Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2010 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HCR2 | |
SB237 | |
SB4 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 4 "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program; and establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board." 10:07:00 AM Senator Olson delivered the sponsor statement. In 2003, HB 191 instituted significant changes to the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). It unduly impacted local participation in development reviews and approvals affecting both state and federal actions in the coastal zone. Prior to 2003, the program was not felt to be significantly problematic. Currently, there are 28 management districts either approved, or under review for approval. For a list of current districts, see the Alaska Coastal Management Program website at (http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/district/html/progress final.htm). To identify a community within a particular coastal district, see http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/explore/communityindex. pdf . The authority for a Consistency Review Process, used to implement the ACMP, is found at 11 AAC 110. This process reviews proposed development activities for conformity with state laws and regulations, federal laws and regulations, and district enforceable policies, such as exist now. Under this bill, districts would be authorized to generate enforceable policies as they see fit. Two other regulations play prominent roles, 11 AAC 112 deals with statewide standards, and 11 AAC 114 deals with the district plan approval process. The governing statutes are AS 46.39 and AS 46.40. With the changes from 2003, regulations adopted by the Department of Natural Resources severely limited the ability of coastal districts to establish enforceable, locally-generated policies regarding the eventual effects of development on coastal resources and uses. So dramatic were the changes that the federal Office of Oceans and Coastal Resource Management formally reviewed state actions for compliance, and took two years to determine acceptance. Since the 2003 changes, Alaska's coastal districts have dealt with controversy and delay by DNR where achieving suitable district management plans are concerned. Formerly, disputes over approval of district plans were resolved by the Coastal Policy Council. This bill would restore that option to a new Coastal Policy Board. Disbanding the Council under HB 191 concentrated all decision-making power within DNR. CSSB 4 (CRA) would establish the Alaska Coastal Policy Board within the Department of Natural Resources, and restore an authoritative role for local residents, one that was working acceptably prior to 2003. The new board would be much trimmer than the pre-2003 panel of seventeen members. Nine members would compose the new board, including five public members appointed by the governor. One of the five would be at-large from any of the coastal districts, and the others would be appointed from four defined regions: Northwest Alaska, Southwest Alaska, Upper Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Filling out the board membership would be the commissioners of DEC, F&G, DNR, and CCED. DNR would continue to provide day-to-day management and support. With the governor appointing five public members and with four commissioners having seats by definition, the contention that substantial influences would shift away from DNR is arguable. Disbanding the Council under HB 191 concentrated all decision-making power with the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, and has since shown the changes to be excessive and less productive. CSSB 4 (CRA) would also reinstate authority for locally-generated enforceable policies, streamline project reviews, provide Board approval of agency- generated regulations, provide for district management plan approvals, allow for receiving grants and other monies, and empower the Board with other administrative authorities. The primary thrust of CSSB 4 (CRA) is to return a measure of authority to local district residents, through their district organizations, by sharing power over the Alaska Coastal Management Program 10:09:59 AM TIM BENINTENDI, STAFF, SENATOR OLSON explained that SB 4 amends the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) by providing a fair and reasonable approach to coastal development, which would encourage participation of local coastal districts, state agencies and project applicants. The legislation would establish the Alaska Coastal Policy Board, remove the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) carve-out, and allow coastal districts to establish meaningful and enforceable policies. He continued that SB 4 streamlines the board size from a 17 to a 9 member board. A new board would represent coastal districts and all state resource agencies. The new board would operate on a consensus basis for nearly all decisions. All members would be appointed by the governor and DNR would provide support services to the board. The administration has cautioned against changes that would make the program more cumbersome and costly for project developers. He explained that SB 4 does not restore the ability for citizen law suits or petitions. Mr. Benintendi continued that local enforceable policies cannot override state or federal regulations or statutes and must be clear and concise. Subsistence usage is identified as a value and is already in coastal regulations. 10:15:11 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked about Page 13, Line 9 and the activities within the coastal zone inland. Mr. Benintendi answered that the provision for review of a project in the inland area if deemed to impact the coastal zone would be subject to review by the panel. He explained that a mine up-land even a dozen miles from the coastal area is subject to review under the coastal policy board. Co-Chair Stedman asked if timber harvests were included. He referred to Page 18 and the US code 1453. Mr. Benintendi offered to present answers at a later date. Senator Huggins directed attention to a letter in the committee packet referring to off shore permit stipulations. Mr. Benintendi offered to address the issue at a later date. Senator Olson noted that the letter was addressed to him and he understood that all communities are subject to federal law. 10:18:12 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked for further discussion on the board. He was interested in necessary qualifications for board appointments and public positions. Senator Olson understood that the board appointees must be residents of one of the 28 coastal districts. Co-Chair Stedman referred to Page 3, Line 5 and the board's quorum with the board delegating one or more of the members the power to hold hearings. He asked about the term "hold hearings." 10:20:57 AM Mr. Benintendi suggested that the reference was to subcommittee hearings. Co-Chair Stedman noted two fiscal notes, one from DNR for $165 thousand in general funds to cover the cost of travel and supplies for the coastal policy board as well as contractual funds for DNR and draft regulation and another from DEC for $118,700 for interagency receipts for one additional person needed to serve as the department's coastal management coordinator. Senator Huggins referenced Page 3, Line 24. He asked about the adoption of regulations to be approved by the board. Mr. Benintendi thought that the department would draft regulations and the board would have the option to review them. Senator Olson clarified the board has the same authority as they did prior to 2003. 10:23:15 AM MARLENE CAMPBELL, CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA (via teleconference), testified in support of SB 4 to effectively enable Alaska's coastal communities to participate in the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Senator Olson requested an outline of the relationship between Sitka and DNR since 2003. Ms. Campbell recalled an arduous multiyear process with the city attempting to revise their coastal program which was gutted by the proposed changes. She noted that a program was finally approved in April 2007, which resulted in a lack of opportunity to comment on the coastal plan. 10:28:25 AM MAUREEN MR. CAMPBELL CREA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference) testified in support of the legislation. She commented that SB 4 addresses several significant problems in the current Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). She believed that an effective coastal management program facilitates development while protecting valuable uses and resources of the coastal zone through an open and public process. 10:32:59 AM TOM LOHMAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation. He agreed that areas inland of the coastal zone could be impacted by the legislation. The board issue allows for public members with knowledge of the program. He spoke to the fear of restoring some limited meaningful role for local communities in the program. He opined that all districts had greater abilities to adopt local policies before 2003. He argued that districts could adopt policies that would conflict with state or federal law and Section 14 prevents them from doing so. 10:37:01 AM STEVE BORELL, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (via teleconference) testified in opposition to SB 4. He disagreed with the method of establishment of the ACPM board. He stated that the board's power does not include the numerous checks and balances that are imposed on the DNR and would eliminate the requirement for district plans to meet statewide standards. He claimed that SB 4 would allow the coastal policy board to define the boundaries of coastal districts as far inland as they wished, which would give the coastal districts authority over any activity in the state. 10:40:00 AM MAYOR EDWARD ITTA, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, testified in support of SB 4. He believed that the legislation strikes a reasonable balance. He asserted that the program is not a permitting program, but instead one of coordination. He stated that the program does not create new obstacles to slow down development projects, but instead establishes a process for resolving conflicts between project applicants, agencies and local districts. 10:42:44 AM RANDY BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, testified that the department has concerns about the CS for SB 4. The initial concern is the creation of a new oversight body for the coastal policy board and vests the body with the ability to approve enforceable policies that would override agency authority, effectively rendering the legislative establishment of laws relative to resource management and protection moot. The second concern is that the bill is specific to the issues of a group of ACMP participants but is not a bill of balance. He opined that the legislation changes the structure of the ACMP from one of local input to one of local control. The legislation would allow enforceable policies to be more restrictive, stringent, and more prescriptive than existing state and federal laws by allowing modification of standards and authority of resource agencies. He stressed recognition that the ACMP will be subject to a program audit by Legislative Budget and Audit Committee this year as a result of a sunset provision within the statute. 10:46:00 AM Co-Chair Hoffman requested that the department submit a reasonable address to the expressed concerns. MARILYN CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION declared strong concerns with the legislation. She opined that the legislation provides conflicting requirements, consistent disagreement between local districts and state agencies about the particular requirements of a coastal management program. PETE SLAIBY, VICE PRESIDENT, SHELL ALASKA, testified in opposition to the legislation. He valued the needs of the stakeholders in the communities involved. He stated that Shell Alaska made 250 visits into communities to explain their intentions. He stated that the existing legislation at the state and federal levels covers the concerns voiced by stakeholders. He provided an example regarding public comment received by Shell Alaska regarding air permits. The concern with the bill is the series of regulations. 10:52:28 AM WAYNE STEVENS, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER, testified in opposition to the legislation. He shared that significant questions have been insufficiently addressed in the legislative debate. He opined that SB 4 attempts to solve a problem that may not exist and has not been well defined. Without compelling evidence that the current program does not adequately protect Alaska's coastal resources or allow for substantial public participation, the state chamber questions the wisdom of adding complexity to the permitting process. 10:54:36 AM PAUL LAIRD, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA SUPPORT INDUSTRY ALLIANCE, testified in opposition to the legislation. He examined that Alaska's oil and gas industry lost 1500 jobs in the last year due to a hostile tax environment and global economic conditions. He opined that SB 4 would further delay investment and destroy jobs and businesses in Alaska's resource industries. 10:56:18 AM KATHIE WASSERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML) testified in support of the legislation. She explained that the support of SB 4 by AML is in an effort to restore their ability to regain a meaningful seat at the table. Senator Olson concluded that the bill's impetus was lack of movement or compromise on behalf of the opposition to rectify the situation. SB 4 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
Sponsor Stmt HCR 2.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
SB 237 Sponsor Statement.docx |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB 237 Sectional SFIN.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB 237 Kasayulie Ruling.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB 237 DEED Capital Projects.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
sb237 Sectional Analysis[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
sb237 Program Funding_Historical and Projected[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB4 Index Map[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB4 Sectional Analysis[2].doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB 4 Bill Packet[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
2009 SB 4 CRA opposition RDC.PDF |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
2009 SB 4 CRA opposition RDC.PDF |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
HCR 2 SCS FIN 032910 Version M.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 2 |
SB 4 ACMP SFIN 03 30 10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB004CS(CRA)-DEC-CO-3-29-10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB 237 Maintenance Reimbursement 2010.pdf.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB 4 AOGA letter 03 30 10.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
2009 CSSB 4 CRA sponsor statement.doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
2009 CSSB 4 CRA sectional analysis.doc |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB 4 Shell Testimony SFIN 033010.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB 4 AK Miners Assoc. SFIN 032910.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |
SB 237 ACSA Position Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
SB 4 Mayor Itta SFIN 033010.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 4 |