CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 106(FIN) "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the extension; relating to the review of activities and regulations of the Alaska coastal management program; establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board; relating to the development, review, and approval of district coastal management plans; relating to the duties of the Department of Natural Resources relating to the Alaska coastal management program; relating to the review of certain consistency determinations; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of secs. 1 - 13 and 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date." 1:09:07 PM Co-Chair Stedman discussed Housekeeping. Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft SCS CSHB 106(FIN) Work Draft version 27-GH1965\H 5/13/11, as a working document before the committee. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion. 1:10:47 PM }David Gray, Staff, Senator Lyman Hoffman{ explained version H of the bill. He stated that the bill maintained the House structure of the new coastal policy board: four commissioners, four representatives from coastal districts in the four Alaskan regions, and one industry representative from industries operating in the coastal zone. He stated that the board would act to review and provide oversight for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The department would retain all responsibilities for program management. 1:12:03 PM Mr. Gray detailed the Senate changes to the bill. He cited page 3, line 31 through page 4, line 7. In the House version, the public members of the board served at the pleasure of the governor. The Senate version would require that members be removed for cause only. Causes for removal were as follows: lack of contribution, neglect of duty, incompetence, inability to serve, and misconduct. A removal recommendation could be made by the board or the governor. The individual up for removal could appeal the removal recommendation. Mr. Gray looked at page 8, lines 11 through 16. The language detailed a new concept for coastal districts to present enforceable policies. The language stated that the districts must present a policy that employed the least restrictive means to achieve its objective. Senate changes added the factors of: the economic effects of alternative methods, the technological feasibility of the alternative methods, and any other relevant factors. The Senate version recognized that the requirement to provide an economic analysis could be beyond the means of smaller coastal districts. The Section had been added to provide flexibility enough to cater to the needs of each district. 1:14:57 PM Mr. Gray cited page 10, lines 8 through 12, which had been amended to read:  * Sec. 13. AS 46.40.060(c) is amended to read: (c) After the board has reviewed the district  coastal management plan and submitted recommendations  under (b) of this Section [IF, AFTER MEDIATION, THE DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED], the department shall enter findings and, by order, may [REQUIRE] (1) approve the plan or portions of the  plan;  (2) require that the district coastal management plan be amended to meet [SATISFY] the provisions of this chapter [OR MEET THE STATEWIDE STANDARDS] and district plan criteria adopted by the department; (3) require [(2)] that the district coastal management plan be revised to accommodate a use of state concern; or (4) require the coastal resource district  to submit additional information if, in the judgment  of the department, additional information is necessary  for the department to approve the plan or portions of  the plan [(3) ANY OTHER ACTION BE TAKEN BY THE COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT AS APPROPRIATE]. Mr. Gray discussed the changes found on page 12, lines 6 through 8. Subsection (d) of the Senate version stated: (d) Notwithstanding AS 46.40.030(a)(4), in reviewing and approving a district coastal management plan under (a) of this Section, the department may not require a district to designate areas for the purpose of developing an enforceable policy. 1:16:39 PM Mr. Gray referred to page 15, section 24. The previous House version had offered two definitions, one for local knowledge and one for scientific evidence. The Senate CS would delete both definitions. Under current regulations the language "not contradicted by scientific evidence" was unnecessary. Mr. Gray looked at page 16, Section 27. The House version required the policy board to make recommendations to the legislature concerning clean water and air pertaining to coastal management determinations. The amended Section would require a second report from the board every four years containing an overview of the entire coastal management program. Finally, the Senate version provided clear language as to who would be making departmental decisions in discussions with the Alaska Coastal Policy Board. Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, SCS CSHB106(FIN) Work Draft 27-GH1965\H 5/13/11 was ADOPTED. 1:19:36 PM Co-Chair Hoffman offered thanks to his staff for crafting the new version. He believed that the version before the committee could be agreed to by both bodies. Co-Chair Stedman noted the two fiscal notes from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that had already been adopted by the Conference Committee on the Operating Budget and looked to the new fiscal note from DNR for $6,715,800 to cover the cost of the Alaska Coastal Policy Board and 34 staff positions. 1:20:52 PM Senator Olson queried the DEC "carve out" had not been included in the bill. Co-Chair Stedman requested an explanation of the carve out. Mr. Gray explained that the DEC carve out required that nothing pertaining to DEC permitting would be rolled into coastal zone management program permit overviews. Essentially, the DEC permits would be automatically accepted by the coastal zone management program; this limited the action districts could take concerning coastal zone management. The federal government had asked the state to review the carve out in order to allow for more local participation. 1:22:28 PM Senator Olson stated that the frustrations he had heard from constituents were that some local plans had been rejected by DEC. He wondered what local communities could do to appeal departmental decisions. Mr. Gray stated that communities could appeal directly to the commissioner. He added that the DEC deputy commissioner would be on the board, which would create an avenue for appealing directly to the commissioner. CSHB 106 (FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 1:23:49 PM RECESSED 3:37:21 PM RECONVENED