Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 211
02/05/2009 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB19 | |
| SB3 | |
| SB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 19 | ||
SB 4-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
3:47:21 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 4 and asked for a
motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR THOMAS moved to adopt work draft CS for SB 41 [SB 4],
labeled 26-LS0019\R as the working document. There being no
objection, version R, was adopted.
MR. BENINTENDI, Staff, to Senator Olson, sponsor of SB 4, said
version R mirrors HB 74. He noted that the sectional analysis
shows in red the differences from the original bill. He
introduced SB 4 with the following statement:
In the main, Senate Bill 4 would have you determine
whether you want to restore a significant measure of
local authority, or not, when it comes to development
project reviews and district plan approvals in the
coastal areas of our state. With better than 44,000
miles of coastline, resource development objectives,
and traditional resource uses, that's a considerable
issue.
Major changes in the Alaska Coastal Management Program
in 2003 eliminated the Coastal Policy Council and
shifted authority over permit review and compliance
matters to the Department of Natural Resources. Prior
to 2003, the program was not felt to be significantly
problematic. After 2003, regulations adopted by the
Department of Natural Resources severely limited the
ability of coastal districts to establish enforceable
policies regarding the eventual effects of development
on coastal resources and uses.
Currently, there are 28 coastal management districts
with approved coastal management programs, or programs
under review for approval. Increased federal funding
may be likely in the next two years. There are two
major grant programs in federal regulation which
sustain the ACMP, the so-called 306 program which is
basically for implementation, and the 309 which is for
special projects. A state match is required for 306,
but no state match is required for 309.
AS 46.39 and AS 46.40 are the operative statutes. And
the Consistency Reviews are handled under 11 AAC 110,
11 AAC 112 deals with statewide standards, and 11 AAC
114 covers the district plan approval process.
Now to the committee substitute itself:
The bill would establish a nine-member Alaska Coastal
Policy Board, composed of 5 coastal district members,
and the commissioners of DNR, Fish and Game, DEC, and
Commerce, Community & Economic Development. This would
be smaller than the 17-member panel in existence prior
to 2003. This version [R] would add a fifth public
member, and add the commissioner of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development to the Board.
The Board would have, among other things, the
authority to approve district management plans,
approve regulations developed by the department [DNR],
approve program changes, apply for and accept grants
and other monies, evaluate the effectiveness of
district management plans, and settle disputes.
CSSB 4(CRA) would allow coastal districts to develop
management plans, create enforceable policies, and
address "special management areas," usually regarded
as physically sensitive to change and development.
Other authorities would deal with consistency reviews
on federal lands and waters, the Outer Continental
Shelf, inland development proposals if they would
greatly impact the coastal zone, and seismic surveying
activity.
In this version of the bill, [version R], subsistence
usage is specifically identified as a value within the
ACMP objectives.
And the so-called DEC Carve-Out is eliminated in this
bill. This Carve-Out basically says that a permit
issued by DEC for a project is automatically
considered "consistent" with program [ACMP] objectives
and requirements. But this bill would take that
provision out.
The bill provides for authority over development
inland from the coastal area if there should be
significant impact to the coastal zone, and inclusion
of activities in federal waters and the Outer
Continental Shelf.
This version of the bill [version R] would also
address "seismic survey activity," and would make each
lease sale subject to an individual consistency
reviews. That's a pretty strong bone of contention.
These are just some of the sub-issues within the scope
of the ACMP program. The primary thrust, of course, is
to return significant authority to local district
residents by sharing power over the Alaska Coastal
Management Program between public members and the
identified commissioners. Since 2003, all authority
has rested solely with the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources.
3:53:37 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked how this differs from the pre-2003 program,
other than the number of board members.
MR. BENINTENDI replied some of the sub-issues he highlighted
would be handled differently than they were before the 2003
changes. The key issue is having or not having the board. "You
either have a board which shares empowerment with some of the
local folks or you concentrate authority in the department." If
a board again is established, several things will happen that
will go against having the department manage the program.
CHAIR OLSON questioned why this board would have fewer members
than the previous board.
MR. BENINTENDI replied he can't answer that specifically.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that the sectional analysis is very
helpful. He takes it that the black text refers to version R and
the red text refers to the original language.
MR. BENINTENDI said that's correct.
3:56:06 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH noted that ConocoPhillips seems to like the
current process and asked if there is a reason they wouldn't
support the change.
MR. BENINTENDI acknowledged that his opinion is generalized. He
suggested that an industry that is trying to develop resources
has a great many issues to deal with in the permit and review
process. "Generally speaking it's very involved and complex."
Perhaps Mr. Bates is better able to articulate some of the key
areas where "that might be the rub," he added.
CHAIR OLSON opened public testimony.
3:57:43 PM
TERI CAMREY, Planner, City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), stated
support for SB 4. "I think this goes a long way to addressing
the most serious concerns that we have had with the program."
CBJ strongly supports reinstating the role of Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and restoring the Coastal
Policy Council.
She said she will focus on how local district policies
streamline development and promote coordination with applicants.
As a result of the 2003 Murkowski administration changes,
Juneau's Coastal Management Program went from 99 policies to
just 16 and the mediation process was lengthy. However, the rest
of those policies didn't just go away. Like many other
districts, Juneau's Coastal Management Program is a management
tool that contains environmental regulations as well as pro
development elements. When they lost the other policies in their
plan, the CBJ assembly decided to keep them in their local land
use code. The result is a two-part review process. The 16
policies go through the Coastal Management Program review and
then the applicant has to go to the CBJ for a review of the
habitat regulations under the local code.
This two-part review creates a greater burden on the applicant
than if it were integrated into a single process. Furthermore,
if the local planning commission modifies the project
description, the applicant has to start the ACMP process over
again. "By allowing local districts to have a greater role in
developing enforceable policies, you streamline the development
process."
MS. CAMERY said she appreciates the work that's been done on the
bill; it is a step forward in resolving the conflicts that CBJ
has had since 2003.
4:00:38 PM
SENATOR THOMAS asked if the major concern is that coastal
communities may dictate what activity takes place inland.
MS. CAMERY responded with an example. A basic habitat policy
that Juneau lost in the 2003 change was a streamside setback
policy that required buildings to be located 50 feet from any
anadromous water body. That policy wasn't approved because the
regulations regarding what districts could write about are
extremely restrictive. SB 4 would give Juneau the opportunity to
bring that policy back and reintegrate it into the process.
When she talks about "conflict," she said she's referring to
district policies that were lost in the review process. It's
safe to say that all the districts lost a large percentage of
their policies that were very important for local management.
"That's where the conflict came from and the streamside setback
policy is an example of that."
SENATOR THOMAS said he was curious if one of the issues was that
DNR, as a revenue seeking department, is driven in a different
direction than this type of approach to coastal management.
MS. CAMERY replied there is considerable debate about what does
or does not constitute impact on the coastal zone. In the past
DNR has taken a more narrow definition of the coastal zone than
the federal definition. "I think the current changes bring the
state in line with what the federal government is doing. I don't
believe it exceeds that and creates an unnecessary burden
farther inland."
4:04:29 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked how far the Juneau district extends.
MS. CAMERY replied the entire City and Borough of Juneau is
within the coastal zone.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the Juneau management plan has been
approved.
MS. CAMERY said yes; it has 16 policies. She restated that the
remaining policies are in the local code. Thus a second review
process is required.
CHAIR OLSON questioned why CBJ would support the bill if its
management plan has been approved.
MS. CAMERY explained that they would like to bring back the
policies that were lost with the 2003 changes. "We were only
able to get approval of 16 of our original 99 policies."
CHAIR OLSON asked if they want all 83 policies back.
MS. CAMERY said no; they would select those that are most
important, like the streamside setback policy. It doesn't make
sense to have a review take place at two different levels and
integrating the local habitat regulations into the coastal
management program saves the applicant a lot of time.
CHAIR OLSON commented that adding another 83 policies would be
problematic to the applicant. As a businessman he's dealt with
bureaucracy and he sees that industry may not favor that.
4:06:33 PM
MS. CAMERY replied she appreciates the point but she
respectfully disagrees because the 83 policies didn't disappear.
"You either coordinate them with the state program or the
applicant has to go through it at the local level." The
regulations don't just go away. Integration and coordination
saves the applicant time because the applicant doesn't have to
go through a separate local process.
CHAIR OLSON asked if an industry representative would agree that
adding 83 policies would save time.
MS. CAMERY restated that the applicant already has to go through
the 83 policies at the local level. "So it's costing the
applicant far more time to have that process separated from the
coastal management program."
4:07:36 PM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Planning Director, North Slope Borough (NSB),
Barrow, AK, stated support for SB 4. It will fix problems that
NSB has faced during the amendment process for the ACMP. He said
he will address just three of the improvements this bill makes
to ACMP.
First, SB 4 will make it clear that coastal districts can
establish enforceable policy as long as they are clear, concise,
do not restate existing law, and do not address a matter
preempted by state or federal law. The 2003 changes to ACMP
allow districts to establish policy for matters not adequately
addressed by state or federal law. Although the administration
assured the Legislature that districts would be able to
establish reasonable policies concerning critical matters such
as subsistence and activities in federal waters, almost all of
the NSB enforceable policies were rejected by DNR. Understand
that neither the NSB nor any district is seeking to adopt
policies that would obstruct future development, he said. The
borough never used its former plan to obstruct North Slope oil
and gas development and doesn't intend to do that in the future.
It is dependent on oil and gas development for its revenue.
Second, the CS would bring DEC back into the ACMP consistency
review process. Carving DEC out of the process in 2003 has had
unintended consequences. It removed consideration of activities
related to air and water quality from project review. Because so
many coastal resources and uses are directly related to air and
water quality, the scope of the ACMP review is not clear. One of
the biggest concerns for NSB is the effect of a potential oil
spill on subsistence resources and uses. Under the current
program they are unable to address that.
Third, the CS would establish a coastal policy board. The 2003
changes concentrated all decision making into a single state
agency. This bill would give the new board oversight in three
major areas: approval of coastal district plans, approval of
major grant programs, and approval of proposed changes to the
ACMP regulations. This board is a streamlined version of the
former Coastal Policy Council, but it would be smaller and would
not be responsible for the final administrative determination of
contested individual project consistency reviews. Establishing
this board will improve trust and confidence in the structure of
the ACMP.
These changes would help streamline the ACMP by encouraging all
parties to work cooperatively early in the process to find
solutions. By solving problems with all the permitting agencies
at the table, applicants would not have to fight separate
battles with each permitting agency. Also, there is a greater
likelihood that agency stipulations will be similar.
4:13:57 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if the NSB coastal management plan has been
approved.
MR. AIKEN said no; they have been working on it for about 3 or 4
years. Although they've had many meetings, they can't agree with
DNR about how policy should be written and interpreted.
4:15:30 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if there were problems on the North Slope with
oil and gas development before the 2003 changes.
MR. AIKEN said not that he recalls.
TOM OKLESIK, Planning Director, Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB),
said the mayor and the borough have stated support for the bill.
It would restore the ability of coastal districts to effectively
participate in the program and establish meaningful policies to
work with industry and the ACMP. It would again provide an
avenue of taking valuable local input and putting it into
development. The state is large and diverse and statewide
policies that are designed in Anchorage or Juneau don't
necessarily take into consideration the way of life in other
areas of the state. NWAB supports the provision establishing the
Coastal Policy Board to oversee the major aspects of this
publicly funded program. It would also create a representation
of state agencies with local districts. This will bring
effective public engagement back into the program.
In the last year NWAB attempted mediation with DNR. Under the
2003 changes that department acts as a single agency to make all
program decisions and it's been frustrating. The mediation
process ended in an impasse and the NWAB plan was flatly denied.
The only recourse is to ask the DNR commissioner to reconsider
the decision that he and his staff made. There is no ability for
a third-party review that involves the public. Hopefully this
new provision will prevent future problematic situations for
districts across the state and make sure that state staff are
getting clear direction for coastal district policies and board
involvement.
4:19:27 PM
NWAB also supports the addition of subsistence into the
objectives of AS 46.40.020. Until the 2003 changes, the ACMP was
an effective tool to balance resource development and protection
of coastal resources to promote healthy subsistence. It's
important that Alaska residents, particularly in the NWAB, have
a real life connection to their land and cultural areas. That
relationship needs to be recognized when development occurs. It
produces a cooperation with developers so that there is a social
license to operate in addition to any permitting licenses. So we
definitely look at how we can address subsistence impacts and
that's a major reason that the borough participates in this
program, he said. The borough encourages responsible development
but wants to make sure it's done the right way. The best way to
do that is to make sure that local districts have a voice at the
table when development is discussed.
4:21:16 PM
SENATOR THOMAS asked which specific provision would replace the
current lack of appeal other than going back to the commissioner
of DNR.
MR. OKLESIK replied it's engagement beyond the department; the
coastal policy board would be involved in approval of plans.
BILL LUCEY, Staff Biologist and Coastal Planner, City and
Borough of Yakutat, said his experience working with the
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management staff has largely been
positive from both a reviewer and applicant standpoint. He runs
field crews that perform a variety of conservation work from
tree thinning to stream restoration. He has to go through a CPQ
process to permit his own projects so he deals with it from that
side. He's also a reviewer so he assists businesses and
homeowners in Yakutat in navigating programs for diverse
activities.
The proposed board structure, composed of state agency members
and district representatives, will ensure that the board is
staffed with focused people who can objectively run the process.
He envisions that it will enhance the value of the coastal
program and restore trust in the entire coastal program.
4:24:21 PM
Drawing on his experience with the Board of Fish and the Beluga
Whale Committee, he said he knows that citizen boards work. It's
inspiring to see. Creating a similar board for coastal resource
issues is a good idea.
With respect to reinstating the ability to weigh in on projects
that are adjacent to coastal districts, he said the original
1974 federal legislation establishing a nationwide coastal
program was very clear. For example, you'd want to have a say if
someone wanted to put a hog farm upstream from your kid's
swimming hole.
Referring to the so-called DEC carve-out he said that water and
air quality are the areas that usually sustain the greatest
impact from human development activities. Water quality is of
particular concern to the people of Yakutat because they depend
heavily on fisheries and so it is extremely important to have a
strong reasonable voice protecting water quality.
MR. LUCEY said he recently heard that the Alaska seafood
industry is almost $5 billion and he believes that with strong
coastal policies and with local input emphasizing healthy
habitat and clean water, fish will cycle through ever year. SB 4
is long-sighted legislation, will energize local governance and
result in reasonable stewardship of the land and water.
Finally, the perception that this program is designed to halt
development is incorrect. It is simply designed to make informed
responsible decisions during the development process, he said.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the Yakutat management plan has been
approved.
MR. LUCEY said yes. "One of the reasons we decided not to put up
a large fight is we were assured that this process was going to
occur."
4:28:46 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), extended apologies from
Commissioner Irwin, Deputy Commissioner LeFebvre and Deputy
Commissioner Rutherford as they would have liked to have
attended the hearing to share the department's position on the
bill.
DNR does not support SB 4 and has two substantive concerns.
First, it creates a new oversight body and vests it with the
ability to override DNR's authority. This effectively renders
mute the legislative establishment of laws relative to resource
management and protection. Second, the bill is specific to the
issue of a group of ACMP participants, but it does not balance
or represent the interests of all stakeholders. He noted the
fiscal note from DNR and added that the department has further
concerns relative to the committee substitute.
4:31:02 PM
SENATOR FRENCH questioned how realistic it is to legislatively
insert a new coastal zone policy board inside an administration
that is hostile toward it.
CHAIR OLSON agreed that it's always a concern because
legislators pass policy issues and the administration has its
own ideas. He asked Mr. Bates for a response.
MR. BATES restated that the first issue he raised is a
substantive concern for DNR. The CS for SB 4 vests the proposed
coastal policy board with powers to approve coastal district
enforceable policies that override, exceed and are more
stringent than existing state law.
He deferred to his superiors any discussion about whether or not
and how the administration would work with the proposed coastal
policy board.
4:33:07 PM
SENATOR THOMAS asked if DNR has any suggestions to make the bill
more palatable.
MR. BATES replied the division and the department are evaluating
potential changes to the coastal program, but it is a complex
program and consensus on any proposed change is difficult. He
said he doesn't doubt that this bill will face the same
challenges. "Clearly, any bill has to strike a consensus as it
affects so many ACMP participants-the industry, the local
government, the non-governmental organizations and, importantly,
the state agencies who have to implement it."
SENATOR MENARD asked how much heartburn is associated with the
fiscal note.
MR. BATES replied the majority of the fiscal note reflects
travel costs and what is necessary to hold the board meetings.
Division staff is not impacted.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the state pays for travel, lodging and
meals when employees travel on other department-related
business.
MR. BATES said yes; DNR is concerned about the creation of a new
nine-member board and staffing that goes along with that. The
fiscal note describes a three-day meeting four times a year held
in different locations. Travel would be expected to come from
regions mentioned in the bill for public members and numbers are
built in to ensure that the designated state members are able to
participate.
CHAIR OLSON stated that he brought the bill forward because of
frustration by members of the 28 districts - even those that
have had their plans approved. Anytime decision-making power is
concentrated, people tend to look at the decisions with a
critical eye.
MR. BATES replied he understands the concern.
CHAIR OLSON said a concern he's heard is that the people in the
department who are looking at the management plans seem to have
a less than cooperative attitude. People are generally
frustrated and as the person from Kotzebue said, things went to
an impasse. Yet that's in the area of the Chukchi Sea where
major development will happen in the near future.
MR. BATES declared that the frustration stems from
implementation of a program according to the law that is in
place. It's a natural rub that coastal districts want purview
over their district policies, but it's DNR's job to objectively
implement what is in law and approve the policies that comply
and not approve those that do not comply.
4:39:44 PM
CHAIR OLSON suggested that the source of the frustration is that
the people out in the coastal districts don't see that the
department is being objective. He asked how many districts
currently are not participating in the program.
MR. BATES relayed that there are 35 established coastal
districts: 28 districts have been working on coastal district
plans since the 2003 mandated change; 25 districts have approved
coastal district plans and are implementing them; and 3
districts-the North Slope Borough, the Northwest Arctic Borough
and the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area-have not
secured approval of their plans.
CHAIR OLSON asked his opinion why the plans for the 3 districts
haven't been approved.
MR. BATES replied it's simply a matter of what DNR can approve
as enforceable policies. The department's position is that many
of the district enforceable policies put forth by NSB and NWAB
are not approvable as written. DNR went through mediation with
both districts and came close to approving the district plans
but, "we must have run into a roadblock, in their opinion, to
the point that they didn't want to pursue district plan approval
anymore at that point."
CHAIR OLSON asked if he believes that the ACMP should remain
within DNR.
MR. BATES said yes; the coastal management program is well
aligned with DNR's mission, which is to manage, enhance and
protect natural resources.
4:42:18 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH questioned how much of his concern about keeping
the program within DNR relates to protecting turf and how much
relates to looking out for the best interests of Alaska and
Alaskans. Education and oil and gas both have oversight boards
and he questioned why DNR does not support having a board that
oversees this particular area.
MR. BATES said he doesn't believe that the location of either
the Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (DCOM) or the ACMP is
part of the bill and as such DNR didn't prepare a position on
that issue. He acknowledged that prior to the 2003 change the
ACMP was housed in the Division of Governmental Coordination,
which was in the governor's office. "Since 2003 it's been
located within DNR. We were part of the Project Management
Permitting Office and then back in October of last year… we
created a new division specific to managing the Coastal
Management Program, the Coastal Impact Assistant Program and
other ocean functions that are appropriate within that
division."
CHAIR OLSON asked for a brief summary of the workshops that DCOM
held last summer to try to get consensus on some of the issues.
"How successful you think they were and if they were successful,
what's the outcome."
MR. BATES mentioned the letter he sent last February
articulating the desire to establish and go through a process to
reevaluate the coastal laws and the day-to-day implementation of
the ACMP. He explained that last July the division met in
various places to solicit comments, ideas and debate from
coastal program participants. At this point the department does
not have a package of changes to introduce or discuss. There
certainly is no consensus on the issues that were brought up, he
said.
CHAIR OLSON asked for a brief synopsis of the Coastal Impact
Assistant Program.
MR. BATES explained that the Coastal Impact Assistant Program is
a federal program that was authorized in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. It allows six states, including Alaska, to share in oil
and gas revenues that are realized off their coastal shores. For
FY07 and FY08 the Alaska share was about $2.5 million. As a
result of the Chukchi Lease Sale 193, the Alaska portion went up
to between $40 million and $80 million. DCOM is the lead agency
for implementing that program and is working with eligible
subdivisions including the North Slope Borough, Northwest Arctic
Borough, Bristol Bay Borough and Cook Inlet municipalities to
amend the coastal impact assistance plan to take advantage of
the money. Of the money coming to the state, 65 percent will go
directly into the state funds and 35 percent will go directly
into the coffers of the eligible subdivisions. "We as the state
have decided that we want to be able to share that money as well
as pursue projects that would benefit state initiatives and so
we've got a further split: 70 percent of the money that is
coming to the state over the course of the next two years will
go to state initiated projects; 30 percent will be put out for
competitive open solicitation and bid. That money will be
eligible to entities wanting to engage in projects that will
benefit the environment and meet other criteria as established
by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) as the overseeing
agency."
CHAIR OLSON asked how the unorganized borough is treated under
the impact assistance program.
MR. BATES explained that the criterion for identifying eligible
coastal subdivisions is based on federal law. "It was … Minerals
Management Service's interpretation … that said coastal resource
service areas are not an eligible subdivision of the state. It
is the level of government that is organized and directly below
the state, which means that it is the boroughs. … It does not
include cities, it does not include any subdivision underneath
the borough."
4:48:56 PM
CHAIR OLSON noted that he represents the areas in the
unorganized borough that are just below the Northwest Arctic
Borough. He asked if he's saying that those unorganized areas
won't benefit even though they can see things right off shore.
MR. BATES explained that eligible coastal political subdivisions
are based on a proximal location to a producing well or lease.
"In this case, it's a 200 mile radius." Neither of the resource
service areas that are within your district is located within
that proximal distance so they are not an eligible subdivision,
he said. Thus, they are not eligible for the direct distribution
of that 35 percent of the overall total. However, the Bering
Straits CRSA, the Cheñaliulriit CRSA, the Bristol Bay CRSA and
the Aleutians West CRSA are eligible to pursue the public
funding that will be available. "That solicitation should begin
sometime in March so it's not that they're completely out. It's
that they can pursue other avenues for securing some of that
money," he said.
4:50:32 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked what was in place before the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
MR. BATES explained that there was a coastal impact assistance
program in 2001 that was implemented by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That agency determined that
CRSAs were eligible subdivisions without having a link to a
wellhead or lease. In 2005 the language in the bill was
tightened significantly and the MMS became the lead agency.
CHAIR OLSON asked for clarification that under the original
program the areas in the unorganized borough were eligible for
those funds.
MR. BATES said that's correct.
CHAIR OLSON asked if the administration intends to put forth
legislation to addresses the difficulties that districts are
having.
MR. BATES restated that he is representing the department and at
this time the issues it has been evaluating are neither ripe nor
ready for introduction as a bill. There is no consensus.
CHAIR OLSON declared that this bill addresses specifically that.
"If you can't come to a consensus, we'll have a board that will
do that."
4:53:01 PM
MR. OKLESIK said he wants the committee to understand that the
perspective Mr. Bates presented was heavily one-sided. The
decision for NWAB to ask for an impasse weighed heavily. Part of
the issue was the huge divergence between what the borough saw
in black and white and what the department said. When they
explained their analysis and asked the department to do the same
the answer was a flat out no. A policy board would hopefully
make the department more accountable to the residents and
communities of Alaska, he said. For the state to respond that
way is unacceptable.
CHAIR OLSON closed public testimony.
SENATOR KOOKESH asked if he intended to move the bill.
CHAIR OLSON replied we're trying to address a problem and the
administration does not have legislation forthcoming so we
should move this along. It can be modified as it presses ahead,
he added.
4:56:16 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH moved to report SB 4 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection CSSB 4 (CRA) moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 4 support letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| CSSB19 Work Draft.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 19 |
| SB3 Fiscal Note DFG-CFEC.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 Fiscal Note DCCED-OED.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 ARDORletter1.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 ARDORletter2.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 Fish&GameLetter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 Lower Kuskokwim Letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| CSSB4 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| CSSB4 Fiscal Note DNR-DCOM.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| CSSB4 Highlights.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| CSSB4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB3 Sponsor Statement& Sectional Analysis.doc |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB3 SWAMCletter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 3 |
| SB4 ACMP Overview.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 DCOM CZMA fund summary.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Conoco Phillips Letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Fiscal Note DEC-CO.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 District Guide.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Index Map.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 N. Slope Borough Letter.pdf |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Sponsor Statement.doc |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |
| SB4 Sectional Analysis.doc |
SCRA 2/5/2009 3:30:00 PM |
SB 4 |