Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/25/2003 02:53 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act designating the Department of Natural Resources
as lead agency for resource development projects;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
TOM IRWIN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
testified in support of the bill and provided information.
He stressed his support of the Governor's priority to
develop natural resources. He highlighted the intention of
the legislation to lead and coordinate the operations only,
and not to take authority away from the other Departments.
He read from prepared testimony as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to help facilitate and
expedite resource development in Alaska. This bill
would specifically provide the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources with statutory
authority under AS 38.05.020(b) to lead and
coordinate all matters relating to the state's
review and authorization of resource development
projects.
As the state focuses more on development of its
resources the department needs clear and explicit
authority to carry out its role to lead and
coordinate the state's review and authorization of
resource development projects. Even though the
department has and will continue to serve as lead
for mining projects, the department's authority to
serve as lead agency for other resource development
projects is not as explicit. This bill will provide
the necessary clarity as the state moves forward in
the development of its resources.
The primary responsibility in the Department of
Natural Resources for carrying out lead agency
coordination functions will rest with the Office of
Project Management and Permitting. This new Office
within the department includes the project
management function and the Alaska Coastal Zone
Management program.
Large resource development projects, because of
their scope and complexity, are more efficiently
reviewed and authorized using a lead agency to
coordinate and integrate, to the extent possible,
the various permitting processes of the agencies
involved using the project team approach. Smaller
projects, normally less complex and requiring fewer
permits, may benefit from lead agency coordination
for review but may not require the establishment of
a project team.
Resource development projects utilizing the lead
coordinating agency and project review team approach
will go through a three phase process. Phase I
focuses on evaluating a proposed project to
determine if the lead agency project team approach
would best address the review and permitting needs
of the project. Phase II results in establishment of
the project team, development of an integrated
agency review schedule, delineation of information
requirements, and completion of any necessary
agreements amongst the agencies and applicant. Phase
III is the actual project review and authorization
process, including public participation, tailored
specifically to the requirements for permitting the
project.
Additionally, we view this bill as assisting in our
efforts to streamline project review and
authorization. This bill will help to facilitate:
The state's ability to pull together agencies to
address project specific concerns, and to facilitate
and expedite the review and authorization process; a
more cohesive working relationship amongst agency
representatives; better communication, more
efficient permitting, consolidated public process
where possible, and to assist in integrating the
state's process with that of the federal agencies.
Speaking from personal experience, the laws
governing resource development have proliferated,
and there are now more agencies than ever with
permitting authority over resource development
projects. Resource development should not be held up
by the sheer complexity of government. This bill is
intended to help alleviate that problem as this bill
would authorize DNR to lead and coordinate the
permitting activities of all agencies with
jurisdiction over the project.
Commissioner Irwin noted that in effect all operations would
be brought into one office to facilitate coordination.
ERNESTA BALLARD, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION expressed support of the bill. She referred to
her prepared statement:
Governor Murkowski is committed to enhancing Alaska's
economy through resource development. He is equally
committed to protecting Alaska's environment. A strong
economy will generate the revenue base to continue
funding our important regulatory and development
projects. Without a strong economy we cannot hope to
have a strong government.
I have been before this committee to speak on behalf of
other governor's bills and have opened with that same
message. It is a fundamental principle to this
administration and bears repeating.
In any undertaking, be it your home, your office, a
small business or a large complex organization like
state government - critical path planning is
fundamental; with out it time is wasted. This bill, HB
192, is about critical path planning. It directs the
Department of Natural Resources to lead and coordinate
resource development projects. It directs the
permitting agencies to sequence actions and
requirements so time lines are met. Armed with
sequenced and prioritized project plans we can insure
that each of our own department's permitting
requirements are met without delay
The genesis of this bill goes back several years. The
resource agencies came together to coordinate
permitting issues on large mine projects. They
discussed, planned and communicated, and found that the
permitting process became more efficient. It was not
only more efficient for the agencies; it was more
productive for industry. Why? Because, we, the
permitting agencies, identified our regulatory
requirements in a systematic and sequenced manner
insuring that the most critical needs and timelines for
the project were established. Because we, DNR, Fish and
Game and DEC had identified and articulated the
critical points and times in our regulatory processes,
industry understood its responsibilities and provided
the needed information on time. Additionally by
evaluating its regulatory responsibilities as a whole
industry can gain what synergies are possible.
Critical path planning provides efficiencies for the
departments as well. We hold joint meetings. We use
staff resources efficiently. Industry provides
information we can all use because we agreed, at the
outset, on data standards acceptable to all.
The state's citizens benefit from this approach. In
rural communities it is more difficult to track
separate agency processes so when agencies hold joint
public meetings concerned citizens are given the entire
regulatory picture. With out critical path planning,
public participation happens based in the public notice
requirement of individual permits, which can be months
even years apart depending on the project.
I have also talked with many of you about how we are
reviewing our regulations and statutes to ensure they
are meaningful and not a victim of mission creep. As
part of that process, we are deleting 46.35 Permit
Coordination and Extension. This statute was enacted in
1977. That same year the legislature established the
Coastal Management Program, which became the permit
coordinator. AS 46.35 has become a relict. However
there is one small section of AS 46.35 that is being
relocated. Sections 2 and 3 of this bill move the
Department of Environmental Conservation's authority to
use our appeals process to other sections of law.
The DEC process is easier to use and well laid out in
understandable regulations.
It is also important to understand what HB 192 does not
do. HB 192 bill does not change the protective
standards that the state has developed and fine-tuned
over the last decade. It does not change the Department
of Environmental Conservation's permitting
requirements, its regulatory discretion, enforcement or
appeal process. This bill simply insures critical path
planning.
Commissioner Ballard summarized that the bill provided the
opportunity to be more organized. She noted that, as the
permitting agency, DEC benefited from identifying at the
outset key data requirements needed to produce permits in a
timely fashion. She stressed that having clear legislative
language provides the agency with a clear mandate in the
permitting project.
Ms. Ballard emphasized the importance of critical path
planning. By moving permits and the project forward in a
coordinated way, the department is able to effectively use
resources and to present to the public the entire project as
it moves forward. Otherwise, the public may only view
portions of the projects and may not be able to understand
its impact on their community. She noted her commitment to
both resource development and resource conservation and her
belief that they are compatible. She also noted her
determination to identify instances of "mission creep".
Ms. Ballard explained that, resulting from a review of
statutes and in conjunction with HB 192, the Department is
deleting AS 46.35, "permit coordination and extension". She
stated that the statute had never been used since its
enactment in 1977, the same year that the legislature
established the Coastal Management Program, which became the
permit coordinator. She noted that they had proposed a
relocation of a small segment of the statute: Section 2 &
3, which would move DEC's authority to use the appeals
process to other sections of law.
Ms. Ballard expressed her enthusiasm for this type of
coordination, and reiterated the importance of coordinating
the permitting process to provide a clear path for resource
development.
Representative Croft asked if AS 46.35 had ever been used.
Ms. Ballard confirmed that it had never been used. She noted
that they retained the authority to use their own appeals
process.
CAMERON LEONARDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, in response to a question by Representative Croft,
explained that two provisions of 46.35 would remain in
statute following the proposed bill, one of which would be
relocated from 46.35.090 (e). The relocated language
clarifies that procedures to review DEC permit decisions
need not conform to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
He explained that sections 2 and 3 of the bill simply
transplanted this existing provision to two chapters of
Title 46 that govern DEC permitting decisions.
Representative Croft asked which provisions did not need to
conform to APA and why. Mr. Leonard noted that the
procedures governing adjudication hearings were already
covered comprehensively in DEC regulations and by existing
law were not subject to the APA. He confirmed that this
paralleled APA procedures.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 192 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION it was so ordered.
HB 192 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and two zero fiscal notes: #1 from
Department of Natural Resources and #2 from Department of
Environmental Conservation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|