Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 03:10 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 140-COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TO DNR
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:10 p.m. and announced SB 140 to be up for consideration.
MR. BRUCE CAMPBELL, aide to Senator Randy Phillips, said SB 140 was
initiated as a mission alignment topic from the Senate Finance
Committee. This CS includes additional language regarding Hatcher
Pass that everyone agrees with. The principal task is to bring the
Alaska Coastal Policy Council out of the Office of Management and
Budget and into the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The Division of Governmental Coordination currently has no director
so this would be a consolidation efficiency without having to lay
anyone off. He said the Division of Land deals with land permits
on state land, but it also deals with a broad host of issues from
offshore leases to onshore leases. The Division of Governmental
Coordination is generally Alaska's "one stop shop" for permits on
state, federal, and private lands. Bringing the two together may
achieve some additional efficiencies.
MR. CAMPBELL explained they are not necessarily talking about
physically moving people from one building to another which would
incur moving costs, but they are talking strictly about the
reassignment of where they fit in the hierarchy of state
government.
SENATOR PARNELL moved to adopt the CS to SB 140 (version M
4/26/99). There were no objections and it was so ordered.
Number 60
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the fiscal note is the same for the CS as
it was for the original bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD replied that there shouldn't be any change, but
the committee couldn't get a fiscal note without adopting the CS
first.
MS. GABRIELLE LAROCHE, Office of Governmental Coordination (DGC),
said DGC opposes SB 140. She said the Alaska Coastal Policy
Council passed Resolution 99-1 opposing SB 140. She warned against
trying to fix something that isn't broken. No real savings to the
State general fund can be identified by this consolidation. DGC is
the most appropriate agency to administer the ACMP. DGC's
functions are distinct from DNR.
The Alaska Coastal Management Program is a well established program
that has been located in the Office of the Governor since 1979.
DGC's implementation has been evaluated several times in recent
years and a 1994 legislative audit report concluded that DGC
appears to be the most appropriate agency for administering the
ACMP. It further states that DGC's placement in the Office of the
Governor provides a more objective, centralized oversight and
coordination function for all state agencies. In addition, DGC
receives a triennial evaluation from the federal granting agency,
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management within NOAA,
and it has received several very complimentary evaluations of the
administration of the program.
The proposed bill does not result in any savings to the state
general fund and may, in fact, result in increases associated with
start up of the program in a new agency. Although the director
position would be directly eliminated, other costs are associated
with the transfer. First, DGC employees are all exempt; DNR
employees are all classified. Administrative costs are associated
with reclassifying positions and hiring or with transferring
functions among employees currently at DNR. Short-term
inefficiencies are also anticipated as a result of changing the
lead agency. The federal dollars go to the Office of the Governor
and a program amendment would have to be submitted to NOAA which
would have costs associated with it. In the interim there could be
delays or decreases in federal funding to the program as a result
of having to do that with NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management. Delays or decreases in federal funds could
not only impact agency functions, but also the almost $1 million
provided to coastal districts and communities around the State.
That DGC is the most appropriate agency to administer the ACMP was
the conclusion of the 1994 legislative audit report. Many years
ago the State of Alaska chose to have a networked program relying
on existing authorities instead of a coastal permit issued by one
single agency. As such, DGC provides a coordination, information
dissemination, and mediation function. The coordination and
mediation among agencies and 35 coastal districts that participate
in the program is best located under the umbrella of the Governor's
Office rather than in a line agency which would not have oversight
over the other agencies with permitting authority.
DGC's function is distinct from DNR. While the sponsor suggests
that the ACMP could be moved to DNR because both agencies have
similar planning and permitting functions, not only are agency
mandates different, but DGC has other responsibilities with which
DNR staff are not familiar, including developing state positions on
coastal resource issues and providing conflict resolution which is
needed during planning and permitting. In addition, although DNR
manages activities on state land, the scope of the ACMP is much
broader in that it includes activities across the landscape of
Alaska whether on state federal or private land.
Number 236
MS. JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, DNR, said she wanted
to underscore the fourth point made by Ms. LaRoche that the area
plans prepared by the Division of Lands are very different from the
Coastal Management Plans or the Coastal Management Program. The
Division of Land area plans are designed to tell Alaskans what we
should do with our land, providing an opportunity to evaluate the
resources we have for sales, leases, disposals, harvesting, etc.
This is substantially different from the Coastal Management Program
which looks at whether a proposed project is on state, federal, or
private land and decides its affect on coastal and marine resources
according to specific criteria.
Significant cuts have been made to the Division of Land in the
proposed budget and if this bill is an attempt to provide DNR with
the ability to provide planning, it does not because the federal
program is funded by federal money with federal rules. The state
money used for planning is simply to determine how Alaskans will
take care of our lands. The boundaries of the area plans and the
coastal management plans are also different.
Number 282
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the coastal zone areas are federally
funded.
MS. ANGVIK answered that the Coastal Management Program is largely
funded by the federal government but she didn't know exactly how
much. It is a federal program that the State of Alaska chooses to
participate in in an effort to protect the coastal regional areas.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if she meant this program would not supplant
the DNR dollars that are being cut in the proposed budget because
the two can't be mixed.
MS. ANGVIK replied that's true except for the last part. It will
not supplant state functions, because the money is for a different
program.
Number 308
MR. PATRICK GALVIN, Anchorage Attorney, said he works with most
coastal districts and with developers who are applicants. The local
government component in a system built around a cooperative
relationship between the federal, state, and local governments
should be in the Office of the Governor because it acts as a buffer
between the local government and the state permitting agency that
operates a separate permitting system that is networked into the
Coastal Management Program. The oversight of the way the Coastal
Management plans are developed and the way the projects are
reviewed by the ACMP is seen as a valuable part of the program
because the Office of the Governor is more politically sensitive to
the needs of the communities. The individual resources agencies
are professional permitters or land managers, but have separate and
distinct strengths that are not related to the overall review of
the projects from a local perspective.
The other troubling part of the bill from a district perspective is
that the Department of Community and Regional Affairs' (DCRA)
grants administrator position is eliminated with that duty going to
DNR as well. The federal money passes through this Program to the
local governments to do their part. DCRA plays an important role
in determining where the money should go and what plans and
projects will get funded. It is alarming to think that role would
be eliminated and put in an agency that has no history of or any
authority to do grant work.
The developers view DGC as a buffer between themselves and the
individual requirements of the resource agencies. Its location in
the Governor's Office is seen as a benefit because of it has the
ability to coordinate the agencies while keeping an eye on the
developers of the State to get projects through.
Also, from the developers' perspective, the ACMP is a program that
has an impact on all projects taking place in the state on public,
private, and federal lands. While DNR has a great deal of
experience managing projects on state lands, it's unknown how that
experience would carry over to a program that oversees many
projects on private lands.
MR. JON DUNHAM, Deputy Director, North Slope Borough Planning
Department, opposed SB 140. They coordinate their permit reviews
with DGC on a regular basis. They also coordinate comments with
DNR on oil and gas lease sales. Both agencies perform their
functions in a professional manner and they believe DGC does the
best job of efficiently, effectively and fairly evaluating all the
concerns expressed by the commenting agencies and individuals.
They question the logic and soundness of giving DGC to DNR when DNR
has so much to do with oil and gas permitting in the state. This
could make the agencies susceptible to loss of independent
judgement critical to administer the Coastal Management Program. He
thought the Office of Governor was the best place for DGC.
MR. JOHN EASTON, Program Director, Bristol Bay CRSA Coastal
Management Program, was testifying on behalf of their elected
Board. The majority of land in their coastal district is owned by
the State and managed by DNR. The ACMP was developed in
recognition that the coastal communities should play a central role
in development decisions that affect them. DGC's participation in
coastal management is invaluable providing a neutral forum for
interested citizens to voice ideas about shaping the future while
protecting important resources. SB 140 will alienate local
residents. A neutral agency needs to coordinate the review. If
DNR is responsible for funding, managing, and implementing coastal
management, it would narrow the scope of the public review process.
Several positions are slated to be cut within DNR and its biased
permitting systems has CRSA concerned about how state management
will be compromised. Developing legislation to increase the
efficiency of state resource agencies is a difficult path, but a
cost savings will not result. He opposed SB 140.
Number 422
MS. LINDA FREED, Community Development Director, Kodiak Island
Borough, said that coastal management is a small part of the
activities the Community Development department is responsible for.
They have a full range of planning activities including zoning,
subdivision and land management regulations. They have incorporated
the CMP into those programs. They oppose SB 140 and have opposed
similar bills in the past. They have a good working relationship
with DNR, but DNR doesn't have the staff to do tasks they would be
required to do under SB 140. There is no state land use plan for
Kodiak, neither are there any stated efficiencies for moving the
program. The bill appears to be an effort to gut the Coastal
Management Program. If there is support for it, it should stay
where it is. It is an efficient and effective program for rural
communities.
MR. ROBERT FAGERSTROM, Co-chairman, Alaska Coastal Council, noted
the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 99-01 at the Coastal
Policy meeting on April 14. That resolution opposes SB 140. This
bill will not create any savings. He reiterated previous testimony
regarding the audit recommendations and endorsed all the other
comments made by the others opposed to SB 140.
MR. JOHN BOLLING, Coastal Coordinator, Craig, opposed SB 140.
DGC's job is to act as a clearinghouse for state agencies involved
in the Alaska Coastal Management Program which would not improve by
locating it within the DNR. To keep all agencies on an equal
footing, DGC should be kept apart from DNR and the other
departments. This action would not result in saving any general
fund dollars and would, in fact, increase costs. There would be
short term inefficiencies which would be detrimental to the
districts that participate in the program.
Number 501
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if anyone could comment on the question posed
in NOAA's April 19 letter about whether a cost savings would occur
and whether the federal matching dollars would follow the transfer.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that question should be followed up on in the
Finance Committee.
SENATOR GREEN moved to pass CSSB 140(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected because she thought the Resources
Committee could do a lot more work on the bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked all those in favor of moving CSSB 140(RES)
from committee to raise their hands. SENATORS GREEN, HALFORD,
PARNELL, and KELLY indicated yes; SENATOR LINCOLN indicated no.
The bill moved from committee with a vote of 4 to 1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|