HB 106-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM    1:48:35 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska coastal management program; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date." 1:48:53 PM RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), first provided an overview of HB 106. He explained that in 2005, Senate Bill 102 amended Alaska statute 44.66.020(a) to include the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) as a program subject to termination, thereby providing the legislature with a mandatory review of the ACMP's efficacy through the program sunset process within that statute. This provision of Senate Bill 102 also included an uncodified section that terminates the ACMP on July 1, 2011. This termination of the ACMP is not like a normal sunset provision because there is no grace period or program wind down - it is effective immediately July 1, 2011, which means a bill must be passed this session extending the ACMP or the program terminates. He said Governor Parnell has introduced HB 106, extending the termination date of the ACMP by six years, in recognition of the value of the Alaska Coastal Management Program to extend the state's authorities to federal lands and agency activities, as well as the importance of incorporating local participation and input into those decisions. 1:51:33 PM MR. BATES next reviewed the history of the ACMP and the changes that have been made to it. He said, "The ACMP is a federally authorized, voluntary state program where the state oversees the responsible development of coastal uses and resources, federal activities within the coastal zone, and activities on the outer continental shelf." The consistency review process is the primary tool for implementing this program. Through this process, proposed resource development projects, such as a dock or an oil and gas exploration project, are reviewed by federal and state agencies, coastal districts, and interested public members for compliance with the ACMP state standards and district enforceable policies. Since 1979 the structure of Alaska's coastal management plan has included the most expansive coastal zone in the nation, extending for the most part from Alpine to the ice fields of southeast Alaska, all the way around western and southcentral Alaska, and several hundred miles inland up anadromous waterways. Also important is that Alaska has a "geographic location description" which allows extension of the ACMP to the edge of the outer continental shelf. 1:54:36 PM MR. BATES said the State of Alaska chose this network-structured program where its departments and divisions participate in the implementation of the ACMP. The state also included a local component where several coastal municipalities and service areas voluntarily participate in implementation of the ACMP. The Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) serves as the lead agency and is responsible for all aspects of implementation of the program. MR. BATES related that in 2003 changes were initiated to the coastal management program by passage of Executive Order 106, which moved the Division of Governmental Coordination into the Department of Natural Resources, and passage of House Bill 191. House Bill 191 was intended to reduce delays, avoid regulatory confusion and costly litigation, allow new investment in Alaska, and update and reform the ACMP statewide standards and district enforceable policies to be clear, concise, more uniform, related to specific concerns and in the case of districts to local concerns, and to be non-duplicative of state and federal laws. A key change made by House Bill 191 was elimination of the Coastal Policy Council, which was the governing body of the coastal program, and the transfer of all of the council's duties into DNR. The bill also required a complete re-write of the statewide standards, the coastal district plans, and the enforceable policies to ensure that all the standards and district policies met with the legislative intent to be clear, concise, not susceptible to subjective interpretation, and not duplicative of otherwise existing requirements. The bill clarified that district enforceable policies may not address a matter regulated or authorized by state or federal law unless the policy related specifically to a matter of local concern. 1:57:08 PM MR. BATES continued, saying that House Bill 191 clarified the consistency review process to provide more predictable timelines and standards, including the scope of the project subject to review, when a project can proceed in phases, and the extent to which projects inland of the coastal zone are subject to review. The bill encouraged expansion of the use of general permits and otherwise expedited consistency reviews. The last key change made by House Bill 191 was implementation of the "DEC carve- out," which excluded Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) permits from the coordinated consistency review process of the ACMP and prohibited coastal districts from establishing enforceable policies addressing air, land, and water quality that are already covered by DEC. MR. BATES said that in 2004 the ACMP regulations were amended as required by House Bill 191. In 2005 Senate Bill 102 was passed, which provided the legislature with a mandatory review of the ACMP's efficacy through the previously mentioned sunset provision. House Bill 102 also amended the deadlines for coastal districts to submit their amended coastal district plans, immediately repealed district policies that were in conflict with existing law, and mandated revision to the "ABC List," including those activities that qualify for an expedited review under the ACMP. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), the federal granting and oversight body, approved those changes in December 2005 after performing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis on all of those changes. 1:59:19 PM MR. BATES noted that pre-2003 there were 35 coastal districts, 33 of which had coastal district plans approved. As a requirement of House Bill 191, 28 coastal districts revised their entire plan, 25 of which are in place now, and 1 of which is pending and under final review. MR. BATES reported that as a preliminary to the termination of the ACMP under the sunset provisions in statute, Senator Olson last year requested a full program audit on the ACMP. The audit, delivered in two parts, was a significant investment in time by the Division of Legislative Audit that conducted the audit, as well as the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM), network agencies, coastal districts, and other participants that responded to, provided information for, and participated in the audit. It is the administration's perspective that the audit represents a comprehensive and objective review and evaluation of the ACMP. He said the audit findings include the following: "the program is operated and functioning consistent with statutes, regulations, and legislative intent; clarifying the ACMP standards, and district enforceable policies, and reducing the redundancy in the program were the legislature's intent; the ACMP changes have not diminished the state's rights under the CZMA, the Coastal Zone Management Act; DNR is an appropriate agency to administer the ACMP." MR. BATES pointed out that the audit did not recommend any statutory changes and concluded that the legislature should re- authorize the ACMP. Audit findings identified ways to improve the ACMP, including that while the ACMP is operated openly and transparently, certain aspects of its process are deficient in openness and transparency. Another finding was that changes have lessened consensus building among the review participants. He said the division and the department are contemplating ways to improve the program as identified within the audit findings. With these audit findings in hand, and based on the governor's guiding principles on resource management as it relates to the ACMP, the governor has introduced HB 106, a six-year extension of the termination date for the ACMP. 2:03:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether DNR has decided to make any of the changes recommended in the audit. MR. BATES replied that appropriate changes are being considered to be responsive to the audit findings. The governor has not introduced statutory changes at this time, but other types of changes are being contemplated that would still accommodate the findings from the audit. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that had the audit suggested any changes those changes would have been in the regulations. MR. BATES responded yes; the audit did not find statutory changes necessary or warranted, but both the division and the department recognize that improvements could be made to increase the effectiveness and delivery of the coastal program. The [division's] responses to the auditor are largely captured in the audit findings themselves. While there are certain changes that [DCOM] feels it could and should make, there are other aspects of the audit that [the division] responded to that clarify some of the issues. At this time [DCOM] has not decided or determined what would be appropriate regulatory versus procedural issues to address the points that were raised. 2:05:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired what the timeframe might be for some of the changes that [DCOM] is looking at. MR. BATES answered that the majority of [the division's] time for the next 45 days will be dedicated to being responsive to this committee and the legislature on this bill and its companion on the other side. As time permits, [DCOM] will debate what it can do based on the findings and what can be done by procedure or regulation to solve some of the issues raised because the desire is to have a functional and effective division and program. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether personalities would make a difference, such as a different person in a certain position. MR. BATES replied that he is unsure who Representative P. Wilson might be suggesting, but that his is a challenging position to administer in compliance with state and federal law. The decisions he has to make are not always easy and are certainly not well received by all the players, which is important to recognize considering that this program significantly affects the industry, the coastal districts, the public, and state agencies. If it is not his position that is being talked about, everybody in this arena has an opinion about these changes as very few people are ambivalent about whether the program is functioning appropriately and this tension is good because it creates the opportunity to decide what is wanted as a program. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON assured Mr. Bates that she has not talked to anyone in this regard; it was just a question that came to mind. 2:08:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested Mr. Bates to share two examples of projects that were significantly delayed or stopped because of the laws in place prior to passage of House Bill 191 in 2003. MR. BATES responded that some information was earlier provided to the co-chairs, at their request, regarding project reviews during the five years prior to 2003, which might be applicable to the question. One of the complaints about the program in 2002 was that there was no legal certainty to the timeframes associated with project reviews. While he cannot remember a specific example, he does know that there were projects stopped for review for which there was no legal reason to do so from the division's perspective; the division just stopped the review because it needed more time to consider things. So, the regulations were written at one time to address some of that as an issue. He offered to come up with specific projects if Representative Herron wished. 2:10:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he looks forward to receiving the information that was provided to the co-chairs. He related that the correspondence from the coastal districts about HB 106 is universal in wanting the ACMP to be extended. However, the districts also want some returns to pre-2003, such as a return of the [Coastal Policy] Council so that the districts can have legitimate local input. He inquired whether these returns to pre-2003 have been considered for the legislation or whether [DCOM] only wants the extension. MR. BATES, returning to the prior question, asked whether Representative Herron's request for information is the material that was provided to the co-chairs, which was data relating to consistency reviews for the past 10 years. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON repeated that the committee has received written testimony from the districts stating that they want a return to some of the issues as they were prior to House Bill 191, such as a Coastal Policy Council. He asked whether HB 106 does this. MR. BATES again returned to Representative Herron's prior question [about specific examples of delayed or stopped projects], saying that he is trying to ascertain whether the data provided to the co-chairs is the information that Representative Herron is looking for. CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the information received by the co-chairs was basically a data dump of all of the permits that were issued in the past, not a list of projects that were analyzed or delayed. The co-chairs did not provide copies to the other members because of the large volume of copying that would have been involved; also, the data would not be meaningful to the request that Representative Herron has at this time. 2:13:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reiterated that all the districts want the ACMP to be extended, so that is not the issue. But, they also want to see a return to some of the other items, including a [Coastal Policy Council] to provide legitimate, genuine, local input. He asked whether such a provision is included in HB 106. MR. BATES said it is fortunate that all the coastal districts, as well as others, support extending the program because it is valuable and meaningful at the local level. At the state level it is a meaningful opportunity to influence federal activities and federal agency permit activities, particularly on federal land and waters. The governor is not proposing any statutory amendments to the ACMP through HB 106, it is an extension only. [The department] understands that Representative Joule, and possibly members of the other body, may be submitting bills proposing substantive amendments to the ACMP. He continued: "The governor and the department's engagement on any proposed amendments to the ACMP will be guided by the following four principles: the ACMP must maintain a predictable process, the ACMP must be maintained as a strong state program where participant input is valued, the ACMP standards and enforceable policies must be objective and must not duplicate or re-define existing authorities, and coastal districts should be afforded a meaningful role for input on projects but should not possess a veto decision over projects." 2:16:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON commented that he does not think any district wants veto power or local control, they just want legitimate and genuine local input. He said he reads the audit to suggest four years, but the governor is asking for six years and a senate bill is proposing one year. MR. BATES answered that the governor put forward six years largely based on the years 2005-2011 and 2011-2017. Six years seemed reasonable for a future legislature to determine whether the program is functioning effectively and whether it should be continued or terminated. There is not much difference between a four year extension and a six year extension other than [the division] does not want to go through this too often just to determine the value of the ACMP. A one year extension is challenging for the administration to consider because staff and the program need some security to be able to get down to business. Two issues are at stake: extension of the program and program change. [The division] does not want the program survivability linked to program change because they are separate issues and [the division] wants to deal with them separately to the extent possible. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON disagreed that the two issues can be severed from one another, and specified that the length of the extension and the concerns addressed by many people are truly non-severable. 2:19:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how many local enforceable policies existed prior to 2003 and, of those, how many exceeded state and federal law or regulation. MR. BATES replied he does not have the number at the top of his head, but he believes that the Division of Legislative Audit calculated those numbers and made some percentage remarks. In further response, he agreed to follow up with this information. For clarification of Representative Munoz's question, he noted that in 2005 [Senate Bill 102] immediately terminated any district enforceable policies that were rendered duplicative with existing state or federal law. While the division did not cull the policies at that time, that bill had a significant effect on the district policies. He presumed that the next number Representative Munoz might be thinking of is the number of policies that the division finally approved in district plans. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed that she would like to be able to compare how many policies existed prior to 2003 and how many remained in place after the change. MR. BATES said he will follow up in this regard. 2:22:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER read from a letter written to Mr. Bates on 1/27/11 by Representatives Herron and Foster which asks why ACMP Section 306 funds cannot be used for contracts. She then read from pages 5 and 6 of Mr. Bates's 2/24/11 response to that letter which discuss the $250,000 that could not be accounted for by the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA). She inquired whether this issue was due to lack of experience in leadership or malfeasance. MR. BATES responded that some of these long-standing financial issues with the Bering Straits CRSA were just resolved and the CRSA was funded again within the last month, which means the Bering Straits CRSA is now back on track as a full participant in the program. In a program financial audit of the Bering Straits CRSA the independent auditor found that a little over $250,000 could not be accounted for. Over the course of three fiscal years there were no check stubs or check history of how the money was spent. As the program facilitator and implementer, the division took that issue seriously and shared it with the Department of Law. After looking at the issue, no criminal or civil proceedings were taken. The goal was to get the CRSA cleared of charges and back on track to receive funding as a full participant in the ACMP. 2:25:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to Co-Chair Feige, reiterated that this issue is discussed in a 1/27/11 letter to Mr. Bates and in his response of 2/24/11. She inquired whether the $250,000 was used appropriately but the record keeping was shoddy, or was there concern that the money had been used inappropriately. MR. BATES answered he does not think it his place to cast doubt or make judgment, but that [DCOM] recognizes there was a problem in terms of financial accountability. The personnel representing the Bering Straits worked well on the program. After the Bering Straits audit was finished, audits were performed on the other three CRSA's because the four CRSA's are entities solely for purposes of coastal management and have no other organizational structure to them. [The division] funds them with $73,000 to $75,000 a year for staff time, a bookkeeper, and office space, and they have a minimal matching requirement of about 25 percent. The other 24 coastal districts are municipalities that are under control of their Title 29 municipal authorities and as such they are accountable for their monies and are audited on a regular basis. 2:27:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood Mr. Bates to be saying he cannot answer or is unable to answer the question about whether the $250,000 was used appropriately for the coastal zone management program. MR. BATES replied he does not have an answer as to whether it was spent appropriately. The money was not identified as to where it went, how it went, and how it was used, so it is difficult to make any judgments and it is not necessarily [the division's] place to do so. There is no information to suggest it was inappropriately spent. [The division] wanted to get the Bering Straits CRSA's programmatic bookkeeping in line so that it could receive monies again. When the issues came out, [DCOM] terminated the opportunity for that CRSA to receive any further funding until the issues could be resolved and financial controls put in place so the CRSA could operate effectively and efficiently utilizing [the division's] monies as well as any other monies. 2:29:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Ms. Wolter of the Department of Law had heard her question. LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), responded that this was originally referred to the Criminal Division and she is in the Civil Division, so she did not really participate in the review of this particular issue and cannot comment very deeply on it. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to a letter from Mr. Bates, noted that the issue was sent to Ms. Wolter after a determination that criminal prosecution was not warranted. She said she would like some confirmation that the $250,000 was not misused or that if it was misused there was some sort of consequence. She inquired whether Ms. Wolter can assure her that this issue was not brushed under the rug. MS. WOLTER answered she wishes she could make that assurance. She recalled that there was some ability to piece together some of the money and how it was spent, although not nearly the total of $250,000. This lessened the concern that the funds were inappropriately spent as opposed to just not maintaining the bookkeeping. Thus, the goal was to get the CRSA back up and running rather than determining how the rest of the money was spent, given there are no records to prove either way what happened to the money. In further response, she agreed to call Representative Gardner's office to let her know whom to contact for an answer in this regard. 2:32:08 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON understood from Mr. Bates that the audit report has a number of recommendations for the program's problems, but it does not suggest that those problems be fixed statutorily. He recalled Mr. Bates saying that [DCOM] might do something programmatically or through regulations or procedures, but that it has yet to consider any such changes. He inquired why the committee should have any confidence that without statutes the problems will be fixed if the program is extended six years given that [the division] has made no effort or determination to make those fixes. MR. BATES said the words he used earlier did not appropriately characterize [DCOM's] response to the audit. One audit recommendation is to do the consistency review regulations, and those regulations are prepped and ready to go out for public review, but [the division] has held off on them to see how this legislative process goes. The division is at the ready to address legislative inquiries and, while not overwhelmed, that has necessitated putting those regulations off a little bit. Another audit recommendation is to [complete] the ABC List, the list of expedited consistency reviews, and a process for this was begun within the last month. The audit also talks about transparency of [DCOM's] functions with the working group. Monthly working group meetings are held, but [the division] has a bit of concern with the audit in terms of transcribing or taking minutes from a working group function when it is [DCOM's] opinion that that is not necessarily a productive use of state time and the working group was not necessarily set up to do that. [The division] is looking at ways to meet more effectively with the working group and is intending to use the working group as part of the regulation review committee. Two tape recorders have been purchased to tape the meetings and, as necessary, to transcribe them or rebuild the meeting dialogue. The audits are important to [DCOM] and have not been shelved. He pointed out that the audits are relatively new, with one audit dated the first week of January and the second dated the first week of February [2011], and they are being considered in terms of what the division can do and what the legislature might want to do. 2:36:22 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON observed that page 24 of the first audit states that the Department of Natural Resources recognizes that the district plan requirements contained in 11 AAC 114 are more stringent than intended under House Bill 191. He inquired whether the department is doing anything to roll that back, given it recognizes that it has gone beyond the statute. MR. BATES replied that he is on record in previous testimony stating that what was contemplated statutorily was implemented in a more stringent fashion through the regulations. The regulations are still compliant and fully supported by the statutes, but the way the regulations were manifested as they were written they became more stringent by a variety of different factors. When House Bill 191 went into effect in 2003, [the department] did not know that a state cannot regulate that which the Marine Mammal Protection Act already regulates, but the division knows that now. That is the type of issue that has been so challenging and that has made these regulations more limiting than what was contemplated back in 2003. The ACMP regulations include state standards at 11 AAC 112 and they include the coastal planning processes at 11 AAC 114. Those are processes that the department could initiate changes to. And, yes, the department is considering those and is considering how to address some of the suggestions within the audit, whether it be procedural or whether it be regulation, and, as supported by the governor, [the department] is willing to engage constructively with interested parties on statutory amendments. 2:39:36 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON stated he is confused that it is being said statutory changes are not needed for the problems identified by the audit; yet, what is being seen is that if they are not done by statute, the probability is that [the division] is not going to do them in its regulations or procedures. Throughout this time the division has not backed off from a more stringent interpretation than what is in statute. So, it seems that [legislators] are left with the need to incorporate changes into statute; otherwise, what is intended in the statute is not going to be followed. He asked whether he is misunderstanding what is being said. MR. BATES responded that he values Co-Chair Seaton's opinion and recognizes the changes that the co-chair might like to see. Every person and district would like to see something out of the coastal program. While contemplating changes back in 2008 under the re-evaluation, [DCOM] realized that it could not achieve consensus on program change because there are so many parties and they are affected so significantly with even one minor tweak. It is a package program and [the division] is trying to find the right mix of process and regulation that will relieve and resolve these issues. He said he understands that the perspective of legislators is to change the statutes if [the division] does not get it right. The department wants to make sure that the program as a whole is designed to be most effective for the residents of the state and appropriate given all the interests that are out there, and that the changes are relatively consensus driven. 2:42:33 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether Mr. Bates disagrees with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comment cited at the top of page 28 of the first audit that states "... the current standard makes protecting the ecological integrity of the coastal habitats nearly impossible ...." MR. BATES said it is not his place to disagree with the comments because those are the comments by a staff person at EPA who feels passionately one way or the other. In its comments back to the Division of Legislative Audit, [the division] pointed out that to have a viable coastal program approvable under the Coastal Zone Management Act it must demonstrate comprehensive and robust habitat management. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, [the division] demonstrated comprehensive habitat management when it showed the OCRM the state authorities that are incorporated into the ACMP, the state standards that address habitat, and the important habitat that is the state standard at 11 AAC 112.300; these were further supplemented by district enforceable policies. There is no question that some folks would like to see an even greater degree of habitat management in the state. However, [the division] must find that balance where there is predictability and responsiveness in a program that affects everybody so significantly. 2:45:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the $250,000 is for one year or the total for three years. MR. BATES answered that it was about $250,000 over the course of the three fiscal years of 2003, 2004, and 2005. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she does not understand why a coastal district could not use those funds to hire a consultant, but she does understand why [the division] thinks there has to be a person in the community who is the point person. It seems to her that the majority of the program is okay, but that the subsistence is not. She asked how long would take to re-do just the subsistence part. MR. BATES explained that one of the funding opportunities under the ACMP is the Section 309 funding, which is federal funding specific to program changes, such as efforts that would result in a change to an enforceable policy, state standard, or particular implementation technique. [The division] provides funding for all of the coastal districts and state agencies to make these types of program changes and once the Bering Straits CRSA has its district on line, is accepting funds again, and gets its existing plan in place, [the division] can consider funding the CRSA for these types of program changes to incorporate subsistence information into its plan, to revise the plan, or to enhance it in terms of designated areas or enforceable policies. Under [the division's] own project this past year, it identified and compiled relevant and appropriate subsistence information on behalf of, and accessible to, the districts; thus, when they want to do a plan revision that information is already blessed and available and it is an incorporation process. There is a public process associated with that type of program change, and depending on the magnitude of the change, that process will take two to two and a half years just to make sure that the local communities and the affected public have the right opportunity to participate. That is the same timeframe that the program has had since before 1997. 2:49:42 PM MR. BATES, responding to a further question from Representative P. Wilson, confirmed that a district would only have to re-do parts of its plan and not the whole thing. At this point the districts will have a fully approved coastal plan and will be able to target a revision, such as revising one policy, a chapter, or the information within the plan. [The division] would work with the districts, and for this type of effort would support a district hiring a consultant to shepherd it through the process. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding a plan that had incorrect wording for subsistence, asked whether [the division] would show a district the wording that was correct in other district plans so the district could use that wording to revise its own plan. MR. BATES replied, "Plagiarism at its best." Environmental impact statements are full of good information related to habitat, fish, wildlife, and so forth, and [the division] is gathering as much meaningful information as it can for districts to utilize in either developing a designated area for subsistence use or enforceable policies related to that subsistence use. 2:51:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether there have been projects opposed by the local districts that were allowed to proceed. MR. BATES allowed there are projects around the state that he is aware of, with a recent one in Juneau. Many times when a district feels it cannot provide alternative measures which would modify a project into compliance, it will simply object to the project. His agency affords due deference to the state agency or district; so, while a local district may object to a particular project, [DCOM] would provide the district comments to the state agency with greater expertise or responsibility and ask for some position to help [the division] craft a final determination. [The division's] goal with consistency reviews is certainly not to object to projects, it is to modify them into consistency so that economic development occurs in the state while protecting and preserving the coastal uses and resources that are important. 2:55:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked Mr. Bates to cite some examples of projects that were not supported locally but that received a go- ahead. MR. BATES responded that he believes one such project was along Lemon Creek in Juneau. He recalled that he and Representative Munoz might have been at the creek at the same time to look at whether that activity was an emergency activity that required immediate repair within two to three days. Although the city was not available at the time of his visit, he is very aware that the City and Borough of Juneau had some serious concerns with the issuance of a permit and a consistency finding for that project. While the city's concern was understood, either [DCOM] or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game determined that placing riprap on a stream bank was necessary to protect the life and property of nearby residences. Other such projects are offshore oil and gas development where a particular district might have objected to an activity, but [the division] was able to resolve the matter and issue a consistent finding. He offered to do a review and provide a list of these types of projects. 2:55:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired, in general, whether the objection of the local district causes the project not to happen. MR. BATES answered that the coordination process requires that public notice be given and public comment solicited. Within the context of a consistency review, a coastal district and state agencies would look at a project, and 30 days later submit their comments to [DCOM]. By regulation, those comments must be in a particular form: they either concur with the project and say it is consistent with the ACMP standards and policies, or they object to it and submit alternative measures suggesting how to modify the project to allow it to proceed. A district that submits an objection with no alternative measures is challenging because what it is saying is that there is no way to stipulate this project into compliance to allow it to move forward. That is certainly a position of some of the districts, and it is certainly an option for them. As the coordinating agency, if [DCOM] determines the project does not comply, it would issue an objection to a final consistency. As a coordinating agency, [DCOM] must work with the district and must also do an evaluation determining compliance with each of the state standards and district policies that might be applicable. So, a district or state agency may disagree, but [DCOM's] rationale will be included as a legal document within the determination demonstrating how and why [the division] found it consistent with that standard or that policy. 2:58:05 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON stated he does not have a good understanding of how the coastal zone program works under current regulations and would like to see some flowcharts showing examples of large and small projects from the past, the participants, and timelines. He further requested that the legislative auditor be asked to provide an explanation of the audit and what the recommendations mean. CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred, saying the committee would benefit from a step-by-step explanation of the mechanics of the program and the process that people seeking consistency reviews have to go through. [HB 106 was held over.]