Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/07/2005 06:12 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB37 | |
| SB102 | |
| SB124 | |
| SB125 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 102(FIN) am
An Act repealing the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to an extension for review and approval of
revisions to the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to reviews and modifications by the Department
of Natural Resources; relating to coastal resource
district policies; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 45, ch. 24, SLA
2003; and providing for an effective date.
MELANIE LESH, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, noted that the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is a partnership
between federal, state, and local governments providing a
voice in federal decision-making. Alaska is one of 34
coastal states that utilize the program, which annually
channels millions of dollars in federal grant money. ACMP
has helped guide coastal development in Alaska since it was
enacted in 1977 and without the program, State and local
governments lose their ability to control development on
federal land and the outer continental shelf. In addition,
the State will lose millions in federal coastal management
planning money.
In 2003, HB 191 substantially revised the State coastal
program. The federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) must approve the revised program. The
2003 legislation included state-imposed deadlines for
revisions to local coastal programs. Coastal districts are
attempting to follow the statutory directive to revise
programs to meet the new requirements, but have repeatedly
said that they need more time to complete that process.
Ms. Lesh noted that the version before the Committee extends
the existing statutory deadline for district coastal program
submissions by eight months and a correlative delay in dates
annulling existing standards and program until March 1,
2007. The extensions would ensure an orderly and efficient
transition to the new program.
Ms. Lesh advised that the House Resources Committee amended
the bill setting a "kill date" ending the Coastal Zone
Program entirely if OCRM approval does not occur by January
1, 2006. That date is the deadline in which the Department
has assured the Legislature, OCRM will have approved the
(NEPA) National Environmental Protection Act or the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process of the new
State coastal program. That section puts in place the
repealing and sunset clauses. An amendment in the House
Resources Committee allowed those provisions to take effect
after May 10, 2006, which leaves the Legislature time to
act, if necessary, to extend the sunset dates of the old
coastal management program.
6:46:46 PM
JOE BALASH, STAFF, SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, pointed out that
the House Resources Committee substitute made five changes:
· Extends the deadline in accordance with what the
Governor indicated he would support;
· Provides for a sunset and audit four years after the
full implementation of the changes;
· Adds language regarding the adoption by reference of
State statute regulations as well as federal
regulations;
· Changed the old district programs; and
· Provides a specific deadline for the Department to
update their "ABC" list.
6:49:16 PM
Representative Croft questioned a provision indicating that
the entire program would be eliminated if the federal
government did not approve it. Mr. Balash explained that
st
the July 1 deadline was "keyed" from what the feds
indicated they intended to. It takes approximately 14-weeks
st
to complete an EIS. Given the January 1 date, there should
be enough time for Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) to engage in the commitments they made to
the State of Alaska. The date that the sunset and/or appeal
th.
takes affect is May 10. That date provides the
Legislature an entire session to deal with the ramifications
if OCRM fails to approve the program. He indicated that it
resulted from Section 22, crafted in the House Resource
Committee.
6:51:47 PM
st
Representative Croft understood that the January 1 date was
not problematic. He asked why the State would want to be
placed in that consequence, given that the program is the
only way which the State can have impact on federal
decision-making. Mr. Balash explained that date had been
chosen because other dates in earlier sections of the bill
st
returned to March 1 either 2006 or 2007. In order to
satisfy the Governor's requirement for the 6-months, grants
additional time for districts to revise plans for review and
approval.
6:53:30 PM
RANDY BATES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
& PERMITTING, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to
answer questions of the Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the fiscal note. Mr. Bates
explained that by extending the coastal district submissions
deadline, it would extend the time frame that it takes the
Department to review and approve plans. The revision was
th
supposed to occur June 30 2006. There are currently funds
to accommodate staff review coastal district plans. The
th
remaining money runs out June 6, 2006. In order to be able
to accommodate and review those decisions, the Division
needs three staff for eight months as requested in the note.
6:55:56 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted an amendment included in member's
packets, which would extend the program. He asked if that
would increase costs. Mr. Bates replied that Amendment #1
would not impact the fiscal note.
6:56:24 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned if the employees are currently
on staff.
6:56:43 PM
Mr. Bates corrected previous comments, noting that Amendment
#1 significantly impacts the note.
6:57:04 PM
Representative Holm asked if the employees were currently on
staff. Mr. Bates stated they are currently on staff and the
request keeps them there for an additional eight months.
JUDY BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION (AOGA), ANCHORAGE, stated that "they could live
with the version of the bill" adopted by the House Resource
Committee. She noted that AOGA had opposed possible
extensions for a number of reasons and that they would like
to see HB 191 implemented. Ms. Brady added that AOGO would
support the bill but could not support any other extension.
6:59:29 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired why they would not support any
further extensions. Ms. Brady advised that AOGA would like
to see OCRM finish their work. The initial program was
voluntary. The needs of the program have changed
dramatically in the past thirty years. Passage of HB 191
recognizes the differences and refocuses the program. She
noted delays on the State side. OCRM has not supported any
of the changes and has deliberately "dragged their feet" for
implementation.
Representative Croft inquired about the current need for
coastal zone management plans. Ms. Brady explained that the
State was interested in that program during the 1970's;
however, today, those needs have changed and HB 191 reflects
that. Some of the enforceable policies are now enacted in
State, federal and/or municipal law. There are
implementation questions; AOGA does not want to go another
three years before anything happens. She emphasized that it
should not be a federal program.
7:04:34 PM
Representative Croft inquired how did "threatening to
withdraw from the program" affect the relationship with the
federal government. He thought that would be illegal and
problematic. Ms. Brady commented that their attorney had
evaluated OCRM's arguments, finding them wrong in every
instance. No other state in the Union has been held to the
standard that Alaska has. The Alaska program is a "jewel in
the crown" of the federal agency and coastal management is a
big deal. She believed the federal government would never
let the program go and that a long implementation period
would negatively affect and jeopardize the program.
7:07:40 PM
Co-Chair Meyer summarized that AOGA supports the House
Resources Committee date and does not support the amendment.
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT a corrected
Amendment #1, Line 3 and Line 7, deleting "February" and
inserting "March" and Line 11, deleting "March" and
inserting "April". Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch requested that the record reflect
the true and accurate costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON addressed Amendment #1. He spoke in
support of SB 102, which allows the State to impose their
standards on federal land. Current dates indicated in the
bill allow the Legislature time to act. If it ends on
st
January 1, the Legislature is removed from the loop.
Representative Seaton spoke to the fiscal note, clarifying
that the way in which the program works is in six-month
st
intervals. Beginning July 1, the money could only be used
for implementation of the preliminary approved plan. There
is nothing in regulation that prevents the local districts
from continuing to use funds for developing local district
plans. He highlighted the process of review and asked when
it "goes away".
7:15:45 PM
Representative Seaton observed it would leave without
approval. The federal money would remain and then could be
used for other activities for local costal district plans to
be written. The federal money cannot be used for approval
implementation after the initial six months.
7:17:56 PM
Mr. Bates added that the Amendment could result in the
fiscal note being increased by $467 thousand dollars. The
program received $2.8 million federal dollars. Amendment #1
would provide a two-month extension. He provided a brief
history. OCRA has been preparing for the past several
st
months for the preliminary approval of July 1, 2006.
Preliminary approval only extends the time for six months.
st
January 1 would be the date deadline in which the State
could no longer spend monies on the implementation of the
coastal program. By extending the deadlines as proposed in
Amendment #1, the State agency could access those funds. In
order to supplement the money to guarantee that the program
works toward change, the fiscal note represents the amount
needed by the Division to keep employees working.
7:21:46 PM
Representative Croft questioned why the federal government
would want to "shut off" the money.
7:22:52 PM
Mr. Bates responded it is a federal law, which only allows
for federal approval for the six months; there is no way to
bend that extension past the six months. He reiterated that
the State could no longer expend the federal funds.
In response to further queries by Representative Croft, Mr.
Bates pointed out that HB 191 change coastal management and
requires implementation of the regulations. The coastal
management program is codified in HB 191. The State cannot
choose to alternatively implement another program that
either the Legislature has not embraced or acted upon. If
st
OCRM does not finish their work by January 1, 2006, there
are no more federal funds to continue implementing the
program.
Mr. Bates added, the Administration opposes the amendment.
7:26:07 PM
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Mr. Bates
th
noted that on April 14, 2005, a letter was received
detailing the final changes needed for approval of the
coastal program. The Division is in the process of making
those regulatory changes. He provided information regarding
timelines needed for preliminary approval. Presently, the
program is basically approvable.
7:28:21 PM
Mr. Bates commented on why the Administration objects to the
time extensions. The Governor has committed to three
timeline extensions for coastal management:
· Extending the State standards
· Extending the revised coastal plan deadline by six
months
· Extending the district plan sunset deadline by six
months
The extensions were tiered off in HB 191 and included in the
House Resources Committee version, the one the supports. He
advised that the Division and the Administration do not
support Amendment #1.
· OCRM has been preparing for eight months and when
preliminary approval is offered, it would be within
thth
that time frame. On April 14 and 18, an agreement
was made regarding the need for additional steps to
get e ACMP into a form under federal law.
· It is expected that preliminary approval will be
st
made by July 1, 2005.
· OCRM has confirmed that they can and will approve
NEPA within the six-month time frame.
· Without a deadline, it is an invitation for the
federal government to delay approval and hold the
agency hostage.
· Extending the deadline will cost the State a
significant amount of money.
· The amendment forces the Legislature into emergency
action next year. It is important to recognize that
the structure of the committee substitute without
Amendment #1, provides the Legislature authority
needed for approval of the coastal program.
· The Legislature would have the session to evaluate
the position.
7:33:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Moses, Stoltze, Foster,
Meyer, Chenault
OPPOSED: Joule, Croft
Representative Weyhrauch was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
7:35:42 PM
Representative Croft stated for the record that
Administration's the position would hurt all the coastal
communities. He commented on the risk damage and hoped it
would survive without too much trouble for the State.
7:36:56 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 102 (RES)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
HCS CS SB 102 (RES) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #2 by the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, zero note #3
by the Department of Administration, zero note #4 by the
Department of Environmental Conservation and fiscal note #5
by the Department of Natural Resources.
7:37:22 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|