Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/31/2011 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Commissioner - Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development | |
| Presentation: Alaska Coastal Management Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2011
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Donald Olson, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Linda Menard
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Commissioner - Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development
Susan Bell
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
PRESENTATION: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN BELL, Commissioner Designee
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as candidate for confirmation as
commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED).
JOSEPH BALASH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of the current Alaska
Coastal Management Program.
GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal District Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a critique and offered suggestions on
the current Alaska Coastal Management Program.
TOM LOHMAN, Attorney
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a critique and offered suggestions on
the current Alaska Coastal Management Program.
KATHY WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a critique and offered suggestions on
the current Alaska Coastal Management Program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:25 PM
CHAIR DONALD OLSON called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Menard, Wagoner, Kookesh and
Chair Olson. Senator Ellis arrived shortly thereafter.
^Confirmation Hearing: Commissioner - Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development
3:34:46 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
to hear the confirmation hearing of Susan Bell for the position
as commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). He asked Ms. Bell to tell the
committee about her background and why she was chosen for this
position.
3:35:14 PM
SUSAN BELL, Commissioner Designee, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED), said prior to taking
this position she worked in the governor's office as a special
assistant. In this position she worked primarily with DCCED, but
she also spent time with the Department of Revenue and the
Department of Administration. She said that this was a great
opportunity to become familiar with some of the issues and the
people at DCCED. She explained that before that position she was
a principal of the McDowell Group, a research and consulting
firm. She said that the firm gave her the chance to work
statewide on issues that are directly relevant to the work in
her current position at DCCED. She noted that she was also able
to work with number of state agencies including the Department
of Commerce and the Department of Transportation. She said that
before this she worked as one of the vice presidents at Goldbelt
Incorporated. She explained that this was a unique opportunity
for her to work with an organization that was focused on
economic development, job creation and shareholder hire within
the context of the ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act]
corporation. She noted that she also has a lot of business
management and marketing experiences and has lived and worked
throughout the state.
3:37:42 PM
SENATOR WAGONER said Trout Unlimited, one of the Regional
Seafood Development Associations (RSDA) administered by DCCED,
was given money from the commercial salmon fisheries. He asked
how DCCED tracks this type of "gift" or "grant" and how this
fits into to the overall goals of RSDA. He noted that Trout
Unlimited is an advocacy organization for environmental issues
both nation and worldwide.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied that this issue came to the attention
of both the Division of Economic Development and the
commissioner's office last week. She concurred that DCCED has
regulatory and oversight responsibilities for these marketing
organizations. She explained that the department is currently
talking directly with RSDA and the Department of Law (DOL) in
order to understand what the expenditure was and what the
appropriate response should be. She said she would be happy to
report back to the committee after the department has made a
determination.
SENATOR WAGONER said he would appreciate seeing the report.
3:40:15 PM
SENATOR MENARD recognized Commissioner Bell's accomplishments.
SENATOR ELLIS said that he has some constituents that were
involved with the statewide head tax for the cruise industry. He
asked her to give the committee an update on what is going on
with the cruise industry market in Alaska and whether some
cruise lines have added ships since the rollback of the head
tax.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied that this year Disney Cruise Line and
Oceana Cruises would be introduced and Crystal Cruise Line would
be returning. She explained that while this will introduce less
than 10,000 passengers, they are very much welcomed. She noted
that last fall Princess also announced that it would be
returning another cross-gulf ship in the summer of 2012. She
stressed that with a cross-gulf ship there are greater economic
benefits for the state because many of these passengers spend
time in Alaska on their own or opt to purchase a cruise tour of
Alaska.
She added that when attending Cruise Shipping Miami with the
governor a few weeks ago Holland America announced that for 2012
it would be making some capacity increases, which would amount
to another 11,000 passengers. She noted that while this year's
passenger increase is quite small, 2012 will see an increase of
about 60,000 new passengers in the market. She acknowledged that
this is still a long way away from the 150,000 passengers that
Alaska lost in a two year period. She added that early research
from the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) shows an
increase in visitors for this summer.
3:44:21 PM
SENATOR ELLIS asked for confirmation that a lot of the follow-up
was due to the worldwide economic situation, as opposed to the
head tax. He noted that there were a number of cruise lines that
announced coming to Alaska when the state had the citizen-
inspired head tax.
COMMISSIONER BELL agreed that the state and many businesses in
Alaska were affected by the economic decline. She explained that
with the passage of the head tax ballot initiative there was, at
the time, a suite of nearly $70 million in new taxes and fees, a
rise in the environmental standards, the inclusion of the Ocean
Ranger Program, and a strong message sent to the cruise line
industry from Alaskans. She said that the decline in passengers
was a combination of these fees and the economic decline in
2009. She said that the recovery in the industry that the state
is now seeing is not just a role back in fees but also outreach.
She reminded the committee that the state was in a lawsuit with
the cruise lines. She explained that the halt of the lawsuit,
the increase in state marketing, the outreach to the industry,
and the changes that were made last year in the fee structure go
hand-in-hand in restoring the market.
SENATOR ELLIS noted that Alaskans are generally proud of the
state's pristine waters and clean air and this is part of what
the cruise industry is marketing.
He asked, in the conversations that she and the governor had in
Miami, whether they had the opportunity to ask the industry for
marketing support that benefits more than just the cruise ship
industry.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied that the main message to both the main
delegates and in one-on-one small group meetings that the
governor had with cruise lines was about what Alaska is doing in
regards to marketing, the changes made in the fee structure, and
the state's commitment to high environmental standards. She
explained that it was more a message of outreach in order to
restore business and to welcome. She noted that she was
previously on the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council as a
representative of Southeast Alaska Tourism Council. She said
Alaska's public private partnership has stood out.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the cruise line industry offered to help
the state monetarily with its marketing.
COMMISSIONER BELL answered no; there was no voluntary offering.
She noted that the cruise line industry does participate as
members by purchasing ads and labels that all businesses have
access to through the pay-to-play programs.
3:50:01 PM
SENATOR WAGONER said there has been an erosion of population in
rural areas over the last few years. He asked whether this is
still occurring.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied in the fall and winter of 2008 and
2009 there were high gas prices and a lot of media attention on
the movement out of rural areas. She explained that during this
time the Rural Subcabinet was created, which analyzed fuel
costs, distributions systems, and population trends. She
explained that these analyses showed that after the initial
spike in 2009, the movement to and from the rural to urban
communities has become more fluid. She noted that community
stability, safety, and economic viability are concerns. She
added that right now is a transition period as individuals
settle into their newly appointed roles. She said the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development and DCCED's Division of
Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) staff have been focused on
the fresh census data since so much of its funding formulas are
based on population. She said "ultimately, it's not just to
measure the numbers, it's to make sure that we get to our
mission of strong communities and a healthy and diverse economy
that allows people to stay in their homes."
3:52:42 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked what she sees the vision of DCCED being in the
future, especially with regard to rural Alaska.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied that DCRA has recently grown and
strengthened in the past few years. She explained that one thing
she believes is important to do is strengthen and re-tool the
Division of Economic Development so that it can work hand-in-
hand with DCRA. She noted this has been a focus that preceded
her coming into the commissioner role. She said that she is
looking forward to working with DCCED's talented and dedicated
staff in order to be as effective as possible in program
delivery and work collaboratively across the department and with
other departments. She explained that DCCED has the potential to
provide leadership for businesses and communities and there is a
strong desire within the department to achieve that potential
fully.
CHAIR OLSON said he was reminded by a previous commissioner that
"commissioners come and commissioners go." He asked what she
hopes to accomplish during her time.
COMMISSIONER BELL replied that she feels the Division of
Economic Development shrunk over the past few years and this is
an area where a legacy could be built. She explained that last
year Alaska was ranked 50th out of 50 with regard to the state's
competitiveness. She said she believes that Alaska has so much
to offer in terms of its people, location, resources, and
innovation. Advancing Alaska is one of the key areas that she is
focused on.
3:56:38 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether she sees DCCED expanding during her
time as commissioner. He explained that rural areas are largely
along the coastline of Alaska and involved and effected by the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). He noted that there
has been a fair amount of dissatisfaction that has occurred
since 2003 with the program being under the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). He explained that as policy makers,
legislators have looked into moving the program out of DNR and
putting it into another department, possibly DCCED. He asked her
to share her thoughts on this option.
COMMISSIONER BELL said that she had not realized that DCCED had
been contemplated as a possible "home" for ACMP. She expressed
her compliments to the efforts that have been made down to the
division director level. She explained that ACMP can draw on the
strengths of each state department and division. She noted that
great strides have been made, in a short amount of time, to work
through many of the frustrations and ensure that communities
have its funds. She said that she is not prepared to comment on
DCCED's ability to house ACMP.
With regard to Senator Olson's initial question about expanding
DCCED, she said the first thing that needs to be done is to ask:
"can we be more effective with the resources that we have?" She
said that she believes the answer is "yes."
4:00:15 PM
At ease from 4:00 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.
4:02:17 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH moved to forward the name Susan Bell to the full
legislature sitting in joint session for a vote. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
4:02:26 PM
At ease from 4:02 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
^Presentation: Alaska Coastal Management Program
4:03:19 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
to hear an overview of the Alaska Coastal Management Plan
(ACMP). He noted that Mr. Balash was one of the main authors who
put the sunset provision into the program, which will occur in
the next couple of months.
4:04:14 PM
JOSEPH BALASH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), said the governor submitted a bill requesting
an extension of ACMP. He listed some of the highlights of the
program.
He explained that the federal structure for the program is the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to
develop its own coastal program. He noted that it is voluntary
on the part of states to implement it in one of three ways:
Technique A is a locally implemented program structure, such as
Oregon, where the state develops the standards and allows local
districts to implement and issue the permits and conditions.
Technique B is a state standardized program and there is no real
local involvement.
Technique C is a hybrid of technique A and B, where communities
are involved in the development of standards, planning, and
issuance of permits. He noted that the adoption of technique C
for implementation is unique to Alaska.
He explained that the program in Alaska is a network program and
is dependent upon coastal participation by local communities. He
acknowledged that a number of communities and districts are
frustrated with the current process. He explained that the rules
for local participation are set out in statute and implemented
through regulations.
4:08:32 PM
MR. BALASH explained that there are a variety of communities
around the state that have chosen to become districts formally
under the program. He noted that this is voluntary on the part
of the community.
He said the process for developing or amending a local coastal
plan is lengthy and involves a tremendous amount of input and
comment by all stakeholders. [Page 3 of the presentation
describes this process. Presentation included in the document
packet.]
He highlighted the last row on page 3 in between box one and two
as an opportunity for mediation. He explained that this has been
used effectively by some communities and with impasse in others.
He emphasized that the amendment process is lengthy and can take
two to three years to complete. He noted that federal review and
approval is required as a part of that process before a local
plan is finalized. He explained that the most important part of
the coastal district plan approval is the enforceable components
of the plan. These include:
· Enforceable policies
· Designated areas
· Maps of where the designated areas are located
He explained that the enforceable policies are governed by a set
of statutes and regulations and that these requirements were a
large part of the legislation that was considered by the
legislature and adopted in 2003. He highlighted some of these
policies, an example being that a local policy cannot address a
matter that is adequately addressed by state or federal law. He
explained that the use of the word "adequately" results in a
subjective determination made by an individual as to whether or
not a state or federal regulation governing the particular
resource or policy in question already exists. The adequacy of
this is determined, in this case, by DCOM [Division of Coastal
and Ocean Management] in consultation with the respective
agency. He noted that a number of districts have been frustrated
by that determination process and are seeking to remove that
particular language.
He explained that with regard to designated areas, a community
can develop or select a designated area where local enforceable
policy can apply. He noted that a designated area is important
because when an enforceable policy is developed on a local level
it becomes an additional set of requirements that a project
sponsor or developer has to meet in order to move forward with
that activity in the coastal zone. He noted that a designated
area does not require a local enforceable policy, but it gives
the community deference in the consistency review process even
when relying on the state's standards, rather than its own.
4:14:37 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked how many designated areas exist with approved
plans.
MR. BALASH replied that he believes there are two districts
without approved plans and 70 percent of the designated area
requests were approved in the planning process. He said he did
not know what that number is but he could get it for the
committee.
He explained that the maps that reflect the designated areas are
an important part of the local plan. This is because it's
important for individuals operating in a coastal zone to know
whether they are in a designated area and which policies will
apply to their activity.
He said that there are a number of overlapping rules and
guidelines in statute; within regulations the particulars get
more specific. Slide 5 was a diagram of the District Enforceable
Policy Decision Tree, which was developed by DCOM in order to
assist communities in understanding how these decisions are made
when a local policy is brought forward. He acknowledged that it
is difficult to have a local enforceable policy approved under
the current ACMP process. He explained that part of the reason
for this is because the ACMP is only one part of a comprehensive
regulatory system in the state where a number of agencies are
already protecting air, water, and resource standards in the
state.
4:17:35 PM
MR. BALASH continued that after a local plan has been approved,
the application and implementation of those policies comes next.
He explained that this occurs only during the consistency review
process. Coastal districts receive implementation funding from
the federal government as part of CZMA in order to conduct
consistency reviews.
He noted that costal districts are considered to have expertise
in the interpretation of its plan. He explained that this
becomes important at a particular stage of the review process in
the event that consensus does not emerge among the reviewing
entities. He added that coastal districts can comment on a
proposed project using its local plan or the state's standards.
Slide 7 laid out the review process and how it affects projects
and activities. He reminded the committee that the review
process involves the applicant, the affected coastal district,
state and federal agencies, and the public. The review process
is designed to evaluate projects and protect and manage coastal
uses and resources, while addressing an applicant's project. He
explained that this process is not meant to be a straight
forward "yes" or "no" on whether a project should occur or move
forward. He explained that it's intended to "massage" a project
in order to get it into compliance with the coastal management
program at the beginning of the process.
MR. BALASH went over the review process steps with the
committee. The first step is to determine the applicability of
ACMP to a project. He explained that if an activity or project
is occurring in the coastal zone in Alaska and requires state or
federal authorization and it is located in the coastal zone on
federal lands or the outer continental shelf (OCS) then ACMP may
apply.
He continued that after applicability has been determined, DCOM
offers pre-review assistance before the review actually starts.
He explained that once an application is complete, it is brought
into DNR and the agency has to have all copies of permit
applications.
He explained that the information in the application is used by
DCOM to determine the scope of the review. The scope of the
review is determined by the type of project. He noted that the
scope of the project could include low-impact activities as well
as major developments.
He added that the coordinating agency is determined by the
activities involved. He explained that more often than not DCOM
is the coordinating agency to conduct the review; however,
sometimes that is not the case.
4:24:14 PM
MR. BALASH continued that after the scope is determined, DCOM
prepares the notice for public comment to be published in three
public places. Included in the notice is information about the
project, comment deadlines and any milestones dictated by a
project. He explained that at the end of all of these steps,
"Day 1" has started.
Day 1 begins the review process. He noted that there are two
types of reviews: a 30 day review and a 50 day review. He
explained that some of the more involved projects, which have
certain federal authorizations, require the longer review
period.
On Day 13/25 review participants can request additional
information and a designated area within scope of that review.
He gave an example of a designated area request.
Day 17/30 is the deadline for public comments. He noted that all
of the review participants may submit comments, which must be
received by the deadline, in writing, and include an explanation
on whether the participant concurs with consistencies or if they
have considered it to be inconsistent. He said that if it is
inconsistent, the participant needs to identify the enforceable
policies that the project is inconsistent with, explain why, and
propose alternative. He noted that this is an important element.
He continued that after the comment period has ended DCOM
collects and considers what those comments reflect. He explained
that regardless of whether or not a given community has
commented or has an approved plan, the goal is to find
consensus. He noted that in the cases where consensus is not
clear in the comments, DCOM can convene a hearing in an attempt
to resolve issues and facilitate some dialogue. He explained
that where there are differences the division attempts to look
to and provide deference to the comments of the local district
or the agency that has expertise on the issue that is in
conflict.
4:28:25 PM
MR. BALASH continued with his presentation. He said on Day 24/44
DCOM proposes a determination of consistency, describes whether
or not consistency has been achieved, and, if not, what
alternative measures are required by the applicant to achieve
consistency. He noted that at this point the applicant has some
options: adopt the alternative measures, modify the project, or
abandon the project and withdraw their application. Additionally
at Day 29/49 there is an opportunity for a decision on
consistency to be elevated to the commissioner of DNR. This can
be brought forward by the applicant or the effected coastal
resource district. He noted that elevations are handled as
quickly possible, however, the statutes require completion in 45
days with a final decision determined on day 30/50. He said that
expedited reviews do exist and are achieved through a list of
permits that are routine or generally consistent with associated
activities in a given area (the "ABC list").
He explained that while the administration is pleased with the
program and wants to extend it for another six years, it is
understood that there is a desire on the part of communities and
their legislators to amend the statutes. He explained that with
this in mind, Commissioner Sullivan [with DNR] worked with the
governor to develop some guiding principles in order to engage
constructively in the legislative process. He said that what is
important to the administration, and will guide its engagement
and decision making, are that a predictable process must be
maintained for conducting the consistency reviews, a strong
state program must be maintained, and the standards and
enforceable policies must remain objective and cannot duplicate
or redefine existing authorities. He said that coastal districts
should be afforded a meaningful role for input, but should not
possess a veto decision over these projects.
4:31:50 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal District Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough, explained that the borough believes ACMP serves an
important role in monitoring development and could become more
meaningful with revised and improved legislation. He said that
the current model needs to be reviewed in order to make sure it
is serving the best interest of the state, its political
subdivisions, and industry. He said he believes that the program
can be enhanced with a few adjustments.
He suggested that with regard to enforceable policy, to focus on
AS 46.40. He said that within this statute coastal districts are
disallowed enforceable policy if a matter is "adequately
addressed" in state and federal law. He explained that the
definition of "adequately addressed", in the borough's
experience, is what DNR "says it is" and it needs to either be
removed or reworked.
He continued that within AS 46.40 many district policies have
been disallowed because the policy did not "flow from" specific
state or federal law. He said that the concept of "flow from"
should be removed from the enforceable policy evaluation or
additionally state that if a particular state or federal law
does not address a local concern, which the local governing body
believes to be important, then the policy should be accepted.
He said that, finally, AS 46.40 requires that if a coastal
district finds that a specific coastal use is of "unique
concern," it must be demonstrated through local usage or
scientific evidence. He explained that the level of
documentation that DNR requires, with regard of scientific
evidence, is burdensome. He said that this term is highly
interpretable and he suggested that it be removed from statute.
He noted that he will fax the committee his complete discussion
for review at another time.
He explained that the administrative code that was developed
following the 2003 ACMP legislation was more restrictive than
what statute requires. The result has been that current
regulation severely limits the ability for coastal districts to
obtain policy approval from DNR because the statewide standards
have narrowed or eliminated the purview of coastal districts
regarding certain coastal uses and resources, he said.
He stressed that a few fixes to the statute with the regard to
administrative code will help make ACMP more meaningful as an
adjunct to state agency oversight. He encouraged the Senate to
pass a six year extension to ACMP.
4:36:31 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if the removal or reworking of the "adequately
addressed" and "unique concern" portions of AS 46.40 will
decrease frustration of districts whose plans are being
rejected.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that he believes so and that it will also
help DNR. He explained that it is a win-win for DNR in its
ability to try to help districts create policies that are
consistent with state law and will help districts understand why
it may not get a policy.
CHAIR OLSON asked what his thoughts are in reestablishing the
policy council that was eliminated in 2003.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that he is hopeful that the council can be
reestablished. He explained that it has been difficult to work
with an agency that both writes and interprets the rules. He
said that having a policy board that helps mediate the issues
for both sides would be a great adjunct to the program.
4:38:40 PM
TOM LOHMAN, Attorney, North Slope Borough, stressed that he
believes the state's long-term best interests are served by the
continuation and amendment of the current ACMP in order to
restore a meaningful role in the program for coastal districts.
He explained that it is important to dispel some of the
persistent myths that surround ACMP in order to seek important
and necessary changes after the crippling amendments that were
adopted in 2003.
He explained that, first, the constituents that legislators
represent are not anti-development and ACMP is not an anti-
development program. He noted that districts have never sought
veto-authority over development projects; nor have districts
tried to usurp state or federal authority or impinge upon the
separation of powers between branches or levels of government.
He said that there are no facts to back up any of these false
claims, despite these myths being repeated at legislative
hearings. He stressed that the North Slope Borough is as
dependent on a healthy oil and gas industry as the state is as a
whole, in order to maintain quality of life of the people and
provide essential provisions to the community. He emphasized
that ACMP could be a development program, which provides a
meaningful role for communities in a coordinated project review
process. He said the only thing districts want is to be able to
work with project applicants and agencies and influence project
designs that draw on local expertise and address local concerns.
He opined that an ACMP which reflects a partnership between the
centralized state government and the communities across Alaska
would enhance the likelihood that projects would be permitted
more smoothly. He noted that a common theme districts have heard
recently from the state administration is that federal decision
makers should not impose its will with respect to actions in
Alaska. He said "all we're asking for is the same measure of
respect from our state government that our state government is
demanding from the federal government."
He concluded by addressing some of the topics that were
discussed in earlier testimony and that DNR has testified on in
other forum. He explained that, first, it has been said that
statewide subsistence standard requires that projects avoid,
minimize, or mitigate impacts to subsistence. He explained that
this is not exactly true. The statewide standard doesn't give
alternative measures for mitigation. This is a problem because
it means that an action must be either approved or disapproved
and districts can't have the policies that it would like because
of this. He said that he thinks this is where the idea of "veto"
comes from. He gave an example of some policies in the North
Slope Borough that were rejected by the state because it used
language to either allow or disallow certain activities.
He continued that, second, it has been stated that an area
designation is not needed in order to consider impacts to
subsistence. He explained that this isn't true; the subsistence
standard only applies if it is on an approved designated area.
He said that, third, there has been testimony that what
districts have perceived as ever-changing standards and rules
throughout the last eight years have not really been changes in
standards, but merely more specific provisions by DNR. He argued
that is also not true.
4:43:55 PM
MR. LOHMAN said that DNR has acknowledged that an unintended
consequence arose from the inability to make designations on
federal lands and waters. He explained that the North Slope
Borough is unable to apply subsistence policies in places such
as the NPRA [National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska] and the OCS
[Outer Continental Shelf] because of this. He explained that the
borough has effectively been closed out from crafting
subsistence policies in the areas that are of greatest concern
for the North Slope.
He continued that Mr. Balash also cited the opportunity for
districts to designate areas on the fly during the review as a
positive aspect of the current program. He said that, to him,
this seems to "fly in the face" of industry concerns and one of
DNR's guiding principles for engagement: that the program is
predictable and standards are clear upfront.
Finally, he said that the administration and many industry
representatives, who have commented on this issue, have argued
that the six years embodied in the bill introduced by the
governor this year are needed in order to have careful
stakeholder deliberation to identify appropriate changes to
ACMP. He explained that this is frustrating to hear, because
districts have, over the past eight years, engaged and spent
enormous amounts of money and staff time participating in
workshops, multi-stakeholder meetings, program reevaluation
meetings, a federal review of the program, a legislative audit,
and many hearings on ACMP. He suggested that the time is now to
fix this program.
4:46:34 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if the legislature and the governor come to an
impasse and the program is allowed to sunset, what his thoughts
are.
MR. LOHMAN replied that he believes the North Slope's mayor is
on record stating that if the program remains unchanged the
district has nothing to lose since it doesn't have a local plan.
He noted that the idea that deference is paid to local
communities may be the case elsewhere, but he has not
experienced it with regard to the North Slope Borough. He
explained that the district has conducted three elevations since
the 2003 amendments and in each case not only were the views of
the borough not adopted, but were paid virtually no attention in
the final decision of the commissioner [of DNR]. He gave an
example of how ACMP, if changed, could assist the district in
coordinating its reviews and concerns on development issues, in
order to expedite project permitting.
4:49:06 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked what the minimum changes are which need to be
done in order to make this program acceptable to individuals
throughout the state.
MR. LOHMAN replied that getting rid of the designated area
requirement, which has costs districts an extraordinary amount
of money. He explained that the North Slope Borough had no idea
that the process would be so difficult or expensive and does not
accomplish the goals intended. He continued that doing away with
the "adequately addressed" and "flow-from" requirements is also
important.
He said that bringing back something similar to the Coastal
Policy Council (CPC), which existed prior to 2003 would be a
very positive step. He acknowledged that there were some issues
with the previous CPC, but recent discussions have addressed a
somewhat different makeup.
CHAIR OLSON asked what kind of makeup of the policy council he
would like to see. He noted that previously the members had been
mainly governor designees.
MR. LOHMAN replied that before 2003, the CPC was "stacked" in
favor of the local communities, with local elected officials
from nine regions of the states and five state officials. He
explained that the problem with that system was that it often
included elected officials who did not have the necessary
expertise on various projects in their own area and other
districts. He said a combination of representation from
districts, state agencies, and possibly other stake holders
would provide a balanced review for the approval of local
district plans and policies.
CHAIR OLSON asked whether he is more optimistic that issues can
be worked out with the new commissioner of DNR coming on board.
MR. LOHMAN replied that he has great respect for Commissioner
Sullivan and there are a lot of good people who work at DNR and
DCOM. He added that after eight years of work identifying the
concerns of districts the pieces are in place to move forward.
He reiterated that communities are not trying to halt the
economy of the state. He pointed out that Randy Bates in DCOM
knows this program "better than anybody, and he knows how to fix
it better than anybody."
4:53:42 PM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
stated support for the extension of ACMP. She said the program
has been the cornerstone for many municipalities throughout the
years. Prior to 2003 she said "we did not realize that we were
actually a part of what the administration might call the
instability of the program." She stressed that this isn't the
intent of most municipalities.
She said that with regard to the sunset, ACMP is the only
program that provides financial assistance to municipalities and
coastal districts and includes a regulatory framework that
allows districts to have a "seat at the table" in the management
decisions that affect coastal zones. She said as municipalities
and districts "why would we not want to have a seat at that
table?"
She said most municipalities and districts have lost most of its
own enforceable policies and have been left with ones that are
so limiting that the policies are ineffective. She noted that
this is the cornerstone of the program itself.
She continued that another issue that the Alaska Municipality
League has is the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
carve-out. She explained that not permitting any enforceable
policies or comments that relate to air or water quality has
virtually eliminated most of the meaningful participation in
ACMP, since almost all coastal uses relate to air or water
quality. DEC, as a rule, does not communicate with
municipalities and coastal districts and the department should
be brought back into the ACMP review process.
4:55:45 PM
MS. WASSERMAN said that requiring any physical area, subject to
either subsistence or habitat enforceable policy, which must be
pre-designated before any impacts to coastal resources or uses
can be considered, ignores the reality that resources and
habitats occur throughout the entire coastal area, many of which
are migratory. She stressed that this regulation should be
eliminated.
She said that another issue is consultants. She explained that
DCOM has a policy of not allowing coastal districts or
municipalities to hire consultants to assist local districts
using the [Section] 306 funding. She emphasized that this should
be a local decision, and should not be an issue so long as the
work required by the state is completed.
She said that municipalities and districts that choose to
participate is this program have always tried to balance
responsible development with the protection of the coastal
environment. She explained that municipalities are eager to
return to the table and participate in a reenergized and
coordinated review process, which has been lost since the
"streamlined ACMP process" was implemented.
She expressed surprise that so many people think that
municipalities want to stop development. The more rural the
community, the more interest there is for development in order
for those communities to survive. She said that it is just a
matter of being at the table and part of the discussion. She
added that municipalities and districts have never asked for or
requested veto power.
4:58:37 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Olson adjourned the meeting at 4:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|