Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
05/06/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB102 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 6, 2005
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to district coastal management programs; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to the salmon product development tax credit;
providing for an effective date by amending an effective date in
sec. 7, ch. 57, SLA 2003; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 102
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS G
02/14/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/05 (S) CRA, RES
03/14/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/14/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/05 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/16/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/16/05 (S) Moved CSSB 102(CRA) Out of Committee
03/16/05 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/18/05 (S) CRA RPT CS 1DP 3NR
NEW TITLE
03/18/05 (S) NR: STEVENS G, WAGONER, STEDMAN
03/18/05 (S) DP: ELLIS
03/18/05 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
04/06/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/05 (S) -- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
04/22/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/05 (S) Moved CSSB 102(RES) Out of Committee
04/22/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/25/05 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 2NR
NEW TITLE
04/25/05 (S) DP: WAGONER, SEEKINS, STEDMAN, STEVENS
B
04/25/05 (S) NR: ELTON, DYSON
05/02/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/02/05 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
05/03/05 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR
NEW TITLE
05/03/05 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN, HOFFMAN, DYSON,
STEDMAN
05/03/05 (S) NR: OLSON
05/03/05 (S) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
05/03/05 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y11 N6 E1 A2
05/03/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/05 (S) Moved CSSB 102(FIN) Out of Committee
05/03/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/05/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/05/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 102(FIN) AM
05/05/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/05/05 (H) RES, FIN
05/06/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MELANIE LESH, Staff
to Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 102 on behalf of Senator Gary
Stevens, sponsor.
JOE BALASH, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 102 on behalf of the Budget and Audit Committee.
GARY WILLIAMS, Coordinator
Coastal Zone Program
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Coordinator
Coastal Management Program
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 102.
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director
Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
MARV SMITH, Community Development Coordinator
Lake and Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
THEDE TOBISH, Coastal District Coordinator
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
TOM LOHMAN, Environmental Specialist
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director
Ceñaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
MORRIS NASSUK
Bering Strait Coastal Resource Service Area
Koyuk, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of a time extension and in
opposition to many other provisions in the committee substitute
(CS) of SB 102.
JUDY BRADY, Executive Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCS CSSB 102.
JEAN WOODS
Matanuska-Susitna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of public input during
district ACMP planning.
NOEL WOODS
Matanuska-Susitna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of public use of public
lands.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR RALPH SAMUELS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06:12 PM. Representatives
Elkins, Crawford, Samuels, Gatto, Ramras, Olson, LeDoux, and
Seaton were present at the call to order.
SB 102-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS announced that the first order of business
would be SENATE BILL NO. 102 "An Act relating to district
coastal management programs; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt HCS CSSB 102, labeled 24-
LS0491\U, Bullock, 5/5/5 as a work draft. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:06:51 to 1:07:23 PM.
MELANIE LESH, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, said Senator Stevens supports the "C" version of SB
102 that was reported out of the Senate, which was amended on
the Senate floor as the compromise. Senator Gary Stevens hasn't
had a chance to look at the current work draft, she said.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:09:10 PM to 1:09:24 p.m.
JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, and to the
Legislative Budget and Audit committee, explained the committee
substitute (CS) to SB 102. He said Sections 1-13 clean up
language to fit with the sunset provisions in the bill, and
Section 14 adds a legislative program audit in the year before
the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) sunsets in 2011.
He said "may" changes to "shall" in Section 15, "with regard to
local coastal districts duplicating, restating or incorporating
by reference state or federal statutes."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said it was a "may not" to a "shall not".
MR. BALASH said, "Section 16 extends the life of the existing
local district plans against which consistency determinations
are going to be rendered through the transition phase, and that
runs out through March 1, 2007." Section 17 extends to March 1,
2006 the deadline for the submission of the new local revised
district plans. He stated that the intent is to open up a gap
between the date of final federal approval on the state's new
standards and the submission of the local district plans. He
said there have been complaints that the rules are changing, so
there will be a two-month window so the local districts can know
what the final federally approved standards are. Section 18 is
the repeal section, he noted. Section 19 automatically repeals
and declares as null and void any provision within an existing
local district plan that has adopted by reference any state or
federal standards or statutes. "It also goes into those local
district plans which address any matter regulated by DEC; those
provisions within the local plans are declared null and void as
well."
1:14:08 PM
MR. BALASH said the bill puts a time limit on DNR's completion
of a review of the ABC list, and it sets out a list of things
the review must include. Section 20 was requested by DNR and
it contains a declaration that DNR may adopt emergency
regulations. Section 21 sets the date the existing state
standards expire, which presupposes that the new standards are
approved by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) by December 31. Section 22 is the effective date of the
repeal section, which is July 1, 2011.
1:16:14 PM
MR. BALASH said there will be a transition phase until the first
quarter of 2007. It will run for four years before sunsetting,
and there will have been an audit in the last year, he stated.
The legislature can reauthorized the program, "much like they do
at the federal level." "The difference between the sunset
clause that the Senate passed and the one before you is that if
OCRM fails to approve the revised plan--the new state standards-
-if they fail to approve by January 1, 2006, then the program
sunset takes effect March 1, 2006," he explained.
1:18:20 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked about the contentious relationship between
OCRM and DNR.
MR. BALASH said the wide chasm between the two has narrowed down
to four issues. He said OCRM can approve the state's program by
the end of the year. "But it's a six-month extension, and that
is it."
1:20:26 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if the governor is supportive of the CS.
MR. BALASH said he doesn't speak for the governor, but, yes.
1:21:08 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked who benefits from this CS.
MR. BALASH said everyone will, "because we will get through the
end of this year, and when we come back to Juneau next session,
we'll either have federal approval of the new state standards,
and be able to continue on getting the local districts to revise
their plans, get those plans reviewed at the state and federal
levels, and operational by 2007, or at least early 2007."
1:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Balash is giving assurance
that the federal government will meet a timeline on an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the standards will be
approved by January 1.
MR. BALASH said state officials have received assurances from
the federal agencies that the EIS can be completed by that time.
"Getting them started on it is ... the big problem we've been
faced with and why we're in this ... lock-box."
1:22:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like to hear from DNR. He
noted that he has been involved in EISs and finds they can get
held up. The legislature may be out of the loop, and he said he
will be making a motion to change the January date to March 1,
which will give the legislature 45 days after the beginning of
the session to act if it wants.
1:25:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said the March 1 date is on page 14, and "if we
don't have a deadline, then no deadline will ever be followed."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he is speaking of the date
in Section 21, page 13, line 30.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said the sponsor just saw the CS, and he
asked where it came from.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said he worked on it.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked about public testimony, and said his
borough has not seen this, and he is concerned about the speed
of the bill.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said the committee is about to hear testimony
from 20 people.
1:26:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that DNR already has the option of
emergency regulations.
MR. BALASH said DNR does have the authority under existing
statutes to issue emergency regulations, but DNR requested that
the emergency regulations provision be added.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this is a legislative declaration
of an emergency.
MR. BALASH said, "I do believe we're going to save a piece of
paper."
1:28:18 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal Zone Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough, Soldotna, said he supports the time extension, and he
particularly appreciates the provision that starts the clock
after the conclusion the negotiations between DNR and OCRM. He
added that programs should be able to survive an audit, but he
does not know "why there's a rush to pile abuse on the ACMP,
further abuse, including language to sunset the program. The
ACMP is arguably one of the best programs the state has in a
role of expediting project reviews, and I think by the mere
participation of the 27 coastal districts and the fact that
their local governments provide matching money for their
programs, and some in excess of the match requirement, offers a
strong vote of confidence in the efficacy of the Coastal Zone
Management program on the local level." He added that by
offering the sunset language the legislature is saying the input
of local districts is suspect. He is bewildered of how "the
positive contribution of the ACMP and local input on activity
that affects every Alaskan in coastal districts became a matter
of such concern that the legislature seeks to place the program
on probationary status."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said he put in the sunset provision because he
thinks the legislature should constantly review all its
programs, and it wasn't meant to "poke a stick" at the ACMP.
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Coordinator, Coastal Management Program,
Sitka, said the ACMP program in the City and Borough of Sitka
has been in effect since 1981 and gives Sitka a strong seat at
the table for management decisions. She said the extension is
appreciated because of the legal determinations of the revision
language, to sort out what will be required, especially in terms
of impacts to federal lands. But instead of just simply
extending the deadline, other provisions have been added that
muddy the waters and complicate the revisions, she noted. She
said Sitka has attempted, in good faith, to revise its coastal
program. She said it put a great deal of effort and money into
it, but it is frustrated with the continuing changes in the
requirements that the districts must meet. She suggested taking
out the extraneous requirements, including the emergency
regulations and sunset language.
1:35:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about the assurance that OCRM will
approve the final regulations by January 2006.
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director, Office of Project Management and
Permitting, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said it isn't
in writing, but the state is moving rapidly toward preliminary
approval of the coastal management program by the OCRM. He
expects preliminary approval this July, and then the state can
continue to spend the money from the federal grant, which is
$2.6 million for this coming fiscal year. He continued:
The surety that we have that they will finish NEPA
within that timeframe, is a handshake--we worked with
the leadership back at [the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration] to make sure they
understood we have a very short timeframe and that
they have all the information they need to be able to
conduct the NEPA review and issue their record of
decision within that timeframe. In addition, and
what's more important is that they realize--and this
is federal law--preliminary approval cannot extend
beyond a six-month period of time. So we know that
they will be working to make sure that Alaska has a
program approved and that if they have not finished
their work by January 1, the six-month timeframe, the
state loses its ability to continue to expend federal
monies. They also realize that our state standards
with this extension provision force the state into a
position of losing the ability to conduct consistency
reviews on federally permitted activities.
1:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what happens if approval comes a
month later or earlier.
MR. BATES said a letter from OCRM detailed the final changes the
state had to make to secure federal approval--there are just a
handful. The state has regulations out for review right now,
and once DNR is done with those, it will package them, he said.
With that information, OCRM will be able to offer preliminary
approval, he stated.
1:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about losing federal grant money.
MR. BATES said coastal management in Alaska is as valuable to
the federal government as it is to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what if OCRM doesn't meet the
deadline.
MR. BATES said that the CS clarifies that if OCRM does not get
to approval by January the repeal takes effect as of March 1.
"Therefore, if OCRM has not finished their work, the state, with
the voluntary coastal management program, has decided we're not
going to continue this program--that's what this CS does."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said, "We will be back in session, so we've put
a deadline to the feds, a very realistic deadline, and we said
if you don't do this there will be consequences. However, we've
got until March 1 to rethink it."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what consequences there will be to
the federal government.
MR. BATES said, "That would be a question for the feds."
1:43:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants the legislature to have time
to deal with a pending repeal, so he offered to move Amendment
1, as follows:
Page 13, line 30, after "effect"
Delete "January"
Insert "March"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 carried.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the language "or any matter
regulated by DEC" on page 12, Section 19. He asked how to
define "any matter".
1:45:56 PM
MR. BATES said that line was put in by the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why the language was there.
MR. BATES told Representative Seaton to ask a Senator why it was
in the bill, but he said subsection (a) of Section 19 "requires
any coastal district enforceable policy that is a restatement,
duplication, or contrary provision of existing state or federal
law--that those become null and void." He stated that DNR will
run into a problem when the new state standards go into effect
on the day OCRM approves the coastal program. He said, "Many of
the coastal districts have incorporated, by reference, our
current state standards or state or federal law that is already
managed or implemented by a different agency. And what this
provision, I believe, does is render those null and void as of
the signing of this legislation if it so moves that direction."
1:48:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this create a hole between the
time the law is signed and when the new standards are in place.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said, "The transition is hugely problematic.
The new plans can't conflict with the state law, but right now
we're currently still having conflicts."
1:48:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this null and void takes place as
soon as the bill is signed, and he asked if the state standards
are all in effect now.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said it only effects the ones that are in
conflict or duplicating current regulations.
1:49:18 PM
MR. BATES said, "The bottom line is are the resources protected?
and the answer is, yes. If districts have duplicative laws, who
has deference? The answer is the agency that has the authority
has the responsibility to implement those laws. And it should
not be a question of, can the districts or district enforceable
policies second guess how that agency does it. This cleans that
situation up. And it is actually the way we have been
implementing House Bill 191."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if all of the state standards are in
effect now.
MR. BATES said yes. "Districts have incorporated those by
reference; they should not be maintained in those district
enforceable policies. Nor should the provisions of DEC, since
in HB 191, DEC was carved out. The issuance of their permit
constitutes constituency with the ACMP."
1:50:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hoped this will not require the
district to do rewrites if it is already required. He said he
wants to make sure the districts can keep their focus, so they
don't have to make revisions. "Is it correct they don't have to
take any action based on this?"
MR. BATES said that is correct; it is unrelated to the planning
revisions that the districts are doing right now.
1:51:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if "any matter regulated by the
department" is the same as any matter that requires the issuance
of a permit, certification, approval, or other authorization.
MR. BATES said that is a legal question, and it would be
reckless for him to answer it. "Districts are unable to draft
enforceable policy related to those areas where DEC regulates
anyway under the coastal program." It is rendered moot by the
fact that they can't write policies regarding air or water
quality issues, he stated.
1:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "What happens if the state is not
allowed to spend federal money? Do you terminate employees?"
MR. BATES said this is a legal issue that he can't answer. He
added that the state standards sunset on January 1, and without
state standards, the state is unable to implement the
consistency reviews, and it runs afoul of its own program.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what happens to employees.
MR. BATES said there are two timeframes to give the authority to
the legislature to get back into coastal management even if the
standards have gone off the books. "I assume it is a little bit
premature to decide what happens to our employees."
1:54:58 PM
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service
Area, Dillingham, said the resource district is larger than
Vermont. He thanked the committee for the legislation and
favors the extension to March. He said the sunset provision
seems gratuitous because there is already a provision for
reviewing the program. Section 19 (b) would be best left out,
he said, because it will confound things.
1:57:29 PM
MARV SMITH, Community Development Coordinator, Lake and
Peninsula Borough, King Salmon, said he supported the senate
version of the bill, and the new amendments are confusing,
conciliatory, and controversial. The borough supports the March
extension, but does not support Section 19 (a), as it would be
very confusing for districts and add work for DNR staff. He
said the borough is "totally opposed" to (b), requiring the ABC
list to be done immediately. Looking at the ABC list will be
very time consuming, and it is not the appropriate time, he
opined. The borough "certainly does not support" the review.
Everyone is working diligently trying to get the plans done, but
the extensions are needed, he concluded.
2:00:45 PM
THEDE TOBISH, Coastal District Coordinator, Anchorage, said
Anchorage is excited to redo its plan and the time extension to
March is perfect. He said he is concerned with complications of
recent amendments. Section 22, the sunset provision, seems
extraneous and provides undue pressure, possibly requiring
additional staff and funding. He said Anchorage doesn't support
Section 19 (b), because it may be impossible to revise the ABC
list in the timeframe. "We urge you to carefully consider any
last minute amendments, especially those that might not reflect
what should be a broader dialogue."
2:02:48 PM
TOM LOHMAN, Environmental Specialist, North Slope Borough,
Barrow, said he supports what has been said by other district
representatives. The North Slope Borough strongly opposes the
sunset provision, he said, and it is premised on an outright
falsehood that the districts have abused their power under the
program. "No one has ever come forward with examples of good
projects that have been rejected or significantly delayed by an
ACMP consistency review." He said an attempt was made "six or
seven years ago to do away with the ACMP, and as ammunition
there was a list of reportedly delayed projects that was
offered, and upon staff investigation it was shown that none of
the claims were valid." He added that no district has abused
its power. More than 250 communities are represented by coastal
districts, and they don't need the threat of non-reauthorization
to keep them in line. He said he opposes the ABC list review
timeline. He noted that DNR is already short staffed, and it
faces a substantial challenge reviewing the 27 revised plans and
conducting the day to day work of the program.
MR. LOHMAN said he guessed that the inclusion of North Slope oil
and gas activities on the list was done by the Alaska Oil and
Gas Association (AOGA). There are significant definitional
problems, and moving quickly on something that requires an in
depth dialogue with the districts is risky. Terms like
"adjacent to" are rife with controversy and problems, he noted.
He said his district opposes Section 22; "I think it is
unreasonable to risk losing the entire state program if OCRM
cannot complete the EIS process within ... seven or eight
months." He said losing the program means the loss of local
control. "If you want to talk about a state's rights issue,
that's a state's rights issue, not the way its been
characterized by the administration. There's no other program
where the federal government yields to the state ... and for us
to lose that would be a huge loss to Alaska and the 250
communities that the coastal program covers."
MR. LOHMAN said there are significant misrepresentations. "The
reason we are at this point at this late hour is not solely the
fault of OCRM ... but DNR has to acknowledge that [it]
repeatedly gave conflicting interpretations of its proposed
regulations and unclear guidance regarding the districts'
ability to craft enforceable policies." He noted that there
have been allegations of district foot dragging. "That is
absolutely untrue," he said. "We don't like the direction the
state has taken this program, of course, it reduces any
meaningful role in many areas." He asked for a clean bill with
an extension.
2:08:04 PM
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Ceñaliulriit Coastal Resource
Service Area, said there are 38 Yupik villages in the service
area, and many are remote. "This is an open plea to the
legislature," he said. He agrees with other district
representatives who have spoken. There are developments on SB
102 that he is gravely concerned about. He said last year House
Bill 191 removed ... land, air, and water quality standards, and
all references to mining. "We have been dissected and
dissected, looking for an illness that is not there," he said.
Section 19 will declare null and void any policy that seems to
address statewide standards. It leaves no room to breathe, he
declared. Regarding subsistence, DNR said a district may only
write a policy that "allows or disallows", and comments on its
draft district plan said "none of the three subsistence policies
would be allowed because they do not flow from the statewide
standards." The policies would become null and void, and this
is "Catch 22" he said. "You basically cannot submit any policy
relating to subsistence protection." Mr. Oscar named three
responses from DNR when subsistence policies were included in
the local plan: 1. The maintenance of subsistence use area is
adequately addressed under the state standard, and therefore the
policy is not allowed. 2. Access does not flow from
11AAC112270, therefore this policy is not approvable. 3. Level
of need does not flow from 11AAC112270, therefore the policy is
not allowed.
MR. OSCAR said Section 20 gives DNR more power to dictate
against the people of Alaska, with no idea of what those
emergency regulations would be. He said he is concerned about
the sunset clause.
2:12:29 PM
MR. OSCAR said he supports the extensions, and he concluded that
removing the ACMP would remove local rights.
2:13:14 PM
MORRIS NASSUK, Bering Strait Coastal Resource Service Area,
Koyuk, said the district supports the extension of the deadline
for submitting revised coastal plans, and opposes the sunset
provision. "This program has worked well for Alaska for over 25
years," he noted.
2:14:27 PM
JUDY BRADY, Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), said AOGA was opposing extensions that the coastal
districts wanted, not because they are not doing their job, but
because she doesn't want OCRM to dictate to Alaska. She said
the governor wrote a letter saying it was a state program. She
said AOGA is supporting--with some concern--the extensions this
bill allows. She said she would object to an extension based on
the time of action, because it "puts the ball in the federal
court." A map of Alaska shows a lot of federal land, "and the
rest of it is state land and Native Corporation land." She said
ACMP was intended to be a state program, and the federal
government comes to Alaska every three to four years to see how
the state is doing. "It's not their program," she said. If the
legislature is giving extensions, "we would support an end date
that the program would go away unless the legislature takes
other action." She said OCRM will not and cannot let the Alaska
ACMP program go away because it is one of the stars in the
coastal management program. It would have huge political
repercussions, she said. "Those of you who have read their
responses to the state, you can't hardly get through a paragraph
without saying, what? what?" She said the tone is
"condescending" and "in-your-face." She said the industry
looked at what might happen if the program goes away, and a date
is the only thing that will keep OCRM on deadline, or else "it
will just go on and on."
2:19:39 PM
MS. BRADY said there is a no-man's-land between existing
enforceable policies and new ones. Randy Bates and Bill
Jeffress are working diligently so things don't get stopped, she
said. She expressed a danger of third-party suits, which would
make ACMP a nightmare. She noted that a person from OCRM said
"this is more of a federal program than a state program, and
your legislature doesn't understand." She said the industry has
been asking for a review of the ABC list for ten years. An ice
road is on the "B" list, she explained. "What we were looking
for was to extend ... the "B" list ... these are some things
we're interested in," she said, but "whether you want to have a
list in your statute or not, is up to you," she offered.
2:23:54 PM
MS. BRADY said she believes that House Bill 191 made important
changes in the coastal program, and they didn't take away from
the coastal districts. The legislation just forbade the
districts from duplicating other laws. "Now when they make an
enforceable policy that's specific to their area, and that is
not covered by federal or state law, that's what it should be,
it should be something so special and so--that it's not
covered." She said, "Frankly, over that past 30 years the state
and federal government have passed so many environmental laws
trying to protect the coastal resources, that there's probably--
we expected there wouldn't be many enforceable policies." The
coastal districts have the same power as the legislature on
state land and for activities on federal land that require a
federal permit, she stated. She added that every activity on
the North Slope requires a federal permit, so the powers of the
coastal district are very extensive. She concluded that AOGA
supports the amendments.
2:26:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why AOGA opposes the districts
having their rewrites tied to the approval by OCRM of the state
standards, so they know the conditions.
2:28:27 PM
MS. BRADY said AOGA is assuming that OCRM will approve the state
standards because they have done so for every other state. "In
our minds the state standards are--unless OCRM is just flat
lying--are going to be approved as presented. I think there
were four areas of change that we are in the middle of getting
public comment on right now."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said Ms. Brady has more confidence in the
federal government than he does.
MS. BRADY said, "I have absolutely no confidence."
2:29:41 PM
JEAN WOODS, Matanuska-Susitna, said there has been no public
input yet on the Mat-Su Borough draft plan, and she wants an
extension of the deadline. She read from Chapter 6, Enforceable
Policies: "There is no state standard for recreation or tourism.
It is also important to note that the state standard for coastal
development and coastal access are limited to marine coastal
water, therefore neither is applicable to rivers, lakes, and
streams." She added that at a recent assembly meeting, the
administration tried to designate the coastal zone in the
Matanuska-Susitna area without any public comment. She asked
for an extension of the deadline to allow for public input.
2:31:01 PM
NOEL WOODS, Matanuska-Susitna, said he appreciates the effort to
bring ACMP in line with statewide public expectation. He added
that Matanuska-Susitna sportsmen are interested in public use of
public lands.
2:31:44 PM
MR. BALASH said he failed to speak on behalf of his boss
[Senator Therriault] on why he pushed for the sunset date. He
said over the last eight years the senator has gotten to know
about the program through the DNR budget and has become the one
person who knows the ACMP process. It is difficult to sort
through the information of different viewpoints, he said. The
benefit of the legislative audit is a thorough and objective
review because of who is doing it, and there will be access to
quantifiable data. Senator Therriault insists on the sunset and
audit provisions, he said.
2:35:04 PM
MR. BALASH said in 2002, local districts were given specific
direction to remove references of any statute or regulation of
the state or another federal agency, and they did not. In 2003,
the commissioner at DNR was given powers to delete those
adoptions by reference, and DNR has not done that. "It would be
fair to say that my boss is seeking to make a point ... that it
needs to be done."
ADJOURNMENT
2:36:47 PM
The House Resources Standing Committee meeting was recessed to
the call of the chair at 2:36 p.m. [The meeting reconvened on
5/7/05.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|