HOUSE BILL NO. 28 "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of those repeals." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed committee substitute for HB 28, Work Draft 0-LS0189\L, dated 3/11/98 (copy on file). Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0189\L, dated 3/11/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault reviewed the committee substitute. He noted that CSHB 28(FIN): ? Prohibits a coastal resource district from incorporating statutes and regulations into their statements of policies and regulations. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Administration supports this section. Coastal resource service areas (CRSA) could not adopt state regulations and statutes by reference. He emphasized that coastal resource area plans should add to existing statutes and regulations. ? Prohibits a state agency or coastal resource district from stipulating to a matter or subject for which the agency or district may not by law outside of this chapter exercise authority. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that state agencies should not try to increase statutory authority by adding to broadly worded statutes. ? Prohibits an agency from accepting a stipulation as part of the consistency determination if it violates this policy. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the Department of Fish and Game would not be able to put a stipulation on a proposed permit, unless they have specific statutory authority to regulate the thing that they are stipulating. ? Allows state agencies and coastal districts to stipulate to federal projects and allow a CRSA to stipulate to a matter under authority of AS 46.40. This is a change from CSHB 28 (RES). Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that CRSA's would be allowed to stipulate on federal projects that only require a federal permit. ? Prohibits a requirement for a consistency determination outside of the area subject to a coastal management program. This is a change from CSHB 28 (RES). Co-Chair Therriault referred to a newspaper article relating to a permit for a trapper's cabin outside of the coastal zone (copy on file). The permit was declared inconsistent with the local coastal management zone and was denied. This provision would "cut off the ability to reach outside of the stated coastal zone, and impact those permits." In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Co-Chair Therriault explained that coastal resource areas are empowered to make comments on proposed projects that fall within their zone. Projects are determined to be consistent with their set of regulations. As state or federal agencies are considering a project, the coastal resource management area also makes a determination on consistency with what they want to allow in their coastal zone area. A stipulation can be applied to the issuance of a permit, requiring that certain things be done. If certain things are done then they agree with the letting of the permit. ? Prohibits from 10 miles landward of the mean high tide line to a district boundary a consistency determination unless a water use or discharge authorization is required for the use or activity in that area. This is a change from CSHB 28 (RES). CSHB 28 (RES) allowed for a consistency determination based upon the uses or activities that would affect fish habitat. Co-Chair Therriault demonstrated that concerns regarding anadromous streams have resulted in coastal resource service areas moving inland. He maintained that legitimate concerns would probably be something that would require a water use or discharge permit. This provision would restrict the consistency determination to activities that require a water use or water discharge permit. He observed that in addition to the consistency determination any proposed forestry activity would have to live within the bounds of the Forest Practices Act. ? Eliminates the petition process to the Coastal Policy Council. Co-Chair Therriault maintained that this provision would eliminate duplication within state agencies. He felt that the tendency to abuse the petition process has grown. ? A municipality or CRSA that has an approved coastal plan has one year to comply with the changes. Allows the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) to modify plans that are out of compliance with statutory changes. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that in addition to provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, AS 46.40, projects are subject to requirements under: ? Title 38, land use permits; ? Title 16, Department of Fish and Game permits for activities in anadromous streams; ? Permit requirements for the Department of Environmental Conservation under AS 46; and ? The Forest Practices Act under Title 41. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation does not impact requirements of the above permits. Representative Davies disagreed. He stressed that the Coastal Management Program provides coordination for all other state permits. He maintained that the legislation would reduce coordination and increase the burden of applying for other permits. Co-Chair Therriault observed that HB 28 would have repealed the whole program. He acknowledged the coordination function of the program. Representative Davies expressed concern with the elimination of the petition process. He estimated that the result would not be less petitions but more litigation. He did not think the petition process had been abused. Representative Davies maintained that issuance of a consistency determination outside the area subject to a coastal management program is one of the key functions of the existing federal law. He expressed concern that federal support would be jeopardized by the elimination of this provision. Representative Davies expressed concern with the prohibition against a state agency or coastal resource district stipulating to a matter or subject for which the agency or district may not exercise authority. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Representative Davies explained that federal projects are required to be consistent with local coastal management plans. Federal funding supports the process. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that he has been sensitive to capturing federal funds. He noted that the program provides a zoning and planning function in areas were there is no municipal government. Co-Chair Therriault requested a written explanation of the Division of Governmental Coordination's concerns. Co-Chair Therriault noted that three boundary areas were proposed for consideration by the House Resource Committee; the zone of direct interaction (tide area), the zone of direct influence (wetlands), and the zone of indirect influence. The zone of indirect influence was proposed for deletion. Testimony indicated that the deletion would impact 11 of the 35 coastal areas and cost approximately $1 million dollars to redraw maps. The 10-mile cutoff was offered as an alternative to this plan. He stated that concessions would be given to protect anadromous fish streams. He emphasized that the coastal zone program should not be used to prevent trapper cabins. (Due to technical failure approximately 15 minutes of the meeting was not recorded. Minutes were composed from the secretary's handwritten notes and written testimony.) JOHN EASTON, COASTAL COORDINATOR, BRISTOL BAY COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA (BBCRSA), DILLINGHAM testified in opposition to HB 28. He stressed that the changes to the Alaska Coastal Management Program would not improve a lengthy permitting process. He emphasized that fish resources depend on the ability to reflect local concerns. He noted that local communities have different concerns that they want incorporated into development plans. He pointed out that BBCRSA does not have a track record of impeding development. He expressed concern with the 10-mile boundary cutoff. He observed that a 10-mile boundary would exclude most of the Nushagak Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management Plan that was created in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources. Co-Chair Therriault noted that anything requiring a water use permit would be within the scope of the legislation. BOB SHAVELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOK INLET KEEPERS, HOMER testified in opposition to HB 28. He observed that Cook Inlet Keepers is a nonprofit organization with members who are dedicated to protecting Cook Inlet and the life it sustains. Mr. Shavelson maintained that the Alaska Coastal Management Program is one of the most valuable tools for ensuring the long-term health and viability of Alaska's coastal habitats and economies. He asserted that HB 28 is a direct attack on the people and communities of coastal areas, which rely on fisheries and other resources for their livelihoods. Mr. Shavelson maintained that section 4 of the committee substitute would: 1. Force eleven coastal districts to rewrite coastal management plans within one year. 2. Not ensure that the number of consistency reviews will decrease because a large portion of coastal development activity occurs within 10 miles of the mean high tide line. 3. Ignore the impacts of non-point source pollution (NPS) on sensitive salmon and other habitats beyond the 10- mile zone. Mr. Shavelson pointed out that non-point source pollution generates between 60-70% of all water pollution in the Nation according to the Environmental Protection Agency. He asserted that the arbitrary selection of a 10-mile wide zone ignores the ecological connections and NPS implications of development in that area. 4. Ignore impacts to the coastal zone from activities physically taking place beyond the coastal zone. Mr. Shavelson acknowledged that trapper cabins might be a use that should prevail under consistency review, but stressed that other projects, such as large-scale road development require scrutiny. Mr. Shavelson expressed concern with section 5. Section 5 would eliminate public participation in the coastal project review process. According to the Division of Governmental Coordination, less than 1 % of all coastal projects has been petitioned within the past 5 years. He maintained that petitions have not been abused and are not a duplication of effort. He maintained that deleting the petition process shuts the public out of important decisions regarding publicly owned resources. He noted that thousands of families rely on healthy salmon habitats. Mr. Shavelson asserted that section 5 would jeopardize federal approval of the Alaska program, thereby threatening federal funding of about $2.6 million dollars per year, for an important program which has helped improve economic and environmental conditions throughout the state. Mr. Shavelson concluded that HB 28 would unravel a program, which has proved effective in helping to promote healthy coastal communities throughout the state. He acknowledged that the Alaska Coastal Management Program is not perfect, but stressed that its problems do not warrant changes proposed by HB 28. LINDA FREED, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH testified in opposition to HB 28. She noted that the Kodiak Island Borough has concerns regarding the stipulation provision. She observed that a double standard would apply in regards to federal projects. Ms. Freed expressed concern with subsection (j)(1). She maintained that the subsection implies that areas outside of a coastal district would not be subject to stipulation. Ms. Freed expressed concern with the 10-mile boundary. She noted that the Kodiak Island Borough went through an extensive process to set its boundaries. She maintained that local elected officials should decide where the boundaries should be set. She pointed out that pollution from major fill and dock projects would not be point pollution and would not be under the provisions of the legislation. She emphasized that local areas use their coastal management authority to supplement their zoning authority. Ms. Freed spoke against the elimination of the petition process. She noted that the Kodiak Island Borough successfully used the petition process. She asserted that the petition process secured a better product for the Kodiak Island Borough. (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 63, Side 2) Ms. Freed expressed concern that the Borough would only have one year to comply with the changes. She observed that the Kodiak Island Borough has made a concerted effort to streamline all permitting processes to benefit those in and out of the community. Title 29 planning and zoning authority has been integrated with their coastal management plan under Title 46. In addition to having to modify the coastal management plan to meet the statute change, significant sections of their subdivision code, land title code and zoning code would have to be modified to comply with the legislation. She asserted that the legislation represents an unfunded mandate. She maintained that federal funding would be jeopardized. She did not think that the language would be supported under the federal act. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Title 16 covers activities that take place in the stream. If there is a discharge from the activity then a Department of Environmental Conservation permit would be required under Title 46. He maintained that a consistency determination restricted to water issues would protect the fish habitat. Co-Chair Therriault explained that the state of Alaska petitioned the federal government, when the program was approved, to allow Alaska's zones to go further inland than the federal government would have required. In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms. Freed described the Kodiak Island Borough's boundaries. She observed that the Kodiak Island Borough got into coastal zone management due to offshore oil and gas sales proposed in Shelikof Strait. She expressed concern that the legislation would not allow the Borough to comment on projects in federal waters. She observed that the original coastal management program boundaries were consistent with the original borough boundaries, before land on the peninsula was annexed. She emphasized that there are federal lands and waters within the Borough that are not subject to direct regulation by the Kodiak Island Borough. Oil and gas lease sales in Shelikof Strait could be one mile from shore and still be outside the Borough's control. Representative Davies observed that the federal program allows the coastal zone region to reach beyond the boundaries if they can demonstrate impact from an activity beyond their boundary. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms. Freed noted that the provisions of the Forest Practices Act were incorporated into the Borough's coastal plan. The Kodiak Island Borough participated in the development of the Forest Practices Act. THOMAS SPARKS, BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION, NOME expressed concerns regarding the 10-mile boundary cutoff and restrictions on stipulations. ROBERT FAGERSTROM, CITY OF NOME observed that the city of Nome passed a resolution in opposition to HB 28. He expressed concerns with the elimination of the right to petition a Coastal Policy Council and restrictions on stipulations. He observed that stipulations have been successful in regards to oil exploration in the Nome area. He cautioned that changes do not result in the loss of federal approval. In response to a question by Representative Davis, Mr. Fagerstrom acknowledged that there is room for improvement. He emphasized the need to work together for changes that make sense. He stressed that most of the state's development occurs in rural Alaska. MURRAY WALSH, ALASKA CHAPTER, AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU stated that he is a private practice planning consultant with industrial clients. He emphasized that the coastal management program is a tool. He stressed the need to protect federal approval and funding. He expressed concern that a level playing field exist. Rules and procedures should be simple and clear. Mr. Walsh noted that a company that requires a permit is at more risk than one that does not require a permit even if they are engaged in the same activity. The company that needs a solid waste permit has to meet requirements, while a company that scatters their stuff on the ground does not have to pay any price. Mr. Walsh proposed that any improvement to the Coastal Management Act encourage and enhance the use of pro- development policies that are already in the Act. Mr. Walsh maintained that the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) is unique in its ability to reflect pro-development policies of the program. He stressed the need for a legislative directive to make sure that pro-development policies are considered. Mr. Walsh maintained that the federal consistency provision has been underused by the state of Alaska. The state of Alaska's ability to affect federal decisions on federal policy could be better served with a more aggressive use of the program. Mr. Walsh noted that he helped to draft the Coastal Management Act. He stressed that an emphasis on local planning and management was instrumental in passage of the Act. In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr. Walsh asserted that restrictions on agency stipulations threatens federal approval. He observed that many coastal resource areas will not like the 10-mile boundary change, but did not think it would threaten federal approval. He stressed that the key to federal approval is the state program's ability to control impact on coastal resources. He recommended that the petition process be replaced with another option. He observed that if coastal resource areas were misapplying statutes and regulations from state agencies then it would be a healthy change to eliminate the petition process. He was not aware of any problems with misuse. He acknowledged that there have been difficulties with agencies reaching too far. He emphasized that coastal management has a full body of policies. He maintained that if pro-development supporters respect environmental protection policies then environmental supporters should respect pro-development policies. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that if pro-development supporters are going to recognize the need to live with certain environmental restrictions, then pro-environmental supporters must acknowledge that development is going to be allowed. Mr. Walsh agreed and added that development is going to be allowed and encouraged by the program. Representative Davies asked Mr. Walsh to comment on the provision that prohibits a state agency or coastal resource district from stipulating to a matter or subject for which the agency or district may not exercise authority outside of AS 46.40. Mr. Walsh stated that if this provision resulted in situations where development proposals of identical impact were treated different then federal approval would be threatened. He added that this provision also causes concerns regarding a level playing field. PATRICK GALVIN, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE noted that he represents districts and applicants to the Alaska Coastal Management Plan (ACMP). He explained that the ACMP is Alaska's response to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). He stated that CZMA allows the state of Alaska to manage state coastal resources. In return, the federal government provides $2.6 million dollars per year and agrees to comply with state plans on federal projects. In order to maintain federal compliance the state of Alaska must have the authority to insure that projects will be in compliance with state programs. By limiting the ability of state agencies and the coastal districts to put stipulations on projects that require compliance with the program the state loses the required authority under the federal act and is therefore out of compliance. Under the proposed committee substitute the state would lose the ability to require compliance on projects that do not fall into specific categories. He referred to subsection (j)(1). He maintained that this provision would throw out all federal consistency. He noted that federal lands are excluded from the state coastal zone. The state can only require compliance when the project affects the state coastal zone. If a consistency determination cannot be required for anything outside of the state coastal zone then a consistency determination cannot be done for anything on federal lands, such as federal offshore oil and gas leases. Federal law requires that the State have the ability to exercise oversight in the implementation of the program by local districts and state agencies. This means that when state agencies are putting out stipulations or deciding which permits are needed to comply, or doing a project review, the State has to have a mechanism where someone makes sure the state agencies are doing it right. This is why the petition process was developed. The last four years, the petition process was split into two parts. One part was the systematic review of agencies and local district's implementation. The other part was the actual project review. The actual project review has caused some controversy. The legislation would delete the entire petition process. This would result in the loss of federal compliance. Something would need to be put into place to maintain state oversight. Mr. Galvin stated that new language regarding implementation of a 10-mile boundary would be difficult to interpret. He asserted that the protection aspect of the program would be threatened by the inability to control the affects of a dock on a river in salmon habitat that did not require water discharge authorization. He pointed out that the CRSA boards do not have the authority to stipulate. The program allows them to suggest or recommend stipulations. The agency decides if stipulations are required as part of the project. DALE BONDURANT, KENAI spoke in opposition to HB 28. He maintained that the legislation is an open invitation for irresponsible resource extraction at the cost of public trust wildlife and waters. He urged the Committee not to let quick economic exploration be the excuse for resource depletion and extinction. JOE GELDHOF, ATTORNEY observed that he worked on the program in 1983, as an assistant attorney general with the Department of Law. He noted that the intent was for the public to have a single point of contact for project development. He recalled that, prior to the program, agencies were fighting over jurisdiction. He spoke in support of consistency review by the Division of Governmental Coordination. He maintained that the appeal to the Coastal Management Council is a problem. He referred to the committee substitute. He spoke in support of deleting the petition process. He asserted that the petition process is unneeded and has resulted in delays and problems. Mr. Geldhof recommended that instead of a direct and indirect boundary at 10-miles, that there be a substantial gate at the 10-mile boundary. He suggested that a written finding of clear and convincing evidence be required to regulate activities beyond the 10-mile boundary. Mr. Geldhof disagreed that federal funding would be jeopardized by eliminating petitions to the Coastal Policy Council. He stated that unless there is a written statement by the federal government indicating that funding would be jeopardized that it should be eliminated. Representative Davies asked if one or two petition cases out of 2,000 is a big deal. Mr. Geldhof replied that after working on a project and convincing the agencies and the Governor's office to allow the project, that the time delay can be significant. He did not think the petition process was justified. Representative Davies observed that the petition applies to the issue of whether or not it can be demonstrated that the agencies took into account the concerns that were made in the process. The issue is not completely revisited. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the permit process involves public input and initial findings. If a person felt that their concerns were not listened to they could elevate the issuance of the permit. (Tape Change, HFC 98 -65, Side 1) Representative Davies reiterated that deletion of the petition process will lead to an increase in litigation. He emphasized that the petition process would be more cost effective than taking people's concerns to the courts. Mr. Geldhof maintained that people's comments and considerations are taken into account. He stressed that there will always be disgruntled individuals that will use the petition process to slow projects. He did not think that the petition process facilitated orderly review or development. He stressed that the petition comes after the commissioners of Department of Fish and Game, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Conservation have considered the issue. He added that the governor might also have weighed in on the issue. He stated that after DGC and the governor have resolved the issue it should be taken to the court for decision, not to a citizen's petition. Representative Grussendorf emphasized the need for a safety valve, short of going to the court. He questioned if petitions were filed by individuals or groups and what was the disposition of the petitions. LINDA WRIGHT, KASILOF spoke against HB 28. She maintained that the legislation is an attempt to dismantle or dilute the protective, regulatory infrastructure. She did not like the committee substitute. She did not want to see the ACMP limited. In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms. Wright stated that she was not aware of problems with the program. CHUCK DEGNAN, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BERING STRAITS COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA (BSCRSA) spoke in opposition to HB 28. He observed that the BSCRSA's boundary would be reduced by the legislation. He observed that the area is heavily dependent on subsistence uses. He spoke in support of the petition process. BERNE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE spoke against HB 28. He recounted comments by Southeast communities to the Board of the Southeast Conference during discussion on HB 28: ? "We are surrounded by forest service land, and we think that changes in the program would decrease our ability to influence what happens around our community." ? "We have used this program very successfully to move projects forward when agencies seem to be unable to agree." ? "We are liable to lose some of the federal money that gives us the resources to have an impact on what happens around our community." ? "We are very strongly focused on economic development and we fear that changes in the program will take out of our hands one of the tools that we can use sometimes to help that economic development move forward." Mr. Miller stated that changes in the committee substitute do not work in the interest of coastal communities. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if Mr. Miller had identified anything in the committee substitute that would preclude the coordination function. Mr. Miller stressed that he had not had sufficient time to review the committee substitute. Co-Chair Therriault observed that there had been some testimony questioning if federal funding would be lost as the result of the legislation. He noted that the coordination function helps development occur. He concluded that some of the expressed concerns are not grounded in the committee substitute. Representative Davies stated that concern in regards to federal land remains. Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that the legislation could be amended to resolve the issue of federal offshore development. Mr. Miller stressed that communities in the Southeast Conference are concerned with forest service lands around their communities. In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr. Miller clarified that the Conference did not discuss the 10- mile limit because it had not been offered at the time of the discussion. There was no specific discussion in regards to the petition process. KEVIN RITCHIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML) noted that local elected officials are concerned with local economic development. He added that local elected officials are also concerned that economic development does not inhibit the growth of communities or industries in the communities. He noted that the CZMP has provided a good voice to many communities in their development processes. The AML supports the CZMP. The AML opposes the reduction of the ability of local communities to effectively regulate development. The AML is not closing the door to changes in the CZMP process. He referred to section 4, page 2. He maintained that this section eliminates the real value of the coastal zone management process by restricting stipulations. He added that this section could jeopardize federal approval of the program. He recommended consulting with federal agencies and municipal governments on the issue. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the committee substitute reserves the program's coordination function. DIANE MAYER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR agreed that the legislation does not directly eliminate the coordination function. She observed that the legislation would weaken coordination. She noted that agencies are required to be consistent with the program. She stressed that, under section 4, the program would do nothing more than what the agencies could do under their current authorities. She explained that if the program acts as a magnet to hold the parties together in a project management review, the magnet is weakened by the statutory statement, that nothing additional is going to happen in that review. She felt that section 4 would result in agencies being less engaged. She thought that this would be the affect of the legislation, not the intention of the legislation. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the legislation can be modified to clarify that offshore lands are still covered. Ms. Mayer observed that the legislation states that a consistency review cannot be done for a project that is outside of a coastal district. By definition all federal land is outside a coastal district. She observed that the provision would affect federal land management and oil and gas offshore leasing. She agreed that this area of the bill needed further work. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if one coastal area could reach into a project in an adjourning district. Ms. Mayer did not know of any cases where one district commented on a project in another district in Alaska. She observed that there have been common comments on offshore areas that would affect multiple districts. Ms. Mayer pointed out that the legislation assumes that coastal districts cover the entire state coast. There are gaps in coastal districts. Project reviews could only occur when a project is inside a district. The program would not cover the majority of Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska because they are not within a coastal district. Representative Grussendorf asked for additional information regarding petitions. Ms. Mayer observed that the petition authority was changed by the Legislature in 1994. The process was simplified. She observed that there have been 6 petitions before the Coastal Policy Council. Two of the petitions were remanded under the current standard. The Council remands cases where they judge that public comments were not fairly considered in the process. In the two remanded cases, the Coastal Policy Council ruled that the record did not adequately reflect fair consideration of comments and the petitions were remanded back to the agency for consideration. Petitions are either remanded or dismissed within a 30-day period. She noted that one of the remanded cases was a Department of Natural Resources lease sale. There was further consideration of comments and the sale went forward. Ms. Mayer reviewed the other petitioned cases: * The United States Postal Service put a hovercraft down a river in the Yukon/Kuskokwin region. The state worked with the Postal Service through the coastal management program. A citizen petitioned to have the hovercraft project further considered. The petition was dismissed. * People from Angoon entered a petition relating to harvesting of a Native allotment. This petition brought up discussion on the right of review and federal standing and responsibilities as trustees of Native allotments. The process brought the parties together and resulted in a land trade. * The Juneau Tramway was petitioned by a citizen of Juneau, who felt that the City misused it's powers to dispose of land. This petition was dismissed. * A neighbor in Kenai was concerned about an oilrig running through their neighborhood. The petition was dismissed, but the neighbor and the borough worked together to solve the problem. * There was a petition relating to private road development in Kenai area wetlands. This petition led to a remand. Ms. Mayer observed that six people have approached the Council since 1994. The program has reviewed approximately 2,100 projects since that time. Ms. Mayer stated that the Administration supports maintaining the petition process. She acknowledged that petitions can be frustrating. She observed that the Division does not have staff that specifically handles petitions. The Coastal Policy Council has been looking at ways to simplify petitions. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the petition process is supported by pro-development groups. Co-Chair Therriault asked how many of the dismissed petitions have resulted in court actions. Ms. Mayer noted that one petition is being pursued in court. Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Council's action was appropriate in regards to the Kenai River petition. Ms. Mayer responded that petitions allow citizens to bring their issues before the Coastal Policy Council. She acknowledged that there has been discussion regarding that petition. Co- Chair Therriault pointed out that the legal directive to the Council was clear in regards to the parameters of what they were to consider. He observed that members of the Council refused to be bound by the legal parameters. Co-Chair Therriault felt that the Council's action was inappropriate. Ms. Mayer observed that there was a lot of controversy surrounding the petition. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the program receives thousands of applications and that there are only a handful of appeals. He asserted that the petition process serves a valid purpose. In response to a question by Representative Davis, Ms. Mayer explained the elevation process. She observed that there are standards that need to be met. Involved parties are working toward resolution. She explained that people can propose solutions to issues as they relate to the standards of the program. Discussion and debate occurs between all parties. The Division of Governmental Coordination facilitates the discussion. When DGC thinks a solution has been reached they present a proposed determination. The involved parties have a period of 5 to 10 days to consider the determination. If they disagree it is elevated and taken to the next higher level. It is then brought to the commissioner as a policy matter. An elevation is a way to withdraw implied consent. She estimated that 25 or 30 petitions have been elevated. HB 28 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.