Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2002 03:45 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 361-PERMIT COORDINATION & COASTAL ZONE MGMT
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced that the committee would now take
up SB 361.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT, sponsor of SB 361, said that his intention
was solely to introduce the bill; he didn't expect final action
this year. He said that the regulators and the regulated felt
that the regulatory system that had come together over the years
was cumbersome in areas. He pointed out that there were
processes that were not coordinated amongst state agencies and
there was some duplication in the processes. The problems had
been dealt with over the years through a piece-meal system. He
thought that it was time for the Legislature to look at the
entire system and see if it was time to start from scratch and
put together a better-coordinated system. He has been involved
in this overall issue for a number of years and has talked to
division directors and commissioners and found that there is a
lot of interest from state employees that the Legislature look at
changes. The Governor introduced a bill a few years ago that was
used as a basis for SB 361. He doesn't propose that this is a
perfect bill at this stage. He wanted to get some input from the
state agencies, the regulated communities and the citizen
watchdogs as to what was beneficial in the bill and what areas of
the bill might have pitfalls so that he can work on the bill with
those groups during the interim. He announced that he wanted to
aim for better coordination amongst the agencies so that an
appellant who is appealing one issue didn't have different appeal
timelines in different agencies. He wants to create a more
streamlined and uniform permitting system.
MS. MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), said that Pat Galvin would be the lead
spokesperson for the State.
MR. PATRICK GALVIN, Director of Division of Governmental
Coordination in the Office of the Governor, said his division is
responsible for the implementation of the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. SB 361 is very similar to SB 186, which was
introduced at the Governor's request in 1997. They are looking
for an efficient decision making process that eliminates
obstacles to development while allowing the public to influence
those decisions, provides for easier and fewer applications,
allows coordinated review of all agency permit requirements for a
particular project, consolidates public notices and provides for
a more efficient appeal process. In September 1997 after the
Governor's bill was introduced, the Administration had a
streamlining workshop with participants from industries,
conservation groups, local governments and state agencies to talk
about the principles in the context of the bill that was in front
of the Legislature at that time. A majority of the group agreed
that these were important issues that needed work, but could not
agree on an approach to achieve them. Although the bill didn't
move through the Legislature, the Administration has since
continued to look at ways to achieve the goals without
legislation.
MR. GALVIN said they looked at ways in which the individual
agencies can better use the general permitting process and other
such vehicles to concentrate the efforts of permitters and the
public on those projects that have the greatest impact or occur
in the most sensitive locations. They have undertaken a variety
of projects to improve and simplify the permit applications,
including increasing the use of the Internet. They have also
increased the level of coordination of the agencies in the public
notice process. In the area of coastal management, they have
drafted guidance to staff on process-related issues to improve
the level of permit coordination that occurs in the consistency
review process. They are in the final stages of a revision to
the coastal management consistency review regulations to provide
for more efficient coordination in the process. There are also
more specific things they have done.
He said while they've made progress in the past few years, they
recognize that there is still a lot of room for improvement.
They believe this is a timely issue, but given the amount of time
left in the Session and the complexity of the issues involved,
they agree that it's not reasonable to expect a solution in the
next few weeks.
He wanted to point out a few areas of concern in SB 361. There
is a lack of specificity regarding the authority of the
coordinating agency in relation to the permitting agencies. This
is particularly troublesome in the non-coastal areas where the
coordinated approach hasn't been used before. It will raise an
issue when the coordinating agency doesn't have a decision to
make on its own and they are only doing the administrative
process in coordinating the decisions of the other agencies.
This may cause a problem when some of the permit decisions
conflict with each other. Currently, through the consistency
review process, they have a common set of guidelines that they
can use to resolve the disputes. The current bill may create an
undue burden on smaller projects by the need for project-specific
negotiations with regard to some timelines that may not be
necessary for smaller projects. There is a lack of specificity
in the bill regarding timelines and time requirements. The
timeline that is designed to satisfy the aims of the bill might
interfere with other statutory requirements. The bill limits the
role of coastal districts and local governments as compared to
the current process in the Coastal Management Program. He noted
that there would be a fiscal impact in bringing the coordinating
review outside of the coastal zone because the work has never
been done before.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if DNR was acting as a lead agency on
large mining projects. If so, there had been some experience.
MR. GALVIN affirmed that a handful of large mining projects have
gone through a coordinated review outside of the coastal zone.
They were referring to the rest of the projects, which have not
gone through a coordinated review. The section dealing with
administrative appeals needs some specificity with regard to who
decides the issue when there are multiple permits that might be
implicated by an appeal. They are encouraged to hear that both
leading major party gubernatorial candidates have expressed an
interest in resolving this issue and the Division would like to
work with the Committee during the interim and encouraged
participation of the other major stakeholders, such as local
governments, project applicants, conservation groups and tribes.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Galvin had looked at the list of
licensing permits that would be covered under SB 361 on page 3
and 4. He asked if there was anything that needed to be added or
omitted.
MR. GALVIN said that they had looked at the list but hadn't yet
come to an official position. The list is different from that
which had been presented by the Governor in SB 186. There are
certain DNR authorizations that weren't in the previous bill but
are in this bill and vice versa. They haven't had the discussion
as to the appropriate way to handle that. They noted that there
are some Department of Transportation authorizations that are
included in the bill but are currently not subject to a
coordinated review through the Coastal Management Program. The
list would need more work and would require looking at each
individual authorization and thinking about whether or not a
coordinated approach was required.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if the allowance for public input into
the process was sufficient.
MR. GALVIN said there are a number of people who could better
answer that question. The principle behind the original bill was
that if the processes could be clarified and more easily
understood, then those could be brought together and create a
single review that would make it easier for the public to
participate in the process. To the extent that SB 361 is able to
achieve that, they would feel that there was no decrease in the
public's opportunity to participate.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were questions from other
committee members.
MS. RUTHERFORD added that DNR had been pursuing some efficiencies
since the Governor's bill had been introduced in 1997. She
explained that permitting efficiency is not only about
coordinated notices and reviews, but also about making
information accessible to the public and easy to use and
eliminating the number of times the public must apply for permits
and how they paid for their fees. Those are some of the areas
where DNR has made improvements.
She said amendments to the oil and gas leasing statutes allow
them to offer unleased oil and gas properties on an annual basis
within large geographical areas. They have undertaken a large
mine coordinated review process which has been very effective in
bringing the agencies and the public into an integrated process.
She said there have been many other lesser streamlining
improvements. For instance, mining claims are now being reviewed
in 160-acre blocks. These blocks also facilitate online
permitting, which will be available next year. She noted that
DNR now allows payment of mining rents online. Starting next
fiscal year, they will allow miners to file and pay for claims at
the recorders office only without having to go to another counter
to make rent payments.
In the area of land-use permits, she said commercial recreational
permits for spike camps can now be applied for over the counter.
By the end of this calendar year, DNR will have land-use permit
applications, processing and permit issuance online.
She said that in the area of material sales, DNR has increased
the allowable over-the-counter contract from 100 cubic yards to
200 cubic yards, which decreased the workload associated with
negotiating contracts and the number of times they had to
negotiate a contract.
In the area of land sales, she said DNR now has a website of
lands that are available over-the-counter or are going to be
offered in land sales. Although it has increased their workload
significantly, it is good for the public. By the end of 2002,
the public will be able to purchase over-the-counter parcels
online. The public will also be able to make a sealed bid offer
for a parcel online. Data from land purchases will automatically
be entered into the state land records system, which will
eliminate some double entry.
MS. RUTHERFORD said DNR has other areas of improvements, such as
online access to publications, land title information, records
research and park cabin reservations. The efficiencies are
important to the public and to how the agency does business. She
believes the improvements that have happened and the improvements
that are in the early stages will effect how a permit-
streamlining bill is crafted.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions from
committee members. He asked Ms. Rutherford if there was anything
specific to DNR in SB 361 that concerned her.
MS. RUTHERFORD said that the list on pages 3 and 4 was of
concern. They would like to look at it in the future in terms of
what the bill will eventually do. There are some on the list
they felt needed to be eliminated. Some of the improvements
they've made will change how they approach various permitting
processes and thus may not be necessary as part of the larger
process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she felt that the process should be
determined before deciding what it should apply to.
MS. RUTHERFORD said that some of details of the various permits
would be appropriate in the overall discussion of the bill.
KURT FREDRICKSSON, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), said that DEC was one of the
primary permitting agencies in the state and SB 361 would have a
large impact on DEC. Permit streamlining and simplification has
been a topic of concern in DEC's effort to do a better job with
permit development while allowing public participation and
carrying out their mission of protecting public health and the
environment. DEC has taken a number of initiatives, such as
working with stakeholder groups in their water program. Some of
the products of that have been seen before the Legislature this
year.
He said DEC has worked with workgroups on how they can use
general permits to streamline some of the permits while
protecting the environment. Where and how general permits are
applied is the key. He said that DEC has general permits for log
transfer facilities, seafood processing facilities and storm
water discharges. DEC is automating the general permits so that
they will be available over the Internet. DEC is also making
progress in their air programs. They undertook a benchmarking
study to look at how other states used the general permitting
process and looked to see how they can take advantage of the
experience of other states and apply it in Alaska. They have
entertained ideas such as permit by rule and standard permit
conditions and are moving ahead on that. They have taken steps
to make things easier electronically. He wanted to caution the
committee that coordinated project permitting should not be
applied to all cases. For large mines and coastal management, it
does make sense.
TAPE 02-24, SIDE B
4:30 p.m.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FREDRICKSSON said that the pipeline office
was a good example where agencies came together to streamline the
permitting process for TAPS. However, if you are only dealing
with a small project, a coordinated review is not necessary as it
is just as effective for the applicant to go through the
coursework with the agencies. He said that there are times when
it is more efficient for DEC to focus on a DEC issue rather than
being brought into a larger debate. He noted that sometimes
permitting is made easier when you have good information. When
they have good ambient water and air quality data in site-
specific information, it can go a long ways to resolving
conflicts and answering questions. The lack of such information
can delay a project. DEC thinks that workgroups are the best way
to deal with issues and as this issue moves forward they suggest
that all the other stakeholders should be involved in the
process.
He said he hasn't had the chance to go over the list in detail,
but DEC will do so. One item that concerned him subsection (b)
on page 6 addressing project application and listing the various
parties that the applications would be available to or would be
notified when applications were received. They have come across
this issue when they do an oil spill prevention and response
contingency plan when they also alert the Prince William Sound
and Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council. He thinks
that the agency should make an effort to contact local
governments when dealing with development or permitted activity.
He didn't notice local governments in the list, although the
coastal districts in the coastal context are one in the same as
local governments.
He said that DEC has looked at their appeal procedures and have
been working on updating their regulations. One of the more
important updated regulations deals with allowing the parties to
settle their differences in an informal process when the parties
are willing to work together to resolve issues. He feels the
appeals process section of the bill is something he would like to
explore to make it a rigid and formal process when necessary, but
still have a way for parties to come together through a mediated
effort to find a way of resolving conflict.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were questions from committee
members.
MS. DANA OLSON said she appreciated that this bill was being held
to get further input. She feels that the issue needs more time
to be looked at. She feels it would be important to get input
from people who are affected and that they be allowed to
participate in the planning process. This would allow the
Committee insight into things that aren't generally considered in
permits and their affects on people. She noted that Title 39 was
not in SB 361. In 1987, the Legislature made a quasi-judicial
decision requiring that the 1984 Chase Agricultural Homestead
Lottery undergo a provision under Title 38, which was not funded.
This has left her in limbo for years. She would like the
Committee to address the issue with her as a go-between between
her and DNR because the system is broken. Her property entrance
is still valid but she is required to do something that she can't
do by herself. The court case is an enforceable policy of the
Coastal Management Act. This could affect other interests beside
herself. She would like it resolved one way or another by the
Committee. She feels this should be codified in law and it
requires some consideration of her interests and DNR's and the
State's interests. She would like some means to participate in
the process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was part of a coastal service
area.
MS. OLSON said that she lives in the coastal community of Knik.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was part of their service
district.
MS. OLSON said that she was in the Mat-Su Borough coastal
district but the Mat-Su coastal district had been ineffective in
addressing the community's concerns. The district has been cited
in a federal lawsuit in the past and is a system that needs to be
looked at. She pointed out that they were not here today and
thus she can only assume that they weren't interested. She lives
there and she is interested. She is willing to volunteer her
time and effort to provide input if the Committee is willing to
listen.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify.
SB 361 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|