulated by or operated under  state or federal law, they should                                                               
have met  the [three-part] test.   Ms. Rutherford  explained that                                                               
the intent is  not to preclude, but to ensure  that the standards                                                               
which  had been  described are  met.   She  said it  would be  an                                                               
iterative process between the agency and the district.                                                                          
TAPE 03-31, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2982                                                                                                                     
CHUCK DEGNAN, Director, Bering Straits Coastal Management                                                                       
Program, expressed opposition to the requirement to have new                                                                    
plans starting from ground zero.  He told members:                                                                              
     The existing  plan that we  have is  applicable because                                                                    
     we are living in a rural  area and there is very little                                                                    
     change  in the  economic base  of the  region.   ... It                                                                    
     would  [pose an]  additional financial  burden of  time                                                                    
     and effort to  completely change the plan.   There is a                                                                    
     process  that would  have  minor  amendments, and  that                                                                    
     would be  [a] more  acceptable way  to make  changes to                                                                    
     coastal management plans.                                                                                                  
     ... The other  issue that's really of concern  to us is                                                                    
     the  practice of  recognizing local  knowledge.   There                                                                    
     needs to be  a way to make sure that  local people have                                                                    
     a say in  designing projects that would  meet the needs                                                                    
     of local people.   And when you try  to make everything                                                                    
     the same on a statewide basis,  our state is so big and                                                                    
     so  different   from  each  other   that  it   puts  an                                                                    
     additional burden on rural communities.                                                                                    
Number 2898                                                                                                                     
KATHY WASSERMAN, Mayor and Administrator, City of Pelican,                                                                      
testified as follows:                                                                                                           
     We appreciate  the changes made  to HB 191  in response                                                                    
     to the  concerns of local  coastal districts.   Pelican                                                                    
     has supported  its own district  since 1984.   Our plan                                                                    
     with enforceable  policies allows us to  address issues                                                                    
     of local concern  that are unique to this  area, and we                                                                    
     feel it's very important that that continue.                                                                               
     Our concerns with  the CS as presented  are Section 12,                                                                    
     which  is  a  submission   of  district  plans.    This                                                                    
     provides that  a district must review  and resubmit its                                                                    
     coastal  management  plans  for reapproval  every  five                                                                    
     years, and we  feel that this places a  large burden on                                                                    
     our  district,  especially as  small  as  we are.    We                                                                    
     request  that this  update not  occur  more often  than                                                                    
     every  ten years  because  it  would involve  staffing,                                                                    
     public process,  and things which  would boost  our ...                                                                    
     expenditures quite high.                                                                                                   
     Section 47  is submission of plans  by coastal resource                                                                    
     districts that  are a first-class  city.  Pelican  is a                                                                    
     first-class city, a very small  one; we incur the costs                                                                    
     that go  with first-class  cities.   This will  give us                                                                    
     six months  to draft  a new  plan.   This seems  like a                                                                    
     very short time period for us  to get that sort of work                                                                    
     done,  even  though  maybe  larger  first-class  cities                                                                    
     could do  it because they  have additional staff.   Our                                                                    
     district is  short-staffed, and we  will be  looking to                                                                    
     [the ACMP] to help with resources.                                                                                         
Number 2825                                                                                                                     
MS. WASSERMAN continued:                                                                                                        
     ... Section 3, the  planning assistance for development                                                                    
     and maintenance  of district coastal  management plans:                                                                    
     Pelican  ... must  continue to  be given  due deference                                                                    
     when  it comes  to coastal  issues  in this  area.   We                                                                    
     provide  local expertise  to assist  the  state in  its                                                                    
     decisions  concerning coastal  management.    But as  a                                                                    
     small  community, the  Pelican coastal  district relies                                                                    
     on help  from the  state as well;  they have  been very                                                                    
     helpful in  the past, and  we need  to rely on  them to                                                                    
     get our work done.   We use the guidebooks to implement                                                                    
     our coastal management program.                                                                                            
     The  knowledgeable and  experienced staff  at DGC  have                                                                    
     helped us  with questions  that come up  concerning our                                                                    
     district.     These  resources  must  continue   to  be                                                                    
     provided  for  our  plan to  function.    Something  we                                                                    
     noticed also today is that  this really affects ... the                                                                    
     coastal communities in the state  of Alaska, and due to                                                                    
     the changes  in the fishing industry,  it's the coastal                                                                    
     communities in the state that  are really in trouble at                                                                    
     this time.   The  [Matanuska-Susitna] Borough  seems to                                                                    
     be  doing  very well.    Anchorage  seems to  be  doing                                                                    
     pretty  well.     But  if  you  look   at  the  coastal                                                                    
     communities, they're  the ones that are  suffering, and                                                                    
     an  unfunded mandate,  I think,  will just  continue to                                                                    
     pull us down a little bit further.                                                                                         
Number 2733                                                                                                                     
JOHN  OSCAR,  Program  Director,  Ceñaliulriit  Coastal  Resource                                                               
Service  Area (CRSA),  testified that  the Ceñaliulriit  CRSA has                                                               
been in  existence for 15 years  and is composed of  44 villages:                                                               
15 are  traditional governments, 28 are  second-class cities, and                                                               
1 is a  first-class city.  He explained that  local residents are                                                               
largely dependent on fish and  wildlife resources for their daily                                                               
sustenance,  despite  the  fact  that the  fishing  industry  has                                                               
drastically  affected [other]  summertime employment.   Mr. Oscar                                                               
said  it  has been  found  that  local participation  has  always                                                               
proven  to  be  successful  in   providing  wise  management  and                                                               
mitigation of  problems encountered in planning  related to local                                                               
MR.  OSCAR  explained that  mining,  water  and sewer  [systems],                                                               
[aboveground]   fuel   tanks,   road  projects,   airports,   and                                                               
improvements  for  erosion  control  and  village  infrastructure                                                               
[exist in the  Ceñaliulriit CRSA].  He expressed  concern that if                                                               
the  Alaska  Coastal  Management   Program  and  the  [ACPC]  are                                                               
removed,  [references]   to  "habitat  fetters"  [will   also  be                                                               
removed].    He  said  the  only reference  in  the  bill  is  to                                                               
"critical habitat fetters".  Mr.  Oscar remarked, "That served to                                                               
protect   subsistence   and   traditional   fish   and   wildlife                                                               
resources."   He said traditional  and experienced  knowledge has                                                               
always served to offer  scientists valuable information regarding                                                               
development.   He expressed  concern that  due deference  in this                                                               
area will be  nonexistent, while the department  still has "every                                                               
last say to everything under the sun, basically."                                                                               
MR.  OSCAR said  the other  concern is  the submittal  of coastal                                                               
district [management]  plans every five  years.  Since he  is the                                                               
only  person   representing  44   villages,  he   explained  that                                                               
understaffing  will   not  allow   the  [Ceñaliulriit   CSRA]  to                                                               
successfully meet  all of  the requirements.   He noted  that the                                                               
current requirement  is ten years, and  he said a rewrite  of the                                                               
whole program to  less stringent and less  specific standards and                                                               
policies  will eventually  create  a  "rubber-stamp program"  for                                                               
elimination  for  programs that  are  not  being implemented,  as                                                               
determined by the department.   Mr. Oscar said the department may                                                               
decide  to disapprove  the  rewritten plans  to  begin with,  for                                                               
example.     He  suggested   that  the   proposed  CS   is  still                                                               
questionable,  offers much  uncertainty, and  seems to  basically                                                               
eliminate the whole program in  the end, eventually, with all the                                                               
renewals every five years.                                                                                                      
Number 2577                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  Mr.  Oscar how  big  an area  his                                                               
district covers.                                                                                                                
MR. OSCAR said the area serves  35,168 square miles in the Yukon-                                                               
Kuskokwim  Delta, the  largest refuge  in Alaska,  and has  8,993                                                               
miles of shoreline and 44 communities.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  how  many people  work  for  the                                                               
[Ceñaliulriit CSRA].                                                                                                            
MR. OSCAR said  only one person currently,  but whenever possible                                                               
he has somebody else helping  out; with the available funding for                                                               
44 villages, it is impossible to  keep up with all of the demands                                                               
for the requirements of this plan.                                                                                              
Number 2540                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked  Mr. Oscar what his  plans would be                                                               
for putting  together new  policies and  submitting them  if this                                                               
bill passed.                                                                                                                    
MR. OSCAR explained that [Ceñaliulriit  CSRA] has worked with the                                                               
communities for  the past 18  years to streamline and  refine the                                                               
program itself,  and it has to  go through that process  again in                                                               
meeting with  all of the villages  and trying to get  an approval                                                               
with them.  He said  their concerns would certainly be revisiting                                                               
the  old  days   [and  the  issues]  of   subsistence  and  rural                                                               
communities versus urban [communities],  and that questions would                                                               
arise again.   Mr. Oscar said  right now, many people  are really                                                               
uncertain about  what would happen  if this bill went  through as                                                               
is,  since  it  requires  coastal  districts  to  rewrite  [their                                                               
Number 2488                                                                                                                     
PAT NORMAN, First Chief, Port  Graham Village Council, noted that                                                               
he hadn't  yet seen  the proposed  CS for HB  191.   He expressed                                                               
concern about  whether the areas  meriting special  attention are                                                               
still included in the process.   He said Port Graham and Nanwalek                                                               
on  the lower  Kenai Peninsula  are in  one of  those areas,  and                                                               
mentioned the  experience that [ACMP]  has helped out  greatly in                                                               
their own development needs and  for other developments that want                                                               
to come into and around those areas.                                                                                            
CHAIR FATE  responded that the  areas in question would  still be                                                               
included in the process.                                                                                                        
Number 2408                                                                                                                     
FRANK  KELTY, Member,  Aleutians  West  Coastal Resource  Service                                                               
Area (CRSA)  Board, noted that he  has also worked with  the City                                                               
of Unalaska.   Mr. Kelty  thanked DNR  staff for the  proposed CS                                                               
for HB  191 and suggested  it was  much better than  the original                                                               
bill.   However,  he said  he still  had concerns,  and suggested                                                               
that the  legislation still needs  a little  bit more work.   Mr.                                                               
Kelty expressed  concern regarding  the requirement  that coastal                                                               
resource  districts  must review  and  resubmit  their plans  for                                                               
approval  every five  years, and  agreed with  previous testimony                                                               
that the  requirement should be changed  to every ten years.   He                                                               
said  the  Aleutians West  CRSA  has  been  in  the middle  of  a                                                               
rewrite;  it's  on  its  fourth  year  and  still  not  complete.                                                               
Mr. Kelty pointed out that [Aleutians  West CRSA] consists of one                                                               
municipality and  two villages in  its coastal area, and  he said                                                               
the [review] takes a lot of time and work.                                                                                      
MR. KELTY  suggested that language  in Sections 11 and  21 should                                                               
be reviewed and [clarified to specify]  what DEC is going to have                                                               
control  over, which  might make  people  feel more  comfortable.                                                               
Mr. Kelty said  he thinks many people are concerned  that DEC has                                                               
too much control  or will be "going its own  way" and that people                                                               
won't be  able to get any  input until the permits  have gone out                                                               
for public  review.  He  reiterated his belief that  the proposed                                                               
CS still needs  some work, and he expressed concern  that this is                                                               
a [very  short amount of  time] for [implementing] this  plan and                                                               
having it in place by 2005.                                                                                                     
Number 2278                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA  asked Mr. Kelty  for his opinion  on why                                                               
it would  be important to  have DEC  and its standards  remain as                                                               
part of its consistency review process.                                                                                         
MR. KELTY  said in  the [Unalaska] area  there are  seafood "out-                                                               
pole" lines  and many  individual power  plants based  in seafood                                                               
canneries that  have their own  diesel generation.   He mentioned                                                               
concerns by  residents of the  community that they would  like to                                                               
comment on these type of issues when permits are moving forward.                                                                
Number 2213                                                                                                                     
BOB SHAVELSON,  Executive Director,  Cook Inlet Keeper,  told the                                                               
committee he  was speaking on  behalf of Cook Inlet  Keepers' 500                                                               
plus  members  throughout  the  Cook  Inlet  watershed  that  are                                                               
concerned about  the coastal resources.   Mr. Shavelson expressed                                                               
appreciation  for  the  administration's   efforts  to  amend  an                                                               
originally problematic bill, but remarked:                                                                                      
     I  think we  still  have the  same  problems with  this                                                                    
     bill, in  that the  effect of  the legislation  will be                                                                    
     the same.  There was a  comment made early on, from the                                                                    
     administration, that  the districts are not  being left                                                                    
     out in  any area at all.   And I think  that any honest                                                                    
     reading  of   this  legislation  will  show   that  the                                                                    
     districts  will have  a  severely  constrained role  in                                                                    
     local  coastal  decision-making   under  the  committee                                                                    
     Second point  I'd like  to make: ...  there was  also a                                                                    
     comment  made  that this  was  a  well-worked piece  of                                                                    
     legislation.   And I  would just  like to  suggest that                                                                    
     there  really  has  been  relatively  little  time  for                                                                    
     coastal districts and  communities to understand what's                                                                    
     admittedly a very complicated piece of legislation.                                                                        
     Third point I'd like to  make, and this ... accompanies                                                                    
     the  whole   issue:  there  really   has  not   been  a                                                                    
     demonstration  of  facts  to show  that  [there  is]  a                                                                    
     problem.  In fact,  before the [House Special Committee                                                                    
     on Fisheries]  there was  some evidence  presented that                                                                    
     showed that the  current ACMP operates in  a timely and                                                                    
     effective  fashion to  get projects  moving and  on the                                                                    
     ground.   So, again, this  is more  of a response  to a                                                                    
     perceived problem, and there  [has] been no evidence to                                                                    
     suggest otherwise.                                                                                                         
     The last point  I'd like to make is that  this is going                                                                    
     to be very,  very costly to the state and  to the local                                                                    
     districts.  As it was  noted by the administration, ...                                                                    
     these  are very  significant  changes.   And under  the                                                                    
     federal  rules  it  would   appear  that  a  full-blown                                                                    
     environmental  impact  statement and  the  accompanying                                                                    
     costs  of that  would be  required to  get these  major                                                                    
     program  changes  through  the National  [Oceanic]  and                                                                    
     Atmospheric Administration [NOAA].                                                                                         
     And  also, this  is an  unfunded mandate  to the  local                                                                    
     districts   because  they   will  not   only  have   to                                                                    
     periodically review and submit  for review to DNR their                                                                    
     district  plans,  but  they'll have  to  rewrite  their                                                                    
     plans,  and   we've  heard   some  comments   from  the                                                                    
     districts on that already.                                                                                                 
Number 2090                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Shavelson if he had any                                                                       
comment or concern about the "breaking out" of the DEC permit,                                                                  
and  what would  happen if  there  is only  a DEC  permit and  no                                                               
consistency determination.                                                                                                      
MR.  SHAVELSON offered  his view  that  [the bill]  carves out  a                                                               
large segment of activities that  local districts and communities                                                               
will not have an opportunity to  meaningfully comment on.  As the                                                               
legislation is drafted  currently, it's so broad  that it applies                                                               
not only to  permits and different statutory  functions, but also                                                               
to  all  the  land,  air,   and  water  authorizations  that  DEC                                                               
Number 1959                                                                                                                     
MARV   SMITH,  Community   Development   Coordinator,  Lake   and                                                               
Peninsula  Borough, testified  that  his biggest  concern is  the                                                               
short notice.   He  said this  cannot be done  in six  months and                                                               
asked where the  funding is going to come from.   He also express                                                               
concern  that the  bill consistently  states that  DNR "shall  or                                                               
will ... or may" accept the  plans in the districts; he said it's                                                               
kind  of  a  double-edged  sword.    He  stressed  the  need  for                                                               
consistency as well.   Offering his belief that  this new version                                                               
is better  than the  first, he expressed  concern that  the local                                                               
comments  are  heard   and  that  there  is   an  opportunity  to                                                               
Number 1820                                                                                                                     
LISA   VON  BARGEN,   City  of   Valdez,   began  by   expressing                                                               
appreciation for the reworking of  the bill; she said the feeling                                                               
was that the  administration really listened to  the concerns and                                                               
has  incorporated   many  of  those   into  the   [proposed  CS].                                                               
Addressing Section 3,  she asked that maintenance  be included in                                                               
the funding that  comes through; she said the  bill suggests that                                                               
plans  would  have to  be  rewritten  every  five years,  and  so                                                               
funding  for   the  continued  maintenance  of   these  plans  is                                                               
extremely important.   She also asked for  due consideration with                                                               
regard to  lengthening the  time between  the reviews  of [local]                                                               
coastal management plans.                                                                                                       
MS. VON BARGEN  turned attention to Section 9 and  said that home                                                               
rule and first-class cities that  do exercise planning and zoning                                                               
authorities   aren't   covered   under   the   coastal   resource                                                               
definition;  only  those in  the  unorganized  borough or  within                                                               
boroughs  that do  not exercise  planning and  zoning authorities                                                               
are included.   She noted  that she  was unsure whether  that was                                                               
just an oversight or whether it was an intentional omission.                                                                    
Number 1721                                                                                                                     
PAT CARLSON, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough, expressed gratitude                                                                
for the hard work that had been done and said the [proposed CS]                                                                 
was much better than the previous version.  He remarked:                                                                        
     We would  be really  hard put to  deal with  the review                                                                    
     process in  six months, and  even a year may  be tough,                                                                    
     and  certainly ...  the continuing  review process,  we                                                                    
     would argue for  more like ten years,  unless there was                                                                    
     some  dramatic change  or ...  some specific  item that                                                                    
     needed review. ...                                                                                                         
     One of  the big concerns  I've got is ...  dropping DEC                                                                    
     from the  consistency review.  ... Maybe  I'm paranoid,                                                                    
     but  there's  always  the possibility  that  maybe  DEC                                                                    
     might  make an  inconsistent decision.  ... We  believe                                                                    
     that that  ought to be  looked at strongly,  because in                                                                    
     the  terms   of  air  and  quality   and  interface  of                                                                    
     subsistence  resources on  a local  level  and ...  the                                                                    
     residential  areas and  other areas  of concern  [that]                                                                    
     are great out  here in the rural areas, we  do not have                                                                    
     DEC response;  we do not  have DEC personnel  that deal                                                                    
     with air and water quality  on [the] island.  They deal                                                                    
     remotely.   They deal through  the borough.   They look                                                                    
     to  the  borough  for  kind   of  local  knowledge  and                                                                    
     enforcement.  So, I'm concerned if there's that split.                                                                     
     The other thing that I  bring up, and I've mentioned it                                                                    
     before ...  is ... [AS] 35.30.020,  which is compliance                                                                    
     of municipal ordinances, which  requires [the] State of                                                                    
     Alaska  [to]  comply  with local  planning  and  zoning                                                                    
     ordinances  in  the  same manner  as  other  owners  of                                                                    
     property.   And I have  concerns that ...  there [have]                                                                    
     been [attorney general's]  opinions and other instances                                                                    
     as well, unless we say otherwise.                                                                                          
     And just to minimize confusion,  I think it needs to be                                                                    
     really  clear how  ... planning  and zoning  interface,                                                                    
     because in many cases it  may have some of these issues                                                                    
     that  are  in this.    ...  Maybe the  committee  could                                                                    
     consider having  the new committee review  the existing                                                                    
     plans.   We went  through tremendous trouble  [for] two                                                                    
     and a half years to  generate this thing. ... Just tell                                                                    
     us what's wrong and we can review that. ...                                                                                
     Does  anybody know  what went  wrong with  the plan  to                                                                    
     drive this?   In  our area it's  been pretty  quiet, so                                                                    
     we're not  aware of  any big issues,  ... and  if there                                                                    
     are, we'd like to know when we can address them.                                                                           
Number 1485                                                                                                                     
MR.  CARLSON  [in  response to  a  question  from  Representative                                                               
Seaton regarding  page 10, sub-subparagraphs  (i) and  (iii), and                                                               
whether  that will  encompass  or preclude  most  of the  current                                                               
enforceable policies] remarked:                                                                                                 
     I would say  if the state has an issue  with them, tell                                                                    
     us what  it is so  that we  can work on  what's unique,                                                                    
     rather than force  us to go through the  whole plan all                                                                    
     over again,  trying to guess what's  unique, because in                                                                    
     our case,  maybe we  don't think  it's unique  and they                                                                    
     do.  ... It  would be  better to  go through  them all,                                                                    
     shred  out the  things that  are clearly  redundant and                                                                    
     repetitive,  and ...  tell us  what's inconsistent  and                                                                    
     have us focus on those,  rather than trying to struggle                                                                    
     through the whole plan all  over again, because ours is                                                                    
     ... 80 pages.                                                                                                              
Number 1365                                                                                                                     
KAROL  KOLEHMAINEN,  Program  Director,  Aleutians  West  Coastal                                                               
Resource Service  Area (CRSA) Board, expressed  gratitude for all                                                               
the amendments done  in the bill that allow the  CRSA to continue                                                               
to exist and participate in the  program.  She said she was going                                                               
to essentially  reiterate what Mr.  Kelty had to say  earlier, to                                                               
emphasize how important it is to their district.                                                                                
MS.  KOLEHMAINEN told  members  that the  five-year review  cycle                                                               
will  be  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  districts;                                                               
depending on the extent of  the review, it's complicated and very                                                               
difficult to complete, particularly if  someone is trying to do a                                                               
good job  and ensure that it's  perfect.  The other  point is the                                                               
difference  in the  language between  the main  language for  DNR                                                               
regarding plan approval and all  of the "shall and will" language                                                               
as it  relates to  how plans  need to be  constructed.   It would                                                               
seem that  if the districts  have met  all of the  criteria, then                                                               
the  plans  should be  able  to  be  approved,  or it  should  be                                                               
identified  what  would  need  to  be changed  to  have  them  be                                                               
approved, she said.                                                                                                             
MS.  KOLEHMAINEN  referred to  Section  14  and said  she'd  been                                                               
trying to consider how difficult  that criteria would be for some                                                               
districts to  meet by  virtue of  the fact  that the  language in                                                               
[sub-subsection]  (ii)  ends in  "and"  rather  than "or".    She                                                               
reiterated that it would be  difficult to complete plan revisions                                                               
in a year.                                                                                                                      
Number 1109                                                                                                                     
KEN  DONAJKOWSKI,  Manager,   Health  Safety  Environment  (HSE),                                                               
Conoco Phillips Alaska,  Inc., testified on behalf  of the Alaska                                                               
Oil and Gas  Association (AOGA).  He explained  that AOGA remains                                                               
firm  in its  commitment  to  reform the  ACMP  and applauds  the                                                               
administration's interest in reforming it.   He noted that [AOGA]                                                               
had  reviewed previous  drafts,  but had  not  obtained the  most                                                               
recent proposed  CS until  this meeting  and didn't  know exactly                                                               
what was it contained.                                                                                                          
MR. DONAJKOWSKI expressed concerns about  the draft that had been                                                               
reviewed  by  AOGA and  said,  consequently,  AOGA had  developed                                                               
specific language  and submitted  that to the  administration but                                                               
did  not know  if  [those  changes] had  been  considered in  the                                                               
current  proposed CS.   In  addition,  AOGA's editorial  comments                                                               
with regard to  the proposed specific language  had been provided                                                               
to  the committee.   He  highlighted the  critical considerations                                                               
that  AOGA applied  in its  development of  the modifications  by                                                               
saying there  must be recognition  that state and federal  law is                                                               
already in place, is comprehensive,  and is protective of coastal                                                               
resources; thus  local enforceable  policies should  only address                                                               
unique local concerns  that are not addressed by  those state and                                                               
federal laws.  He noted AOGA's  belief that uses of state concern                                                               
must  be the  priority with  regard to  enforceable policies  and                                                               
that local enforceable policies  should not arbitrarily or unduly                                                               
be restricted or exclude uses of state concern.                                                                                 
Number 0972                                                                                                                     
MR. DONAJKOWSKI  said AOGA  believes DEC's  land, air,  and water                                                               
statutes and  regulations are  inherently consistent  and subject                                                               
to extensive  public comment and  review; therefore,  that should                                                               
be  clearly articulated  in  the proposed  CS;  such permits  and                                                               
authorizations  from   DEC  should  then  not   delay  any  other                                                               
associated   agency  permits   or  consistency   reviews.     Mr.                                                               
Donajkowski suggested the scope of  a review should be limited to                                                             
activities  within   the  geographically  defined   coastal  zone                                                               
subject to federal or state  permits authorizations and so forth.                                                               
He  said that  there  must be  effective  flexibility for  large,                                                               
complex projects  and that there  are certainly  some indications                                                               
in the  administration's comments that they  have addressed that.                                                               
Consistency reviews  must be  held to  a definitive  timeframe so                                                               
the  process isn't  subject to  arbitrary delays.   He  said ACMP                                                               
wasn't intended to,  nor should it, emulate  the so-called "NEPA"                                                               
process as outlined in the  [National Environmental Policy Act of                                                               
1969].   Mr. Donajkowski said  AOGA is committed to  working with                                                               
the administration and interested  legislators as this bill moves                                                               
through the committee process.                                                                                                  
Number 0860                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA referred  to the  uses of  state concern                                                               
and asked Mr.  Donajkowski what he would change  from the current                                                               
MR.  DONAJKOWSKI said  he wants  it to  be certain  that a  local                                                               
matter cannot simply  override de facto issues of  concern to the                                                               
state, so  that there  isn't a  "suboptimization" of  the state's                                                               
interests for local interests.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  said  currently  the  program  protects                                                               
these  special areas  and  special  uses, but  it  also has  that                                                               
overriding concern  for uses as a  state concern.  She  asked Mr.                                                               
Donajkowski  if he  could  offer an  example or  if  it was  just                                                               
something he wanted to ensure is maintained.                                                                                    
MR. DONAJKOWSKI told Representative  Kerttula that it's something                                                               
[AOGA] wants to  ensure is very clear.  He  said the ACMP history                                                               
is   fraught  with   lawsuits,  court   decisions,  and   interim                                                               
legislative fixes.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA said  any  permitting system,  including                                                               
DEC's,  experiences lawsuits.    She  asked if  it  was not  just                                                               
coastal management that [experiences lawsuits].                                                                                 
MR.  DONAJKOWSKI  replied  yes,  and said  [AOGA]  has  the  same                                                               
interest  with  any regulation  or  legislation  that applies  to                                                               
this.   In response to  Representative Seaton [who'd  asked about                                                               
offshore oil and  gas], he indicated AOGA would like  to be clear                                                               
that if  something is in  the coastal  zone as defined,  it would                                                               
have  to  go  through  the  process, but  if  it's  outside  that                                                               
geographical boundary, it  would be clear that  going through the                                                               
process isn't required.                                                                                                         
Number 0656                                                                                                                     
MR.  DONAJKOWSKI  [in response  to  a  comment by  Representative                                                               
Seaton about projects  outside the coastal zone  that will impact                                                               
the  coastal zone  area]  said the  coastal  zone was  originally                                                               
defined  to   be  far  from   the  coastal  zone   shoreline,  in                                                               
anticipation of  encompassing those projects that  would directly                                                               
impact the  coastal zone.   He said the current  process requires                                                               
one  to demonstrate  that  the project  won't  [have an  impact];                                                               
because it's  already so  far beyond that,  one wouldn't  know in                                                               
advance whether there will be  a decision that, in [AOGA's] view,                                                               
can be  arbitrary as to whether  or not [a project  can be deemed                                                               
as] potentially  impacting the  zone.  He  said the  coastal zone                                                               
has already  been defined  large enough  to mitigate  any project                                                               
that  would have  an impact,  and this  provides certainty  about                                                               
whether one is in the coastal zone or not.                                                                                      
Number 0554                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA  asked  Mr.  Donajkowski  if  the  outer                                                               
continental shelf (OCS) and the  federal development that happens                                                               
there should be taken out.                                                                                                      
MR. DONAJKOWSKI replied absolutely not.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA mentioned  having that  in the  original                                                               
MR. DONAJKOWSKI replied absolutely.                                                                                             
Number 0513                                                                                                                     
SARAH   GILBERTSON,  Policy   and  Program   Coordinator,  Alaska                                                               
Municipal  League  (AML),  testified   that  AML  represents  140                                                               
communities  around  the  state;   all  of  its  members  support                                                               
streamlining and  economic development, but  AML had not  taken a                                                               
position of the current proposed  CS because AML had been working                                                               
with the  administration to come  up with  a CS.   Ms. Gilbertson                                                               
explained  that  the  [administration] had  asked  for  community                                                               
input;  teleconferences had  been  held, there  had been  e-mails                                                               
back  and  forth,  and  [AML and  the  administration]  had  been                                                               
working together.                                                                                                               
MS.  GILBERTSON said  she thought  the  proposed CS  demonstrated                                                               
that AML's  and the  communities' concerns had  been heard.   She                                                               
indicated testimony demonstrates that a  lot of AML members still                                                               
have concerns.   For example, one concern is the  number of years                                                               
that  communities  will  have to  review  and  resubmit  [coastal                                                               
management] plans.                                                                                                              
Number 0393                                                                                                                     
MS. GILBERTSON explained  that many members would  like to change                                                               
that [requirement]  from five to ten  years because it is  such a                                                               
huge process  to go  through.  Also,  some communities  only have                                                               
six months  to review and  resubmit or rewrite  their enforceable                                                               
policies.  Ms.  Gilbertson mentioned concerns that  Mr. Kelty had                                                               
expressed during his  testimony regarding the [time  it takes] to                                                               
travel  to 68  different villages  to hold  hearings.   She noted                                                               
that [this is another reason] for the [request] for more time.                                                                  
MS. GILBERTSON  expressed concern  about the limitation  of local                                                               
authority  or local  participation.   She  remarked, "That  comes                                                               
from breaking out  DEC from the consistency review  process as we                                                               
know it now."  She reiterated  her belief that the proposed CS is                                                               
much  better  than  the  original bill,  and  she  commended  the                                                               
administration for  working with  AML to  come up  with something                                                               
better.  However,  in light of the concerns that  were noted, she                                                               
asked that  the committee take  the next  week to fine  tune this                                                               
bill to make it better.                                                                                                         
Number 0301                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Gilbertson  what she thought would                                                               
make the bill better.                                                                                                           
MS. GILBERTSON  reiterated her suggestion  of changing  the five-                                                               
year [coastal  management plan review  requirement] to  every ten                                                               
years,  and of  considering giving  a year  to those  communities                                                               
[that  only  have]  six  months   to  rework  and  rewrite  their                                                               
enforceable policies.  She said this  would be a lot better and a                                                               
lot easier for people like Mr.  Kelty who go to the [68 villages]                                                               
and hold hearings.  Ms. Gilbertson  said she didn't know if there                                                               
was anything that could  be done on the DEC side  of things.  She                                                               
reiterated that  this would [be  a good  reason] to use  the next                                                               
week to really talk about that issue.                                                                                           
MS. GILBERTSON  [in response  to Representative  Seaton regarding                                                               
whether  communities  represented  by   AML  are  concerned  that                                                               
Sections 7, 10, and 13 remove  the public hearing and local input                                                               
process]  surmised that  he was  referring to  procedural changes                                                               
because of the elimination of  the Alaska Coastal Policy Council.                                                               
She said  AML had some of  the same concerns and  had talked with                                                               
the administration yesterday.   In terms of DNR's  coming up with                                                               
the  new  standards, she  said  local  governments will  have  to                                                               
comply  with  that process;  it's  still  subject to  the  public                                                               
comment process, so local communities  and governments will still                                                               
have a say and  be able to comment on those  new standards as the                                                               
administration goes through the regulation process.                                                                             
Number 0041                                                                                                                     
DOUGLAS MERTZ,  Prince William Sound Regional  Citizen's Advisory                                                               
Council  (PWSRCAC),  testified  that  [PWSRCAC]  is  composed  of                                                               
communities,  municipalities,  and  other entities  in  the  area                                                               
impacted by the  Exxon Valdez oil spill; these are  the folks who                                                               
know  firsthand   what  can  happen  to   local  concerns,  local                                                               
livelihoods, and local  resources when new events  happen in that                                                               
TAPE 03-32, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MR. MERTZ  said in reading over  the language of the  proposed CS                                                               
and in  listening to comments  from the  administration, [PWSRCAC                                                               
members] had  increasing concerns about the  "disconnect" between                                                               
the apparent  intention of the  drafters and the language  in the                                                               
bill.    From  his  experience as  a  former  assistant  attorney                                                               
general, he  highlighted what a  problem it is when  the drafters                                                               
have an intention  that doesn't make it into the  language of the                                                               
bill  in  a clear  and  unambiguous  manner;  it is  an  absolute                                                               
disaster.  Mr. Mertz remarked:                                                                                                  
     In  this case,  ...  in  Section 11  it  says that  DEC                                                                    
     statutes  and  [regulations]  regarding  protection  of                                                                    
     air,  land,   and  water  quality  are   the  exclusive                                                                    
     enforceable policies of the ACMP.   Our friends ... put                                                                    
     it in  terms of  "that's so,"  but that's  not counting                                                                    
     matters of  local concern.  Well,  that section doesn't                                                                    
     say so,  and, in fact,  even if it  did say so,  if you                                                                    
     turn  to the  definition of  matters of  state concern,                                                                    
     which are  by definition not matters  of local concern,                                                                    
     in Section  42 you  have all  kinds of  restrictions on                                                                    
     what  can  be considered  a  matter  of local  concern.                                                                    
     Marty [Rutherford] gave the eelgrass example.                                                                              
     Well, ... under Section 42,  if two adjacent CRSAs both                                                                    
     have concerns about the effect  of a particular project                                                                    
     on eelgrass,  then under  Section 42  it's no  longer a                                                                    
     matter  of  local  concern;  it's  a  matter  of  state                                                                    
     concern,  and hence  the local  entities cannot  put it                                                                    
     into  an  enforceable  policy -  only  the  state  can.                                                                    
     That's  an  example of  what  we  see in  the  language                                                                    
     itself  as putting  enormous  burdens and  restrictions                                                                    
     ... on  the ability  of the local  entities to  come up                                                                    
     with  any enforceable  policies that  aren't in  effect                                                                    
     preempted here.                                                                                                            
Number 0197                                                                                                                     
     It  is difficult  to come  up with  anything, including                                                                    
     eelgrass,  which doesn't  come within  air, land,  [or]                                                                    
     water  quality.   Eelgrass certainly  is situated  into                                                                    
     their land  or water, depending  on where the  tide is.                                                                    
     I think that  one arguably could be  not something that                                                                    
     a local entity could do anything about. ...                                                                                
     Section 21,  which is the  one that says  the reviewing                                                                    
     entity,  reviewing   for  consistency   purposes  shall                                                                    
     exclude  from  its  existence  consistency  review  and                                                                    
     determination and activity authorized  by DEC under its                                                                    
     air, land,  and water quality requirements  - does this                                                                    
     mean  that  a  local  reviewing entity  cannot  find  a                                                                    
     project inconsistent with  its local coastal management                                                                    
     plan if  the local  requirements in  any way  relate to                                                                    
     land, water, or air quality?   You could certainly read                                                                    
     it that way.  ... We hope their intention  is not that.                                                                    
     But  ...  if  that  intention  is  to  be  put  in  the                                                                    
     statutes, it's going to require a definite rewrite.                                                                        
     Here's another example  of a problem:   Section 14 says                                                                    
     the  department may  approve  coastal management  plans                                                                    
     that meet  ... detail-listed criteria.   Well, the word                                                                    
     "may" is ambiguous,  and our friends here  have said it                                                                    
     definitely gives  them discretion.   Does it  give them                                                                    
     discretion  to reject  a  plan that  meets  all of  the                                                                    
     criteria  that  are  set out  in  that  statute,  taken                                                                    
     literally?  It  sure sounds like they can.   And yet it                                                                    
     doesn't say  what criteria ...  the department  can use                                                                    
     to reject the plan that  meets the criteria.  These are                                                                    
     examples  of  continuing  problems with  an  enormously                                                                    
     complicated bill.                                                                                                          
     We think  the only way  to avoid having this  become an                                                                    
     ultimate disaster  is to put  on the brakes,  send this                                                                    
     ... to a task force  composed of stakeholders, and have                                                                    
     them take  the time to do  it right, to come  up with a                                                                    
     ...  bill that  takes whatever  consensus emerges  from                                                                    
     that process and  puts it in clear  and unambiguous and                                                                    
     enforceable language that nobody can quibble over its                                                                      
     interpretation of.                                                                                                         
Number 0427                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA noted  that  she had  some  of the  same                                                               
concerns.  She turned attention  to Section 14, subparagraph (C),                                                               
sub-subparagraph  (ii),  which  read  in  part,  "not  adequately                                                               
addressed by state  or federal law"; she said she  had never seen                                                               
language like  that before.  She  asked Mr. Mertz if  he had ever                                                               
seen that language used in statute.                                                                                             
MR. MERTZ indicated that he had not.   He said this is an example                                                               
of the kind of ambiguous language  that leaves a lot of questions                                                               
up  in the  air.   In  response to  Representative Seaton  [who'd                                                               
directed attention  to Section 14, sub-subparagraphs  (i) through                                                               
(iii) and asked how many  existing coastal policies would qualify                                                               
under  that criteria],  Mr. Mertz  said  he could  not provide  a                                                               
number; in  looking over existing  policies, however,  he thought                                                               
someone  could  come  up  with   a  legal  argument  that  almost                                                               
everything in  every one of them  runs afoul of one  or the other                                                               
of  these   restrictions.    He  suggested   that  doesn't  mean,                                                               
necessarily, in  the end that  a court  would say they're  all no                                                               
good or  that the department  would toss  them out.   But there's                                                               
trouble  ahead because  a reasonable  person  could interpret  it                                                               
that way, he concluded.                                                                                                         
Number 0608                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG mentioned  testimony regarding changing                                                               
the timeline for  [coastal management plan] reviews  from five to                                                               
ten  years.    He  indicated the  [testimony]  is  usually  about                                                               
resource and  financial problems related to  conducting a review.                                                               
He asked, if  the aforementioned problems weren't  an issue, what                                                               
an adequate time period to conduct the reviews would be.                                                                        
MR. MERTZ said he doesn't know.                                                                                                 
Number 0670                                                                                                                     
TERI CAMERY, Planner, City and  Borough of Juneau, noted that she                                                               
was testifying before  the committee with approval  from the city                                                               
manager  to  represent Juneau.    She  said she  appreciates  the                                                               
efforts of  the administration to  continue working on  this bill                                                               
and suggested that there are  definitely some improvements in the                                                               
proposed CS.   However, she offered her belief  that this version                                                               
still  strips  away a  significant  amount  of local  control  in                                                               
various ways,  and places the  power of approving  local policies                                                               
and  plans  into   the  hands  of  a  single   agency,  which  is                                                               
problematic.   She said  it creates a  great deal  of uncertainty                                                               
for CBJ.                                                                                                                        
MS. CAMERY noted that [CBJ] has  had less than 48 hours to review                                                               
the proposed CS, and  she asked for more time to  review it.  She                                                               
said this is a complicated bill  with many major changes from the                                                               
last  version.   Although it  is  an improvement  over the  first                                                               
[version],  she said  [CBJ] would  really like  to review  a more                                                               
carefully considered third version.                                                                                             
Number 0758                                                                                                                     
MS. CAMERY  suggested having  a working group.   She  offered her                                                               
understanding  that  the  administration has  been  working  with                                                               
local  districts  to some  extent;  she  said  CBJ has  not  been                                                               
involved in  that and has  many concerns  it would like  to bring                                                               
out.   She offered  her belief  that the best  way to  approach a                                                               
change  to  the program  of  this  magnitude  is to  establish  a                                                               
working  group  of  districts,   agencies,  and  industry.    She                                                               
acknowledged  that the  coastal  management plan  does have  many                                                               
problems and expressed her desire to  find a way to address those                                                               
problems in  a way  that preserves  local control  and oversight.                                                               
She  explained that  this legislation  requires  a plan  revision                                                               
within  six months,  subject  to approval  by  DNR, and  requires                                                               
those  local   policies  to   be  concise,   nonduplicative,  and                                                               
enforceable.  It  appears that the local  policies cannot address                                                               
issues related to state permits, she indicated.                                                                                 
MS. CAMERY  said this [legislation]  is broad and  vague; there's                                                               
also the  larger issue of  whether state agencies  can adequately                                                               
perform  their duties.   She  remarked, "I  say this  without any                                                               
criticism toward employees of DEC  and [the Alaska Department of]                                                               
Fish  and Game."    She said  very often  in  [CBJ's] local  plan                                                               
review,  it is  very difficult  receiving adequate  comments from                                                               
these   agencies  because   their  budgets   have  been   cut  so                                                               
extensively by this  administration and previous administrations.                                                               
In effect, this approach is  not allowing local districts to have                                                               
any plans  that duplicate state  policies or address  any similar                                                               
issues; it's saying "trust the state agency," she remarked.                                                                     
Number 0888                                                                                                                     
MS. CAMERY explained  what happens:  for very  valid reasons, the                                                               
state  agencies can't  effectively address  their responsibility.                                                               
She  offered  her belief  that  it's  a real  consideration  that                                                               
hasn't been adequately addressed.   Many districts have mentioned                                                               
the  difficulty  of  revising their  [coastal  management]  plans                                                               
within  six  months.     Ms.  Camery  said   that  from  Juneau's                                                               
perspective, that would be absolutely  impossible.  Those changes                                                               
would  have  to go  through  a  public  process, be  reviewed  by                                                               
[CBJ's]  law department,  and go  to [CBJ's]  planning commission                                                               
and assembly.   She requested that  the [aforementioned deadline]                                                               
be increased to at least a year.                                                                                                
MS. CAMERY also requested changing  the five-year review to every                                                               
ten years;  reiterated her suggestion  that local  districts need                                                               
to be  included in a  consistency review process for  DEC, rather                                                               
than removed from  that process; and stressed the  need for local                                                               
districts to be  included and to have due  deference and approval                                                               
of the plans by DNR.  She said  it is puzzling that after so much                                                               
work  that went  into these  original policies,  and without  any                                                               
criticisms  that  she was  aware  of  on  the local  level,  this                                                               
expansive  revision  is  being requested.    She  expressed  very                                                               
strong concerns about current elements  that would be written out                                                               
because of some perceived overlap with a permit.                                                                                
Number 1022                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   KERTTULA  asked   Ms.  Camery   how  the   local                                                               
enforceable  policies  are  currently  used  in  the  consistency                                                               
MS.  CAMERY  went on  to  say  that  through DNR,  all  [involved                                                               
parties] come together for a  pre-application meeting and discuss                                                               
the  project  as  a  whole;  that format  is  beneficial  to  the                                                               
developer, who gets informed about  what permits are needed, what                                                               
local permits  are needed,  and areas of  special concern.   Many                                                               
times, the developer can revise  the project and address concerns                                                               
before the  consistency review begins; then,  through the coastal                                                               
management timeline,  CBJ will submit  its comments  and evaluate                                                               
how  the project  is consistent  with different  elements of  the                                                               
coastal  management  plan  that   could  include  [CBJ's]  stream                                                               
setbacks or  the Juneau wetland  management plan, which  has very                                                               
specific  wetland  standards,  especially for  waterfront  areas,                                                               
which are areas  preferred for development.  The  Juneau plan has                                                               
a number  of unique elements that  are felt to be  very specific.                                                               
Ms. Camery explained  that those comments would be  turned in and                                                               
then included in the final permitting and (indisc.).                                                                            
Number 1126                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  how often  projects are  rejected                                                               
because of a CBJ comment.                                                                                                       
MS.  CAMERY said  in the  three years  that she's  been with  the                                                               
city, she  could think of  only one  incident in all  the reviews                                                               
she'd done;  it was a case  where the applicant came  back with a                                                               
modification that  basically redid everything that  [CBJ] and the                                                               
applicant had agreed that the applicant wouldn't do.                                                                            
Number 1162                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  KERTTULA asked  Ms. Camery  how many  permits she                                                               
reviews a year.                                                                                                                 
MS. CAMERY said  for the ACMP, approximately 40.   In response to                                                               
Representative  Seaton [who'd  asked  whether  she thought  CBJ's                                                               
ordinances would still  apply under the proposed  CS, noting that                                                               
the  previous version  specified  that Title  29  would still  be                                                               
applicable],  Ms.  Camery said  it  was  very confusing  to  her.                                                               
Currently,  [CBJ's]   coastal  management  program  is   part  of                                                               
Title 29 requirements, part of the  local code adopted into local                                                               
ordinance.   If [CBJ's] plan changes  significantly through DNR's                                                               
approval process,  then it's hard to  know how all of  that would                                                               
wash out.  [CBJ] could  have one coastal management plan approved                                                               
by DNR,  but still have another  plan in the local  ordinance, so                                                               
it could be very problematic.                                                                                                   
[Representative    Seaton   asked    that   someone    with   the                                                               
administration respond.]                                                                                                        
Number 1260                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE noted the submittal of  another proposed CS by AOGA [a                                                               
work draft labeled 03-0069 bil2.doc,  4/16/203].  He indicated he                                                               
would hold the  bill until 04/23/03 to allow time  for a thorough                                                               
review  of   the  current  bill   version;  to   gather  proposed                                                               
amendments; and  for staff to work  on the bill with  AOGA, other                                                               
interested parties, and the administration.                                                                                     
CHAIR  FATE  mentioned Mr.  Shavelson's  comment  that he  didn't                                                               
think the  proposed CS would  save any permitting time,  and that                                                               
the old ACMP was efficient and  effective and saved about as much                                                               
time as this  would.  Chair Fate  said it was pointed  out to him                                                               
during  his discussion  with members  of the  administration that                                                               
there would be  a savings of time.   He asked if  the attempt was                                                               
to shorten the  permitting period and yet have  due process still                                                               
Number 1422                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD said  one of the things Mr.  Shavelson referred to                                                               
during a  House Special  Committee on  Fisheries meeting  is that                                                               
the average  review time of  a consistency determination  is 50.8                                                               
days.    She said  [the  time  period]  doesn't include  a  clock                                                               
stoppage;  when DGC  used to  calculate  the average  time for  a                                                               
consistency review,  it didn't identify  the amount of  time when                                                               
the  process  was stopped  while  a  particular agency  requested                                                               
additional information.  Ms. Rutherford  said that clock stoppage                                                               
can  vary from  one  week to  one  year.   She  talked about  one                                                               
particular project that was supposed  to have a 50-day review but                                                               
that was under review for 465 days.                                                                                             
MS.  RUTHERFORD suggested  that  sometimes  the statistics  don't                                                               
always capture the entire picture.   She referred to a discussion                                                               
about removing  air, land, and  water quality standards  from the                                                               
consistency review,  and letting  DEC permit decisions  that [are                                                               
found consistent].   Ms. Rutherford  said in doing that,  many of                                                               
DEC's conflict  permit decisions  will be  removed from  the time                                                               
that  it  takes to  complete  a  consistency  review.   She  said                                                               
someone can  get those permits  that are part of  the consistency                                                               
review, apart  from DEC's determination, out  and completed while                                                               
DEC is still determining whether  or not those activities subject                                                               
to its  air, land,  and water  quality standards  are appropriate                                                               
and can be deemed consistent by that agency.                                                                                    
MS. RUTHERFORD  referred to  Fort Knox,  where it  was identified                                                               
that  because it  was not  subject to  a consistency  review, and                                                               
because the permit was not  wrapped into a consistency review, 12                                                               
to 18 months  was saved.  Ms. Rutherford offered  her belief that                                                               
there will  be extensive time  savings associated with  these two                                                               
elements.    She  noted that  Areas  Meriting  Special  Attention                                                               
(AMSAs) are  retained in this proposed  CS, so that is  not going                                                               
to  be a  problem.   She mentioned  concerns about  [funding] and                                                               
said the  [department] is currently  attempting to  identify what                                                               
kind of  federal grant  monies would be  available to  assist the                                                               
districts in completing these projects.                                                                                         
MS.  RUTHERFORD turned  attention to  concerns expressed  by AOGA                                                               
and said  the proposed CS was  available on the [Internet]  as of                                                               
[04/11/03], and that the current  proposed CS doesn't capture any                                                               
of  AOGA's   proposed  amendments.    She   mentioned  a  concern                                                               
expressed by AOGA  about a test, under the  current program, that                                                               
has  to occur  as to  whether or  not something  is subject  to a                                                               
consistency review, even though it  might be outside the boundary                                                               
of the district.                                                                                                                
Number 1642                                                                                                                     
MS. RUTHERFORD said  this proposed CS does  resolve that problem;                                                               
it states clearly  that there is a "bright line."   She remarked,                                                               
"The  district boundary,  as  it currently  was  approved by  the                                                               
coastal policy  council, is the  bright line; if you  are outside                                                               
of  that  district  boundary,  then  you are  not  subject  to  a                                                               
consistency [review];  if you are  inside that boundary,  you are                                                               
subject  to a  consistency [review]."   She  said the  reason for                                                               
this is  because Alaska  has some of  the most  extensive coastal                                                               
boundaries in the nation, and  she asserted that this proposed CS                                                               
does  not eliminate  the due  deference that  is provided  by the                                                               
current  program   to  the  local  districts.     Ms.  Rutherford                                                               
explained  that this  would  not  change; it's  an  element of  a                                                               
project review and would be retained for the local districts.                                                                   
Number 1706                                                                                                                     
MR. SHAVELSON responded:                                                                                                        
     The information  that I previously  cited was  from the                                                                    
     Division  of  Governmental  Coordination, and  I  don't                                                                    
     believe  that  clock  stoppage  was  omitted  from  the                                                                    
     statistics that  I read that showed,  for example, that                                                                    
     the   average  length   of   a   30-day  review,   with                                                                    
     extensions,  was  actually  28.2  days.   So,  I  think                                                                    
     there's some  disagreement over those facts  there, and                                                                    
     I would be happy to share them with the committee.                                                                         
     Another  issue  with the  delays  is  that the  primary                                                                    
     concern   from  some   in  the   development  community                                                                    
     previously  had  been  that   there  was  [an]  appeals                                                                    
     process  under  the  coastal  management  program  that                                                                    
     caused a  lot of  delays.   And this  legislature fixed                                                                    
     that last year.  So,  a big impediment has been removed                                                                    
     there.  So  I do question that ... the  changes now are                                                                    
     going to result in significant savings.                                                                                    
     And one  last point is  that ... by separating  out the                                                                    
     [DEC] permits,  we're actually creating a  dual process                                                                    
     and, in a  way, complicating things and  making it more                                                                    
     cumbersome.  So  I am not sure that we're  going to see                                                                    
     any efficiencies coming  out of that, but  what we will                                                                    
     see  is   local  districts  and  citizens   in  coastal                                                                    
         communities confused by having to weigh in, in                                                                         
     different arenas.                                                                                                          
Number 1785                                                                                                                     
CHAIR FATE, upon determining no one else wished to testify,                                                                     
closed public testimony.  [HB 191 was held over.]                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects