HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM Number 0068 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the hearing was primarily for public testimony on House Bill No. 28, "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of those repeals." Number 0183 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, sponsor of HB 28, said he had previously believed the sole fiscal note was that from the Office of Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC). However, there were additional fiscal notes from affected departments. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that morning, he had questioned division directors at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) subcommittee meeting to determine "general fund effort" relating to the coastal zone program. For example, money received by the DNR under the Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) all went to the Division of Lands. However, the Division of Oil and Gas also had duties under the program and used general funds to participate. That was part of his concern with the program's expense. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT had requested information on effort, man- hours and general funds in individual divisions; he had written to the commissioners of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the DNR, and the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G); and he would probably request information from the Department of Law. He would provide that information to the committee upon receipt. Number 0343 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said Harry Noah's comments at the previous hearing encapsulated the questions he himself was posing. He emphasized that while the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) requires coordination, coordination does not require the ACMP. The coordination portion is the "baby" that should not be thrown out with the bath water. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred to Mr. Noah's discussion of the agency permitting process. There are regulatory hoops to jump through. On top of that is the coastal zone process, which should be viewed as another permit to obtain. He suggested considering the expense of that additional permit and process to the state and to individuals. Number 0552 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred to the previous hearing's discussion of the additional layer of permitting process for adjacent lands straddling the coastal zone. He asked what additional was being protected along the coast. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT cited an example. Acting on legal advice, the Coastal Policy Council hired a hearing officer to review a petition under a statute in effect prior to 1994. However, the DEC's attorney determined the council had no authority to do so, and the DEC was hiring a second hearing officer. This was a case where a good program had perhaps spun out of control, with unnecessary state expenditures of time and resources. Number 0737 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT reported that: 1) he had come up with a chart of required permitting processes; 2) he would request a copy of a large chart put together by the DGC; and 3) he would request a copy of a "white paper" that compared the permitting processes and coordination required in Interior Alaska with those required on the coast. Number 0869 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON believed it was important to highlight additional requirements within the ACMP, associated costs and time delays. "Maybe they're totally necessary," he commented. He also inquired about a breakdown of the distribution of state and federal funds. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said his information indicates $967,000 in federal funds flows to 34 coastal districts, with a general fund match. Approximately $760,000 goes to state agencies. He suspects, however, that state agencies actually expend quite a bit more time, effort, and, therefore, man-hours and money in participating in the program. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said for a proposed project in Fairbanks, zoning requirements were followed. This could be appealed to the borough planning and zoning commission, then to the borough assembly, which could be sued if unhappy with the outcome. The state never entered into it. But as he understood it, under the coastal zone system, the state stepped in and picked up all legal costs. He questioned the necessity of that. Number 1075 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said for him, the bottom line was whether environmental or habitat degradation would occur should the program be eliminated. He asked whether essentially the DNR, the DEC and the ADF&G require everyone to obtain permits, while the ACMP coordinates that effort and oversees it in a duplicative way. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that is somewhat his suspicion. He noted that many districts have adopted departments' regulations and are therefore consistent. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT commented that the ADF&G has the right to interject comments into a DEC water permitting process. However, he believes the ADF&G uses the ACMP to give themselves a trump card to stop the issuance of permits, a trump card the legislature, as policy makers for state law, had specifically not given them. Number 1263 DIANE MAYER, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, noted that the DGC is responsible for implementing the ACMP. Number 1311 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked how many positions would be lost under HB 28. MS. MAYER said the DGC has 24 positions in the FY 98 budget. This bill would eliminate 23 of them. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether Ms. Mayer could provide a list of where those positions are and their titles. MS. MAYER said yes. She referred to one of Mr. Noah's charts, which showed ACMP as a small layer of process above a larger layer of process. She suggested if the issue is redundancy, ACMP is the only entity on the books that brings all existing processes together on a project basis. It synchronizes scheduling and organizing of public notice, comments, and other aspects, which includes identifying issues and having discussions based on agency expertise about problem-solving. MS. MAYER believes if the ACMP layer were removed, the other layer would "scatter into ribbons." The ACMP works with applicants up- front to decide what "ribbons" to tie together in their process, putting them in touch with agencies, determining applicable personnel and scheduling those personnel as a synchronized team. She questioned the bill's presumption that an efficiency exists in "shredding these ribbons and having them all work independently." MS. MAYER explained that companies such as Fort Knox find someone to tie those ribbons together, paying not only a designated coordinator, but also the person in charge in each agency. For many projects, that cost of coordination may not have a big impact. However, the DGC handles 400 projects, both large and small. And by statute and regulation, it could bring these people together. Number 1584 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether she was talking about the ACMP or the DGC. MS. MAYER, noting that HB 28 repeals the coastal management program, said the coordination piece, the function of the DGC, is nested right in the law legislators are being asked to repeal. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether the coordination piece would not exist otherwise, unless separate legislation created or maintained it. Number 1659 MS. MAYER said, "Right." She explained, "To the extent that we're just talking about the coordination function, if you move HB 28, you lose both of these and then you're faced with recreating the wheel, basically, for the coordination piece." MS. MAYER referred to the chart and said this is where local communities plan, establish criteria reflecting their desires for development in their own coastal area and receive "a million-plus annually." In addition, when a federal permit is required, the ACMP is the strongest means of integrating federal agencies into project-based reviews. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN opened the meeting for public testimony. Number 1751 R.K. GILDERSLEEVE, President, Gildersleeve Logging Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in support of HB 28. Raised in Alaskan logging camps owned by his father, he had purchased the operations in the 1980s. Including subcontractor employees, their camps normally employ up to 125 people but are facing severe declines as timber supplies diminish. MR. GILDERSLEEVE believes HB 28 would remove a redundant layer of state regulation. He said coastal zone management reviews have been used by state agencies to impede development and make it less economic. State agencies need and have regulatory authority to ensure that industry maintains measurable standards, but coastal zone management costs the state and the public without protecting any resources not already protected by other regulations. MR. GILDERSLEEVE discussed his own company. Regulated to maintain air and water quality standards, they can be cited by state and federal agencies if found out of compliance. They must regularly report on compliance with many standards. Permits are required for fuel storage and transfer, drinking water, (indisc.) treatment, camp location, maritime operations and electrical generation. In addition, the Forests Practices Act specifies logging practices to protect habitat and water quality. Their operation has been visited by five or six agencies in a single day. MR. GILDERSLEEVE believes the state entered into the ACMP for reasons no longer valid, including the lure of federal funding and distrust of the U.S. Forest Service by at least one state agency, which currently manages "the fish and game on the Tongass." Now that the two long-term timber sales are reduced, the need for ACMP management is no longer there. Number 1941 MR. GILDERSLEEVE said another reason for creating coastal zone management was the state had the money then. In addition, land use planning under Title 38 was not very far along nor well understood. Now, most parts of the state fall under a formally adopted land use plan. He sees no need to re-examine every possible designation whenever a landowner wants to use his land. Nor does he see a need for agencies to meet repeatedly for what are usually temporary uses, just because that use lies in the coastal zone. He said such uses are always held to measurable standards, by a myriad of regulations, whether or not the land lies in the coastal zone. Number 2021 ERIC MUENCH, Alaska Woods Service Company, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in support of HB 28. He said the program has outlived its usefulness. Its purpose of protecting coastal waters is now accomplished separately by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitting process and other protective measures. MR. MUENCH believes the program performs poorly at allowing the state and communities to "provide guidance into the actions of higher levels of government." Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) show no willingness to take guidance from local or state plans. MR. MUENCH said the greatest fault of the program is pretending to protect marine waters through regulation of upland activity. That requirement is addressed by clean water requirements of state and federal law. He suggested the coastal zone boundary lacks a biological, topographical or other feature defining where upland activity's effects on marine waters begin or end. Number 2102 MR. MUENCH said most environmental controversy involves land use preferences on specific parcels of land. Many environmental laws allow participants to take part in that controversy who would otherwise have no place doing so, he said, indicating the ACMP is one such program. MR. MUENCH believes the single useful feature of the program is the coastal project questionnaire, through which developers can become aware of state regulatory functions that could affect their projects, and which coordinates state responses through the DGC. He suggested this feature be expanded statewide, separate from the coastal management program, to provide guidance and expedite the public's passage through "a maze of confusing governmental regulations, regardless of where the project is located." Number 2152 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for clarification about the questionnaire. MR. MUENCH replied that the coastal project questionnaire lists state agencies having regulatory power over some form of land or water use. The developer, or whoever wants to initiate a project, can go through a checklist of agencies, compare it with the planned activity, and find out which agency must be dealt with as far as permits or other interactions are concerned. Number 2205 DAVID CROSBY, Attorney, came forward to testify, saying he was in private practice. For the past 15 or 20 years, he had represented clients with development interests statewide, including North Slope oil and gas, local mines and logging in the Hydaburg area. However, he was not speaking on behalf of any client but presenting his own thoughts. Most of the projects he represented involved multiple federal, state, and sometimes local permits. MR. CROSBY suggested most problems he had encountered were not with this process but with "rogue staffers" within agencies, at lower levels, who had their own agendas. He was uncertain HB 28 would solve that problem, and it could make it worse. The DGC had been able, through its processes, to address concerns over rogue staffers, "to work them through in a process that involved commissioners from the various agencies." Where they were unable to work them out, they had a well-defined process where Mr. Crosby knew that ultimately, he could get up to the commissioner level, if need be, where he "had some political accountability." He said, "If you throw this entire program out, I'm not sure where that process goes to." Number 2289 MR. CROSBY expressed concern that if HB 28 passed, the power of individual agencies may increase. Problems he had experienced had more often than not been with the ADF&G. He feared that doing away with governmental coordination and making the process less visible might increase that department's power, in particular. MR. CROSBY suggested there might also be increased difficulty in dealing with federal agencies. Concerns expressed in the Coastal Zone Management Act were not going to go away. To the extent that the state was perceived as acting irresponsibly or throwing out the standards, there was a tendency on the federal side to do what the state would not do. He said those processes had many fewer points where one could interact. Number 2365 MR. CROSBY cautioned that eliminating the Coastal Zone Management Act could result in more litigation, not less. One reaction to feeling powerless was to sabotage. One way to sabotage was through litigation. He explained, "We have had projects where we have been able, through the processes of the Coastal Zone Management Act, to explain the project, to improve the project in many ways, to learn how to answer the environmental concerns, and in some instances, through a process of compromise, sometimes just because we've been able to explain our project better, to get people that might have sued us to accept the result." MR. CROSBY said he was not sure what happens when the avenue for that kind of expression is cut off. He suggested sometimes courts show deference to a person's position because they know that person has worked the process. With no process, the courts may approach it de novo, with uncertain results. Number 2428 MR. CROSBY said from a personal standpoint, it would trouble him to turn the clock back on this effort at comprehensive planning for the coastal zone, which attempts to tie together various concerns of development and conservation. He tends to view the Coastal Zone Management Act as a tool, not an obstacle. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON indicated he was intrigued by Mr. Crosby's "rogue staffer" approach. He wondered whether the DGC has statutory power to manage or overcome a rogue staffer. [Reply cut off by tape change] TAPE 97-18, SIDE B Number 0006 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said a number of people, including Mr. Crosby, spoke about the benefits of the DGC. He wondered whether anyone had looked at empowering it. Citing the old Transportation Commission as an example, he suggested considering a whole new relationship, with some sort of citizen board, for example, to provide the oversight and connection. MR. CROSBY said he would not advocate more regulation. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded, "But more power." MR. CROSBY said, "Certainly there could be more power to deal with the various agencies, and to require them to come to reason on these things. And I think that's what DGC is doing now in many instances. And incidentally, there's a network that exists among staffers of these various agencies, between Fish and Game and the Environmental Protection Agency and what have you. And there's a lot of cross-over that goes on. And a staffer who is unhappy with the result here can go over there. And I think that the present process within the Division of Governmental Coordination tends to minimize that." He agreed Co-Chairman Hudson's idea was something to think about. Number 0131 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN pointed out that a Title 16 permit could not be superseded by an action of the DEC, for example. He believes it would be unwise to empower any one agency, giving them a "trump card." Furthermore, there would still be requirements of maintaining reviews within various expertise groups. He discussed the impeding of progress by the "rogues" and indicated response time lines help somewhat. He concluded that the DGC does act as a "mover" in the process. Number 0270 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that HB 28 amends AS 46.40. Referring to AS 46.35, he paraphrased, "It is the purpose to establish a simplified procedure to assist those who have to satisfy requirements of state, federal and local law to obtain permits, to provide to the members of the public a better opportunity to present their views, to provide to applicants for the use of air, land or water resources of the state a greater degree of certainty on permit requirements, to increase the coordination between federal, state and local agencies and their administration of the programs, and to establish an opportunity for members of the public to obtain information." REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT suggested these statutes, not contingent on maintaining AS 46.40, speak directly to what the "baby" should be and do. Governmental coordination will happen if the Governor wants it to, he said. And the 23 or 24 ACMP staff would not necessarily "disappear" under HB 28, unless the legislature removes from the budget those general fund dollars and that staffing. Number 0352 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE referred to Mr. Crosby's comment about the possibility of more litigation and asked for examples. MR. CROSBY believes two kinds of people get involved in environmental disputes. First are those acting in good faith, needing more information to be satisfied a project will not be an environmental problem. Sometimes information coming from a governmental agency has greater credibility than that provided by a developer, he noted. MR. CROSBY said second are people who are frustrated and angry about their perceived lack of power in the system. They oppose any development and cannot be satisfied. Through the development permit processes, oftentimes they can be forced to articulate their arguments. "And you begin to understand their arguments so that you can respond to them," he said. MR. CROSBY explained, "You may not be able to keep them from suing. But when they do sue, you can point out to the court that you've been through ... the various processes with the permitting agencies and up to the Coastal Policy Council. And I think you can tend to isolate the nay-sayers. But at the same time, I think that you perform a valuable function by providing information to people who are really only in the process, in good faith, to find out whether or not there is a problem." Number 0457 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Representative Alan Austerman was present and invited him to join them at the table. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said except where a Title 46 application is required because of activity in a stream, he believes the ADF&G has circumvented the legislature in using the ACMP to interject itself into the process. MR. CROSBY said that is a legitimate point. However, in some situations, the ADF&G has permitting authority. In addition, there is communication between agencies, which defer to one another on points where they believe the other agency has expertise. Number 0543 DAVE HANNA came forward to testify, saying he was a fifth- generation Alaskan whose family had worked the length and breadth of the state. No member of his family had ever been a proponent of more government. Self-employed in construction and resource development, he has been active in mineral resource extraction, timber harvest, road building, bridge building, shoreline development and protection, and commercial and residential development. MR. HANNA has worked with and without coastal zone management and the DGC. Often, development in Alaska involves federal agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In addition, it involves Alaska departments and local planning and zoning agencies. MR. HANNA said prior to the ACMP, no program coordinated agencies nor forced federal cooperation with municipal or private development. Developers attempted to procure permission from agencies. There was lack of communication, endless modification of projects, and needless repetition of effort by agencies and private developers alike, with applicants bounced like a ball back and forth between agencies with their own agendas. The federal government was free to react at their leisure. This endless repetition often discouraged private developers to the point where they abandoned their efforts. Number 0681 MR. HANNA said since the inception of coastal zone management, and the benefit of the DGC, municipalities and private developers have the assurance of fair and timely review of proposed developments. He believes this one act may have done more than anything else to promote responsible development in Alaska and to help diversify and stabilize a fluctuating economy. MR. HANNA concluded, "Coastal zone has given us a new voice in federal activities in our state. Quarrels over state-versus- federal authority seem to comprise a large portion of our problems in developing our state. I cannot imagine any responsible legislator relinquishing any tool available to help maintain our ability to self-regulate our development of our resources." MR. HANNA stated, "If anything, I feel that the benefits of this program should be expanded to help all residents of our state and strengthen our ability to foster responsible development. We do have problems in the government, but eliminating coastal zone would indeed be throwing the baby out with the bath water." Number 0749 LINDA FREED, Community Development Director, Kodiak Island Borough, testified via teleconference. She said to borough residents, hard- hit by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the ACMP is the most significant tool to influence state and federal decisions with regards to oil and gas development and transportation. The borough became involved with the ACMP in 1979 because of concerns about proposed federal offshore oil and gas lease sales. As a cooperative state, federal and local program, the ACMP gives the region some local control over activities and decisions of larger government entities. MS. FREED said the ACMP also provides a tool to get the attention of oil companies whose activities could negatively impact resources upon which residents depend. MS. FREED said recently the borough was involved with several contentious appeals relating to the DEC's approval of the Prince William Sound Tanker C-Plan Decision. Prior to this decision, the borough had never filed an appeal on a project decision. However, the borough believed this was a major state public policy decision meriting attention from department commissioners and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. She commented that the council is the existing mechanism for dealing with "rogue staffers." Number 0944 MS. FREED said in June 1996, after months of negotiations using the ACMP as a tool, the borough signed an agreement with the DEC and the major crude oil shippers in the state. The agreement, which established a framework for protecting the borough from future oil spills, was possible because the ACMP gave local residents and the municipality the tools to bring the industry and the state to the table to address their concerns. MS. FREED said the ACMP had funded a special project to identify sensitive areas in her region, with the information to become part of a federal-state contingency plan to guide the shipping industry and allow them to develop better individual contingency plans. The project allowed Ouzinkie residents input into governmental regulation and the opportunity to better understanding the oil industry. Without the ACMP, it would not have been possible, either on a cooperative or financial basis. MS. FREED said this was only one area in which the borough had benefited from the ACMP. She suggested other coastal regions would have stories as well. She stated that the Kodiak Island Borough opposes HB 28. MS. FREED believes if only the coordination function is retained, the ACMP would cost more in general funds than it does now, since permit coordination in Alaska is basically subsidized by the federal government. She noted that the local control aspect of the process is embodied in the substance of the program. Number 1100 WILLIE GOODWIN, JR., Land Manager, Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation, testified via teleconference from Kotzebue, saying he was a Coastal Policy Council member for six years and served as co-chair. He opposes HB 28. With the ACMP, state agencies can better monitor development without requiring personnel at the sites. For example, a resident could comment, or the local government could monitor the permitting process or order permits to protect the local environment or resources. MR. GOODWIN said the process took years to refine. It benefits the state and local residents. Each plan, for each area, was carefully thought out, and the state was very much involved as policies were developed. Through this process, local residents are able to be heard when a proposed project will affect their lives. MR. GOODWIN referred to Timber Creek, cited by the sponsor the previous week, and said, "It's unfortunate that the legislator who represents this guide wants to scrap the whole program because a resident from Fairbanks couldn't get his tracking permit in another area." He said the state made a deal with the federal government to manage Alaska's coast under this program, and a deal is a deal. MR. GOODWIN concluded that although perhaps the program needs refining in parts of the state, it works for the Northwest Arctic Borough. With all the federal lands within the borough, he believes there would be more problems dealing with the federal government than with state agencies should a permit come before them. Their plan allows development like the Red Dog Mine to proceed yet still protects sensitive habitat areas. Number 1284 VICTOR KARMUN, Coastal Management Coordinator, Northwest Arctic Borough, testified via teleconference from Kotzebue, saying he opposes HB 28. He believes the Red Dog Mine exists because of the program. He also believes that had the ACMP existed in the late 1940s and 1950s, there would be no big cleanup programs or procedures today. MR. KARMUN said the ACMP gives state and local governments a more equal partnership with the federal government. Through the DGC, it requires federal agencies to address Alaska coastal concerns, gives small coastal villages a voice in permitting decisions and provides streamlined review of new development projects. Finally, it prevents a state or federal agency, or a private entity, from running roughshod over any locality with the ACMP in place. Number 1393 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether the process allows a small local organization to run roughshod over someone trying to do a development. MR. KARMUN replied, "No, sir, not the way it is right now." Number 1419 CHERI SHAW, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), testified via teleconference, speaking on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the CDFU. She said the CDFU strongly opposes House Bill 28. The ACMP is an effective tool for coastal communities that empowers residents to set local standards. Unorganized boroughs should retain their right to consider development that will affect their areas. The coastal zone management program provides unique benefits not found in other programs, including one-stop shopping in the permitting process. MS. SHAW said the program was unanimously re-authorized the previous year by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The federal government supports and subsidizes it. The state receives $3 million per year to fund it, which would be lost if HB 28 passes. MS. SHAW referred to the ACMP's structure. She said the federal government mandated new management measures in the re- authorization. Although changes might be necessary, eliminating this program is not the way. She cautioned that if the program is repealed and hindsight proves that to be a mistake, Alaska may never be able to recreate the ACMP in the future. MS. SHAW said recently, Cordova and the CDFU benefited from the ACMP and the Coastal Policy Council in the debate over Lease Sale 79 and review of the Prince William Sound Contingency Plan. The CDFU found both to be important resources to which to turn. MS. SHAW said she personally finds it disturbing that a legislator from the Interior would introduce a bill limiting citizens' rights in coastal communities, where he has no constituents. She said she would fax her testimony. Number 1547 The Kenai teleconference operator advised that she would fax testimony from Linda Wright, who had to leave. Number 1582 DENNIS RANDA, President, Alaska Council, Trout Unlimited, testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to HB 28. He said Trout Unlimited represents 600 Alaskans and 100,000 people nationwide. A Kenai Peninsula resident since 1974, Mr. Randa participated in the original coastal zone policy drafting by the Kenai Peninsula Borough in 1988. He believes it is effective, especially in involving local people. Under HB 28, Trout Unlimited, a grassroots organization, would be severely hampered in its efforts to ensure its concerns are met by developmental actions along our coastal plain. MR. RANDA said when he first looked at this bill, he asked what was broken. After reading it, he asked how the bill fixed it. He does not believe HB 28 addresses either question. He said the program gives people "something to deal with in their coastal issues" and provides developers a known route through the process. Number 1794 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai in opposition to HB 28. He believes the sponsor's intention is to create a process with less responsibility and less cost for resource development. He cited other bills that similarly propose fast-track extraction of Alaska's resources, with little responsibility regarding resource conservation or environmental protection. Number 1976 DOUGLAS MERTZ, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (RCAC), came forward to testify. An independent nonprofit corporation, the RCAC promotes environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska Terminal and associated tankers. It has 18 member organizations, including municipalities and other interest groups in the area impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. MR. MERTZ said the RCAC opposes HB 28 because eliminating the ACMP would shut down perhaps the most important program by which Alaskans participate in development decisions that affect them. In short, HB 28 would eliminate the local role and leave decisions to state bureaucrats in Juneau and Anchorage. MR. MERTZ indicated government should protect people's right to have a voice in decisions affecting them. The RCAC is not anti-oil or anti-development. It wants natural resource development without sacrificing other valuable resources. Mr. Mertz noted that the ACMP provides a system for mediating conflicting interests short of litigation. MR. MERTZ said the ACMP does need improvement. However, he believes the system could work better while still protecting the interests of local residents. In addition to the coordination function, the local role in the decision process is a second "baby" to avoid throwing out with the bath water. Number 2239 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked that Mr. Mertz submit specific suggestions on improving the ACMP in writing. MR. MERTZ agreed to get back to the committee. Number 2267 GRETCHEN KEISER, Planner, Community Development Department, City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), came forward to testify. Aware of the ACMP since the 1970s, she had also previously worked at the DGC. She discussed points made in a resolution, Serial No. 1852, recently passed by the CBJ assembly in opposition to HB 28. MS. KEISER offered a document on the CBJ's coastal program and said there are areas not necessarily attended to by the state. For example, in Juneau, policies address landslide and avalanche areas. TAPE 97-19, SIDE A Number 0006 MS. KEISER said another example is habitat policies. For statewide coastal districts, this cuts both ways. Juneau has a policy regarding 50-foot setbacks for development along designated "important anadromous streams." On the other hand, language in habitat policies talks about the ability to overcome some restrictions in habitat policies if there is a significant public need. MS. KEISER said it is the local community that brings forth the issue of public need. Although much of coastal management is about environmental protection, this is where a district can step forward with a community's development needs. MS. KEISER said the ACMP provides a formal role for local government, giving it a more equitable share of government authority when dealing with the state. "It's very different than Title 38's best interest findings, where districts, local governments, can comment in the coastal management program," she noted. The DGC acts as a mediator agency, allowing everyone a say. MS. KEISER said the ACMP streamlines the review and approval of coastal development projects. For her, a local planner, the DGC provides a single point of contact in the state bureaucracy. Removing that would create an additional workload on local governments. Number 0319 MS. KEISER noted that federal pass-through monies are given to the CBJ, which currently receives $40,000 per year to fund one-half of a salary for a person who works on coastal development project reviews and wetlands permitting. Roughly $150,000 had been provided over the last five years for special projects. For example, the CBJ received $25,000 to develop a map atlas for wetlands to facilitate permitting, plus $3,000 for information sheets on permitting. MS. KEISER said the CBJ resolution opposes HB 28. The assembly urges that if the bill goes forward, it go into subcommittee for further analysis. She suggested focusing on permit coordination and improving that process. She further suggested the legislature may want to participate more formally in the Administration's streamlining effort. Number 0469 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT asked Ms. Keiser to look at AS 46.35 to determine whether there is a "gap in that other alternative coordination function" from her perspective. He asked whether the CBJ could not control issues such as avalanche zones through a master plan using the planning and zoning process. MS. KEISER believes the key point of coastal management is that it allows Juneau to interject those actions that they would take locally into the state permitting process. Without any formal role for local government, there could be a "disconnect" in the permitting process. The state could say no. The local government could say yes. And the applicant would be out of luck. Number 0644 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT referred again to AS 46.35. He said if the state had land within the CBJ and was proposing to permit something on that land, it had to fit within the overall CBJ zoning. MS. KEISER said certainly where the state is the applicant, it would talk to the CBJ. However, she believes most projects going through consistency review belong to private individuals. Those individuals should get a simultaneous, coordinated message from state and local governments, which occurs under the ACMP. Number 0719 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said if he wanted to lease state land for a project requiring a state permit, for example, it would be precluded if it did not fit within the CBJ zoning. The borough has the right, separate from the ACMP, to control facilities and functions on land within its boundaries through planning and zoning. MS. KEISER agreed but said it is incumbent on levels of government to work together to facilitate a timely review, which happens with the ACMP's coordination function. From her perspective, it is not good government to do otherwise. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he appreciated that comment and her suggestion to look at ensuring that the coordination continues. Number 0943 WELLS WILLIAMS, Planning Director, City and Borough of Sitka (CBS), testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 28. He said the coastal management process is valuable to the community and the state. He expressed appreciation for the sponsor's motives but believes HB 28 does not achieve the objectives. MR. WILLIAMS said the CBS sees coastal management through three distinctly different eyes. First, it is a way to involve citizens. Second, the CBS is a regulator, and the ACMP provides an opportunity to influence decisions. He said the CBS has a structure different from Juneau's. About the only way they can influence a project on state land in outlying areas, for example, is through the coastal zone management process, since that vehicle is not incorporated into the CBS zoning guides. MR. WILLIAMS said third, the CBS builds projects along the waterfront and is, in many ways, an applicant like anyone else going through the process. The DGC has helped in recent projects, providing ways to resolve disputes and allowing projects to go forward. MR. WILLIAMS concluded that the ACMP is important as a planning tool, in addition to its importance, often cited, as a coordination tool. Number 1150 CLAIRE JOHNSON, Board Member, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association (AWRTA), testified via teleconference from Sitka, speaking on behalf of the AWRTA and herself. A nonprofit organization with over 300 statewide members, the AWRTA's goals include advocating conservation and responsible use of resources; becoming an integral part of the economic and resource use decision-making process; promoting professionalism of natural resource-dependent tour and lodge operators, travelers and recreational users; promoting guidelines for low-impact and sustainable recreation and tourism; and supporting (indisc.) interested in marketing, permitting and legislative issues, as consistent with its other goals. MS. JOHNSON said these goals closely resemble those of the Sitka Coastal Management District Program. The ACMP is an integral process the AWRTA supports. There is no specific process for tourism planning and looking out for the long-term health of the industry and the resources on which it depends. Coastal resources are critically important to tourism and recreation in Southeast Alaska. The ACMP is the one process where local communities can bring about their concerns and have input about the coastal zone. MS. JOHNSON said the ACMP is a way to bring the interests of different industries and communities together to try to balance and resolve differences. If anything, these types of processes need to be strengthened, not gutted. Ms. Johnson said the AWRTA urges that HB 28 be withdrawn. Number 1279 MS. JOHNSON spoke on her own behalf, saying Alaska is being inundated by industries and people with money, who want more money at the expense of Alaskans and wilderness itself. She discussed a floating lodge resort proposed in the local borough, which involved at least eight state and federal agencies. In this case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife comments on the project directly conflicted with the ADF&G findings, and the federal agency had no knowledge of the state's comments. She said this is one of several instances where she ran across conflicting decisions by different agencies, resulting in her making repeated telephone calls to resolve them. MS. JOHNSON said she understands Mental Health Trust lands are exempt from the ACMP, but she does not know why. She concluded by stating her strong opposition to HB 28. Number 1475 JIM GLASPELL, Environmental Consultant, testified via teleconference. Since 1981, he has been involved with 15 local coastal programs, helping them prepare, revise and implement plans. Recognizing the ACMP's "growing pains," he hopes the current program assessment will lead to procedural improvements and better- written policy standards, which are much needed. MR. GLASPELL believes state agency permit coordination procedures do not provide the same opportunities as the ACMP process for local notification, review and permit input. Agency coordination requirements vary, differ in time lines, and are not always closely followed. Local citizens who do not read the legal section of the newspaper daily would have difficulty even finding out what permits or activities were being considered in the coastal zone. MR. GLASPELL does not believe federal and state laws and permits duplicate or negate the need for local coastal zone plans and development standards. Those local plans and standards supplement state and federal regulations in the permit process. They specifically reflect local issues. MR. GLASPELL cited examples. Outside the ACMP process, no statewide standards address coastal habitat protection. Nor do they recognize variable functions and values of wetlands or wetland mitigation opportunity. No standards address cumulative impact nor protect subsistence resources and uses. Nothing statewide looks at petroleum storage facilities that hold less than 400,000 gallons of fuel and their proximity to streams and water bodies. Mr. Glaspell said these are gaps that the ACMP performance standards, included in coastal plans, help to fill. MR. GLASPELL said one should not assume current state and federal statutes and regulations will remain in place. He believes the coastal zone management program is not redundant. Eliminating the ACMP would significantly reduce local input, resulting in loss of important coastal development performance standards. He urged rejection of HB 28. He further urged reinforcement of state support for local oversight of coastal development activities. Number 1705 CHUCK DEGNAN, Program Director, Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board, testified via teleconference from Unalakleet. He said the board opposes HB 28. Coastal management is a joint effort of local, state and federal governments and the private sector. For rural Alaskans, it is an important opportunity for meaningful participation in federal and state decisions affecting their lives. The ACMP process works very well, even when there are disagreements among participants, and provides an appeal procedure when a party disagrees with a ruling. MR. DEGNAN noted that the board opposed the Timber Creek trapping cabin permit. However, the DNR had issued the permit and the matter was currently before the courts. Number 1760 JOHN DUNHAM, Permitting and Zoning Manager, North Slope Borough, testified via teleconference from Barrow. The borough opposes HB 28 because the ACMP provides a meaningful tool to protect the quality of life on the North Slope, which has the most biologically sensitive coastal areas in any state. "I believe this is the reason for the federal legislation," he stated. MR. DUNHAM said the ACMP is the only program providing local government an equal footing in state and federal permitting decisions. Loss of the ACMP would eliminate local government's ability to effectively comment on development in federal waters. He noted that local and state governments' planning and zoning authority extends only three miles offshore. Loss of authority to comment on development projects in federal waters would have a significant impact on the quality of life for borough residents, as well as for the people of Bristol Bay, Kodiak Island, the Kenai Peninsula and communities along the Bering Sea. MR. DUNHAM said HB 28 reduces local government to an advising body to state and federal permitting agencies, if comments even are solicited from local governments. He believes if HB 28 became law, developers in Alaska's coastal areas would be challenged more frequently in court regarding development decisions. MR. DUNHAM said he understands there is a provision for coordination in the bill that retains what is perceived to be the good aspects of the current program. He asked whether coordination could be required of a local home rule government. Number 1860 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if anyone else wished to testify. He announced HB 28 would be heard again February 25 at a listen-only teleconference. He intended to put it into subcommittee at that time, with Representative Green as chairman. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that AS 46.35 specifies that "department" means the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and that "commissioner" refers to the DEC's commissioner. He did not want to convey that this set of statutes is the ideal framework for coordination or that it should be done by the DEC. He suggested there might be modification to this framework.