Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
06/28/2011 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB45 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 45(CRA) am
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities and
regulations of the Alaska coastal management program;
establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board; relating
to the development, review, and approval of district
coastal management plans; relating to the duties of
the Department of Natural Resources relating to the
Alaska coastal management program; relating to the
review of certain consistency determinations;
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of secs. 1 - 13 and 18, ch. 31, SLA
2005; and providing for an effective date."
9:12:50 AM
JOHN J. BURNS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
reviewed history of the legislation. He recalled that he
had been before the House Finance Committee several months
prior during the regular legislative session to discuss an
earlier version of the bill, HB 106. The committee had
reported HB 106 out and the House had approved it with a 40
to 0 vote. House Bill 106 was then transmitted to the
Senate. He recalled that the regular session had started
with two competing bills; one was offered by the
administration for a simple six-year extension, and another
was offered by a legislator for a simple one-year
extension. Over the course of the legislative session, it
became evident that members of the legislature wanted an
extensive discussion to explore a re-write of the
legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the amended bill was still a
governor's bill.
Attorney General Burns responded "not in the current form."
He continued that there had been a desire to discuss
modifications to the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP). He reported that Commissioners Larry Hartig, Dan
Sullivan, and Cora Campbell had been involved in the
extensive discussion, along with other industry, rural
community, tribal, and legislative stakeholders.
Attorney General Burns detailed that the discussions were
premised on four principal caveats: stability and
predictability, consistent standards, meaningful local
input, and no local veto. He stressed that hundreds of
hours were spent by all stakeholders working on HB 106,
which, when it passed, reflected a fine balance of all the
interests involved. He highlighted that people like North
Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta did not object to the bill,
which amounted to tacit support for HB 106 as it was. The
bill passed through the House to the Senate, but nothing
happened during regular session or the ensuing special
session, even though ACMP had been recognized by the
governor as a substantive item that needed to be addressed
in the special session immediately following the regular
session.
9:17:55 AM
Attorney General Burns added that there had again been
extensive discussions, and noted that Representatives Joule
and Hawker and others had attempted to address a meaningful
fix for the legislation. However, he felt frustrated that
the "goalposts continued to be moved" during each step of
the process on the Senate side. In the end, no bill was
passed before the special session ended.
Attorney General Burns pointed out that without the
availability of appropriations or statutory authority to
operate the program beyond June 30, ACMP had to be wound
down. The program had stopped taking applications as of
June 9 because there was no physical way for the
applications to be processed before the sunset date. He
emphasized that the approval process typically took 21
days, which was the basis for choosing the June 9 date. In
addition, the employees of the program had begun to look
for work elsewhere. The program had gone from 33 positions
to 5; none of the remaining employees were policy-level
positions with the ability to ramp the program back up. He
noted that ACMP required specialized expertise, not simply
in the diverse coastal programs of the various 33
communities involved; familiarity with the permitting
procedures of both state and federal agencies was also
required.
Attorney General Burns stressed that the functional reality
was that ACMP was "decimated" and that there was physically
no ability with existing personnel to meaningfully process
consistency review applications.
9:21:21 AM
Co-Chair Thomas asked where the permits went in the absence
of ACMP personnel.
Attorney General Burns responded that the ACMP was involved
in a consistency review process. An application was
reviewed to make certain that the applicant had obtained
all of the permits and met the various requirements of
various coastal districts. He stressed that the state and
federal permit requirements still had to be met, regardless
of the ACMP. In addition, various local coastal district
plans had to be met.
Attorney General Burns pointed out that the positions that
were no longer filled required trained individuals with
expertise in the permitting processes. He noted that
discussions with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
had revealed that it would take at least between six months
to one year to attract and train qualified personnel to
revamp the program and be able to proceed with permitting.
In the meantime, applicants would still apply; there were
an average of 100 applications per month. The permits would
have to be processed. There would be a continually growing
backlog, with no ability to process the new applications
coming in.
Attorney General Burns detailed that the current bill
before the committee had no transition language reflecting
the reality of the situation, including the fact that there
were only five employees who were not capable of handling
the required process. He emphasized that if SB 45 passed
with an immediate effective date, the expectation would be
that ACMP would process the permits with meaningful review.
However, without that ability, the program would not meet
its functional requirements. He underlined that the process
of ramping the program back up was not a simple one.
Attorney General Burns outlined legal issues that could
arise. Applications had not been submitted since June 9; he
believed permittees had been told not to submit. He pointed
out that there could be legal ramifications if the program
did not sunset and permittees were required to go into the
permit-review process, as projects would have been
significantly delayed. There could possibly be lawsuits
related to negligent interference with contract from a
torte perspective, from which the state was self-insured.
9:26:23 AM
Attorney General Burns continued that there could be the
potential of litigation from third parties because of the
state not meeting statutory obligations under ACMP to
conduct meaningful reviews. He noted that there had been
discussion about some kind of transitory process if the
House decided to recognize the reality that the number of
applications could not be processed. For example, a
transition process could allow the program to remain in
place and ramp back up and only handle federal permits,
which the state was obligated to do. Eliminating the
requirement to do state permits would apply to about half
the applications and affect the backlog.
Attorney General Burns pointed to the issue of potential
equal-protection or due-process claims, because some
applications would be evaluated and not others. He stressed
that the nature of the judicial system meant that claims
would be filed. He asked what permittees would do when
claims were filed; they would have to decide whether to
proceed with a project or wait until the litigation was
resolved. An alternative route would be to keep the program
in place and suspend everything, because the federal permit
reviews were not done as well. There would be a shell of a
program, with no state or federal review, which "certainly"
would result in third-party litigation for not meeting
federal standards.
9:31:35 AM
Attorney General Burns continued that under constitutional
requirements, a bill typically became effective 90 days
after passage. There could therefore be a 90-day gap if SB
45 passed through and was not passed "effective
immediately" by a two-thirds vote; this would mean the
program would sunset on July 1, and the gap would be
retroactive. There would be no program, and questions would
arise about what would happen to the permit applicants
during the gap. He questioned whether the projects would
proceed without the consistency review or whether the state
would have the ability to pull the applicants back in,
since it knew the law would come back into place. An area
of uncertainty and unpredictability would be created.
Attorney General Burns argued that a dilemma had been
created in which projects were at risk as well as the
ability to do what the program was supposed to do: give
meaningful analysis to coastal district plans and provide
an avenue by which coastal policies could be evaluated and
applied in the context of industry projects.
Attorney General Burns stated that there would
unquestionably be delays. How long the delays would be was
unpredictable, but he expected that jobs and other economic
opportunities would be lost.
Attorney General Burns raised the question of what the
state would lose if the program sunsetted. He did not think
Alaska would lose its voice, as the coastal districts would
still be able to affect federal regulations. He pointed out
that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
required consultation, and that every federal regulation
required notice and community participation. He did not
think the opportunity for participation was the same as it
would be under ACMP, but he did not feel that all would
opportunity would be lost. He stressed that the result
would not be catastrophic; the Department of Law (DOL) had
conducted an evaluation in conjunction with DNR about the
levels of protection available, and had found that there
were a number of protections. He emphasized that the state
would "not lose all" if ACMP sunsetted.
Attorney General Burns added that DOL could not predict the
legal implications of passing one or another version of the
bill. He stated that there was no practical ability at the
present time for ACMP to perform the functions or meet the
requirements that would be imposed by SB 45. He referred to
concerns about some of the language in the bill that he
thought could be easily addressed.
LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, described what ACMP had done to wind down the
present program and what it would take to ramp the program
up again if it were re-instituted in its present or another
form.
9:37:33 AM
Commissioner Hartig informed the committee that he had had
experience putting together other programs, including the
wastewater discharge permitting program.
Commissioner Hartig pointed out that the ACMP sunset date
would be midnight on June 30, 2011, but employees had to
find other jobs; only five employees were left, and they
did not have experience building and running programs. He
reviewed the necessary, practical details of shutting down
the program, including vacating the building, shutting off
phones, and clearing furniture. In addition, the annual
$2.5 million received from the federal government was
shared with coastal districts and some went to other
agencies that worked on the consistency reviews; the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was notified
May 31 that bills had to be paid before the authority to
pay was lost. Local districts had to do the same.
Commissioner Hartig noted that DNR had a June 3 deadline
for submitting its request for the following year's grant
to the federal government for funding. The department had
not submitted the application; there was some indication
that the situation would be addressed, but there was still
uncertainty.
Commissioner Hartig continued that people still wanted to
do projects and had been getting applications in for
coastal zone management consistency review in case the
program continued. On June 9, applicants had been informed
that the completeness review would not be done. He
described the completeness review process, which required
more than the 21 days stipulated in statute.
9:41:53 AM
Commissioner Hartig continued that the average number of
applications received by the program had been about 100
each month. The department's best estimate was that it
would take a minimum of six months to get the program
functioning again, which would mean an additional
accumulated backlog of 600 or 700 applications, in addition
to the applications backed up from June. He pointed out
that there were another 100 or 200 applications that had
already been received prior to June that were still in
process.
Commissioner Hartig pointed out that one of the
applications anticipated was from Shell, which wanted to
start exploration plans for 2012 for the Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea projects. Shell had anticipated that it would
be ready to submit the 14,000-page application to ACMP. The
application was bulky, complicated, very technical, and had
a history of litigation and appeals. He stressed that
whoever worked on the application had to do a very good
job. In addition, Shell intended to have another
application for ACMP review for the Chukchi exploration
plan; that document would also be extensive and require a
high-level review.
Commissioner Hartig stressed that there would be major
applications on top of an existing and growing backlog. He
referred to other possible projects that needed to move
forward, including for Umiat, Cook Inlet, Apache, and
Buccaneer, as well as other mineral exploration projects.
He noted that there were often applications for winter
activities on the North Slope for ice roads and drilling;
DNR also expected large applications for communication
projects.
Commissioner Hartig described two scenarios related to what
it would take the ramp the program back up. Assuming that
the necessary authority and duties remained intact, an
immediate recruitment effort would be needed for a program
manager. He noted that the program had previously required
33 employees, but there would be additional duties and
increased workloads, as the backlog would require a lot of
work to process and the new employees would have to be
trained. He stressed that there was not just one set of
regulations and processes, but 28 local plans and local
coastal areas, each with its own differences. The local
boards would have to be ramped up. The regulation package
would have to be developed; he noted that there would be
three different sets of regulations associated with the new
bill.
Commissioner Hartig continued that the application would
have to go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) for approval of the modifications to
the program, and an advisory board would have to be created
and briefed. Funding for the program would have to be
established, depending on what was happening with the $2.5
million in federal money and the fiscal notes that would be
attached to the bill.
Commissioner Hartig emphasized that recruitment for
personnel would be difficult for an obviously controversial
new program with a huge backlog. In addition, there would
be difficulty starting a new program from scratch; local
districts would have to resubmit local plans, which might
have to be changed because of changes in the statute.
Commissioner Hartig reminded the committee that all the
statutes had to be submitted to NOAA for approval. In 2003,
ACMP statutes were submitted with a delayed effective date,
contingent upon NOAA's approval of the package. The package
of regulations would be needed, with delayed effective
dates, as well as public hearings before the NOAA
submission. There would have to be a detailed program
description about how the program would be implemented,
including guidance documents, management structure,
position descriptions, and a matrix showing the federal
requirements and how they would be met in the various
proposed elements of the program.
Commissioner Hartig emphasized that in 2003, it had taken
two years to do everything required for NOAA approval. For
that period of time, the program would be uncertain.
9:49:43 AM
Representative Gara summarized his understanding of ACMP
and questioned whether his understanding was correct:
· State law applied to programs on federal lands and
waters;
· Alaska state law tended to be more pro-development
than federal law; and
· Under a program (apart from the problems listed in
testimony), state law would apply on the projects
instead of federal law.
Attorney General Burns responded that the stated premises
were not correct.
Representative Gara added that a fact had been left out of
his list: under an ACMP program, local district rules on
development that were consistent with state law would apply
instead of federal law.
Commissioner Hartig replied that substantive permitting
requirements (such as those under the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act) applied regardless of an ACMP program. In
addition, state water-quality standards would continue to
apply, as well as air-quality standards set by the state
under federal law. Standards set by the federal government
under federal law would also apply. He emphasized that none
of the standards were superseded by an ACMP or enforceable
policies; those were a layer on top. The permitting
requirements would be the same with or without ACMP. In
addition, there would be the enforceable policies developed
by the applicable local coastal resource district. The
differences that Representative Gara referred to applied
more outside of the state's jurisdiction, such as out on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); there, federal standards
would apply and not state standards, as there was no state
jurisdiction. For an improved ACMP, federal law would
require federal agencies to be consistent with the
enforceable policies adopted under a state plan, which in
Alaska included the local districts.
Representative Gara clarified his question. He wondered
whether a coastal zone program and local rules consistent
with state law on development would apply to federal lands
and waters. He wondered whether, for example, the state's
oil-spill response plan would apply if the state had a
better response plan than the federal government.
Commissioner Hartig replied regarding the specific example.
Under federal law, Shell had to have a spill-prevention
contingency plan for work done the OCS; there would be
differences between state and federal requirements. To the
extent that the state requirements were different through
the ACMP, those requirements would also have to be met, and
would be imposed through the consistency provisions of
ACMP.
Representative Gara asked about a hypothetical offshore
development program for which the federal government put a
four-mile limit for drilling. He wondered whether the
project would move forward under ACMP if the state had a
rule allowing drilling outside that limit, or whether the
federal rule would bar the project.
Commissioner Hartig replied that state requirements would
not supersede the federal requirement; if there was a
federal activity, the project would have to show that there
was nothing inconsistent with state requirements. A federal
requirement precluding drilling more than four miles would
still be in place, but a state requirement that precluded
drilling more than three miles would have to be met as
well.
9:55:44 AM
Representative Gara remarked that most of Attorney General
Burns' testimony had been based on the fact that most of
the ACMP employees had left. He noted that discussion with
Representative Kerttula had shown that ACMP employees left
unwillingly and because the program was disappearing, but
many wanted to come back if a program was reinstated. He
wondered whether a survey had been done to determine
whether employees would return. He did not believe it would
be that difficult set up a new office.
Attorney General Burns replied that he had not conducted an
employee survey. He did not know what the displaced
employees would do. He reported that discussions with Randy
Bates, the former ACMP director, had revealed that there
had always been issues with changes, and that it would take
a significant amount of time to ramp back up.
Representative Hawker wanted to make sure he understood
what Attorney General Burns had said in committee
testimony. He had heard that SB 45 proposed changes to the
existing ACMP that would be acceptable to the
administration and largely good policy (assuming some
transition details were worked out).
Attorney General Burns responded that the bill was
significantly different than the bill that the governor
supported (assuming the language issues could be resolved).
He thought the substance of the bill was one thing, but the
effectiveness of the transition period was another issue.
Representative Hawker pointed to the statutory termination
date of the program and the wind-down process that had
already occurred. He believed the current situation was
that the clock had run out and the window of opportunity
had closed to revive the program without harming progress
on projects that were already underway.
Attorney General Burns thought Representative Hawker's
assessment was very fair.
10:01:35 AM
Representative Joule noted that part of the history of the
issue had been the administration's reluctance to really
engage prior to the current governor; the "status quo" had
been good enough, and there was no interest in changing the
bill to include the issues of local involvement that had
been discussed during the session. He noted that when
deadlines approached, he had watched a transformation from
"we can't do this" to "let's roll up our sleeves and go to
work." The result was a product that worked, in spite of
the delicate balance. He stressed that when the
administration chose to engage, significant progress was
made. He urged action.
Representative Joule pointed out that he had been hearing
from coastal communities that if the coastal management
program failed, they wanted to bypass the state system and
go directly to the federal government. He noted that the
local coastal communities had their own relationships with
the federal government, just like the state did. He pointed
to developments that had taken place around the issue of
subsistence, where the state and people had not been able
to come to agreement. People went to the federal
government, and the state was under a dual management
system of game resources; there was an entrenchment on the
issue. He had listened to informal and formal discussions
about the ACMP; he believed that if the program went away,
it would take from one and one-half to more than two years
to get the federal government to approve a new program.
Representative Joule opined that the state was running the
risk becoming entrenched on the current issue as well. He
argued that if the people were able to deal with the
federal government, and the federal government was willing
to deal with them directly, he did not know where the state
would be left when it decided to revisit the issue in the
future.
Representative Joule referred to issues related to
endangered species, critical habitat, and wild lands, and
the state of Alaska challenging the federal government so
that it could clear the way for development. He understood
that the NEPA process would allow for people to have a
voice, but he did not think that was as strong as due
deference; that would be lost. He thought the state would
have less power. He did not want to cede to the federal
government.
10:07:08 AM
Representative Joule referred to a visit to Alaska by the
National Ocean Council and the planned coastal and marine
spatial planning. He noted that Alaska would have its own
region and appointments would be made by the Obama
Administration. He wondered whether the state had
considered how it would interact with the process without a
coastal zone management program. He voiced concerns about
the state's inability to solve problems at home.
Attorney General Burns responded that Representative Joule
had been instrumental in the development of HB 106 as a
good solution and a workable and balanced piece of
legislation. He noted that the values of local voice and no
veto were considered pillars of the ability to reach a good
agreement. He stated that the "unfortunate reality" was
that the opportunities that were available then were no
longer present; there was no program. There had been a full
program, which had been audited by the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee and found to be functioning well,
meeting federal and state requirements, fully staffed, and
doing well.
Attorney General Burns acknowledged concerns about the
potential for a polarizing effect; local communities might
go off on their own. He thought there was currently an
opportunity and necessity to fully engage in continued
dialogue with communities such as the North Slope and
Arctic Slope Boroughs.
10:11:46 AM
Attorney General Burns agreed that Alaskan residents had to
work together and make decisions together about the
interests of the state as a whole regardless of ethnicity
and geographic location. He asserted that the opportunities
on which HB 106 were based were no longer present. He
assured the committee that the administration would be very
engaged in the process.
Commissioner Hartig acknowledged Representative Joule's
contributions to the process. He believed there was still
opportunity and that people were ready to discuss options.
He referred to the National Ocean Commission and noted that
Alaskans had been in Washington, D.C. to learn more about
the program. He thought the program was of interest but
would not take the place of ACMP; the two programs were
different.
Representative Joule stated concerns that Alaska would be
looked at as not being able to deal with ACMP and there
would be questions about how the state dealt with resource
development.
Representative Joule believed the crux of the transitional
discussion was the language and how regulations were
written connected with a statute, in particular the
effective date of 2012. He asked whether there were
creative actions that could be taken in concert with the
federal government regarding regulations in the transition
period so that development would not be stopped and jobs
lost because of industries that could not get permits. He
wondered whether regulations could be adopted that would
assist in the transition.
10:15:49 AM
Commissioner Hartig began his reply by providing background
facts. He pointed out that the approximately 100
applications received each month were about 50 percent
state and 50 percent federal projects. He defined "state
projects" as those requiring only state permits. The
federal projects had a combination of two things: federal
actions where a federal agency proposed to do a lease, or a
federal-permitted project where someone wanted to do a
project but needed a federally-issued permit, such as
Shell's project on the OCS.
Commissioner Hartig detailed that for the federal projects,
with a coastal management program, the federal agencies
were required by law to have the consistency determination
before they could issue a final permit. As far as
transition language, SB 45 would not require the state to
continue consistency review determinations for state
projects, but it would require the review for federal
projects. He believed the reality was that (given the
workload) a majority of the consistency reviews for state
projects were actually not done by the DEC Division of
Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM); the reviews were done
by the state agency or division that had primary
responsibility for the permit that would be issued.
However, DCOM had to conduct the consistency reviews for
the federal projects, which made up the bulk of its
workload and tended to be more complicated.
Commissioner Hartig believed the interim language in SB 45
that would take away the duty to conduct reviews on federal
projects would not affect the workload. He noted that the
federal agencies had to have the consistency review in
order to issue federal permits. Adopting provisions (either
through statute or regulation) allowing DCOM to suspend
doing the consistency reviews for federal projects would
violate federal law and would open the state to the risk of
litigation.
Commissioner Hartig addressed another option that had been
considered, for DCOM to decide simply not to act on the
application from the federal agency, which would then be
deemed consistent under federal law. Still another option
would be trying to put something in place such as a simple
state review for consistency, such as a complete
questionnaire. He warned that at that point, there would be
only a shell of a program; from a public perspective, he
considered the option as paying people to accomplish
nothing. He reported that they did not consider the option
legally defensible. A review of all different options
resulted in the realization that there was no real way to
suspend federal projects for a period, as could be done
with state projects.
10:19:38 AM
Representative Costello asked whether legal challenges were
expected in the event that the legislature was able to
resurrect the program. She recalled past committee
discussion related to increasing funding for legal defense.
Attorney General Burns thought that she was asking two
questions. First, the current discussion had been focused
more on the transition and the sunset provision. He
acknowledged that there were substantive concerns relative
to the language itself. Related to the first issue, he had
tried to outline some of the possible areas of concern from
a legal perspective. He pointed out that a complete review
had not been done to see whether the state had immunity
from certain types of lawsuits, what would happen if there
was a gap period, and possible consequences to suspending
state versus federal reviews that could result in equal
protection or due process challenges. He believed there
were multiple uncertainties, depending on which variable
was changed. He stressed that there were legal concerns.
Attorney General Burns turned to the second issue, related
to the substance of SB 45. He directed attention to page
14, Section 20. He noted that he had proposed language to
correct some of the items. For example, Section 20
addressed the definition of "aggregate evidence," which
"means the most complete and competent information
available."
10:23:06 AM
Attorney General Burns questioned what the language meant.
He noted that agencies did not make the determination, but
made determination based on the evidence and data
available, and then exercised discretion. In a review, the
standard used was an abuse of discretion standard. A
definition requiring that the information had to be the
most complete and competent available raised the question
whether every review would require DCOM or the coastal
districts to "scour" all the data; the situation would
require a proof requirement, which could subject the
process to potential litigation. He argued that a problem
would be created, but that language changes could fix the
problem.
Attorney General Burns pointed to another issue in Section
20 related to "data that are obtained through the
scientific method." He did not believe the only
consideration should be the scientific method; there were
other methods available and he felt alternative sources
should be allowed for.
Attorney General Burns reiterated concerns that the
language could open the state in coastal districts to
significant litigation because of its specificity. He
preferred language allowing the department to determine
what was reliable and relevant, which would be a more
quantitative assessment. He stated that the concerns were
twofold. First, there was concern regarding what would
happen in the event that the legislature tried to fix
elements of the transition; there were also concerns with
the substantive language of the bill itself.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Representative Kerttula was not
a member of the House Finance Committee, but two minority
members were absent and she had been asked to join the
committee table [as House Minority Leader].
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA informed the committee that
she had been present in Washington, D.C. for the
presentation about marine spatial planning. She reported
that all of the Alaskans present were surprised by the lack
of specificity about what the federal government wanted
done. She had asked why coastal zone management was not
being used as a program, as it had a lot of history with
the state and the federal governments. She stated that she
shared grave concerns about marine spatial planning in
Alaska with Alaska's U.S. senators and their staffs. Given
that, she felt much more resolved to save a program that
the state had experience with and understanding of.
Representative Kerttula pointed out that coastal management
was the law in Alaska. She thought the legislature had been
put in an awkward position because of the state Senate's
recent adjournment. She hoped that the legislature could
figure out a way to define terms and create a transition
through regulation. She understood concerns about the
broadness of completeness, but noted that the state had had
terms (such as due deference) under coastal zone management
for a long time that depended on regulation. She assumed
that the issues could be resolved for the interim period
through regulation and that the rest could be resolved
during the following regular legislative session.
10:28:36 AM
Representative Kerttula recalled work done in the House
Finance Committee DNR subcommittee during the past regular
session; DNR had a big permit backlog and money had been
put into the budget to resolve it. She believed DNR, DEC,
and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) had great
expertise in working on coastal zone management. She asked
whether some of the staff from those agencies could be
pulled together along with hiring a contractor or two to
assist in a transition, as the state had done in other
similar situations.
Commissioner Hartig responded that ACMP was not a big
program for DEC; Gary Mendivil [program coordinator for the
DEC Office of the Commissioner] oversaw many other
different permitting activities besides ACMP, and there was
only one other person who worked on the program. He pointed
out that DFG and the Division of Land, Mining, and Water at
DNR did a lot of the work, but he did not know how many
people were involved.
Representative Kerttula recommended pulling from the
existing expertise of state agencies to get the program
through the critical time. She had heard from coastal
districts that were shocked that the funding had been
suddenly stopped. She asked whether staff was communicating
with the applicants during the month's wind-down to avoid
legal challenges.
Attorney General Burns replied that DOL had been dealing
with various legal implications, but the implications
continued to change as variables were shifted. He added
that he did not have direct experience with the individual
applicants.
Commissioner Hartig added that DCOM had sent out a list of
instructions and timelines to employees, agencies, local
districts, and potential permittees about how the program
would be wound down. He thought the uncertainty was related
to whether the program would ultimately be continued and in
what form. He did not think that there could be a firm
answer.
10:32:34 AM
Representative Kerttula thought he was wise not to say the
issue would be resolved one way or the other. She believed
there was enough staff in agencies to overcome the
transitional challenges if the program survived. She
acknowledged that there were a lot of applications, but she
argued that many of them could be simple and routine.
Representative Kerttula referred to federal consistency.
She knew the state could be allowed to comment under NEPA
and other acts. She thought the strength of federal
consistency was related to federal projects on federal land
and water where there was no other jurisdictional hook. She
believed the state was able to have a strong say through
AMCP. She referred to discussion about the oil spill
contingency plan issue. She believed Alaska had a strong
say through the granting of power from the federal
government.
Commissioner Hartig responded that the state was very
active in the described arena. He added that it was not
just about having more say on federal actions, but included
the issue of international traffic through state waters,
which was currently a big consideration on the OCS. He said
the state was spending a lot of time on oil spill
prevention and protection and other avenues. He agreed it
was important to have the hook through ACMP, but pointed
out that the state would still be engaged without the
program.
Representative Kerttula believed the program was the best
way to have the power. She stated that it would be a shame
for the largest coastline in the nation not to have a
coastal zone program. She noted that discussions with the
federal government about the gap and funding had revealed
that the federal government was engaged in helping the
state through the transition. She reiterated her desire to
save the program.
10:35:52 AM
Representative Edgmon expressed confusion and reviewed the
various actions taken on the issue:
· The legislature adjourned and was followed by a
special session;
· A May 14 letter went out to the coastal resource
service areas (CRSAs);
· A May 26 communication followed to cease ACMP funding
in a five-day time period (May 26 to May 31);
· On June 3, the department elected not to apply for the
federal funding; and
· The July 9 date marking the 21-day period and stopping
all applications.
Representative Edgmon believed there were not enough votes
to reauthorize the program and that it would end. He did
not believe the program would be resurrected. He was
confused because it was not clear what the loss of the
program would entail. He stressed that there were many
unknowns. He pointed out that local CRSAs in his district
felt the program was useful and valuable. He thought the
issue of local input was very important.
Representative Edgmon asked why the legislature had not
been aware of the urgency of the situation much earlier,
which would have resulted in coastal districts being more
involved in keeping the program alive. He felt there had
been lukewarm support of the program all along.
Representative Edgmon voiced disappointment about the lack
of reference to the loss of local input in statements made
by Attorney General Burns. He did not want a valuable
program to close and leave the state in an unknown
situation.
10:39:03 AM
Attorney General Burns commented that the Op-Ed piece
referred to had intended to provide a balanced perspective
as to options from the standpoint of a voice. He had wanted
to make clear that the loss of ACMP would mean a challenge
for the state. He believed he had made clear in the Op-Ed
piece that the sunset of ACMP would result in state
agencies and communities losing the ability to adopt
enforceable policies. He did not know what the ultimate
result of losing the program would be; he thought it would
present a challenge, but felt the state had to fully
embrace the challenge. He wanted the state to look at
options for continuing the dialogue. He did believe the
state had to lose its voice if it lost ACMP, but local
communities, the legislature, and the administration had to
remain in dialogue to retain the voice.
Attorney General Burns referred to discussions and battles
related to federal regulatory oversight. He noted that the
issue was not only related to litigation, which was only
one of the tools. He emphasized the importance of dialogue.
Representative Edgmon referred to the Op-Ed piece and the
description of a substitute program that could be put in
place that would allow the administration to better track
the rule-making process, including the standards,
designations, and federal actions. The ability would allow
the administration to put together a model that would work
with community organizations and help better coordinate
with the state's resource-development agencies and the 12
to 14 federal agencies that the ACMP helped coordinate. He
questioned the political reasons ACMP had been lost, and
why the legislature had not known earlier about the value
of the program and the ramifications of its loss.
Attorney General Burns responded that he was not in a
position to comment on the political reasons for the loss
of ACMP. He knew that the program had been in the state
since the 1970s and had come before the legislature and
been debated on numerous occasions, including through the
vehicle of HB 106. He believed the House was aware of the
issue. He maintained that the administration had been fully
engaged at all times, and that the engagement was not
lukewarm. He thought the sunset provision addressed
practical realities. He believed there was no point in
having a program that was not functioning to do what it had
been designed to do.
Representative Edgmon asked what would happen to the
coastal impact assistance program and the money attached to
the program.
10:44:30 AM
Commissioner Hartig replied that the program and the
funding stream would remain. He explained that the monies
came through the federal leasing programs; if there was a
big federal lease sale on the OCS, a certain amount of
lease revenues were generated and distributed to the
affected communities according to formula. He added at DCOM
(which oversaw ACMP) had coordinated the effort in the
past, but the program itself was not tied to ACMP in any
way. He assured the committee that the funding and
opportunity to apply for projects would still be there. He
added that any effect because of the decline in DCOM
staffing would get addressed.
Representative Neuman noted that he had gotten involved in
the issue about three years prior as the co-chair of the
House Resources Committee. He had spoken to ACMP staff
frequently and had spent time listening and trying to
understand the issues.
Representative Neuman referred to the discussion about
consistency reviews, the transition, and reservations that
DEC had had. He knew that former director Mr. Bates had
spent a considerable amount of time with communities trying
to create a program that worked, and had made suggestions
to the administration. He questioned what happened to the
suggestions.
Representative Neuman relayed problems people in his
district had had getting permits for simple projects; for
example, it had taken 60 to 70 days to get a permit through
the process to replace two stair treads on a set of steps
going down to a lake, jobs were lost through another
program, and another person had been stopped from
transporting house-building materials over state land,
resulting in the inability to construct the house that
season.
10:47:55 AM
Representative Neuman thought the current program had many
problems. He did not feel the program was fully supported
by the administration. He referred to testimony that the
program was decimated and that there was a backlog. He
reported that he had been engaged with the spatial planning
discussion by the National Ocean Commission and knew how it
would affect the state. He wanted to focus on solutions and
how to assure the citizens of communities that the state
would be engaged, address the concerns, and allow them to
participate in the discussion. He questioned how to move
forward in a practical manner.
Commissioner Hartig replied that there had to be a general
vision of a goal as a starting point, and then consensus
had to be built around the goal. He suggested that the
legislature work with the administration about the goal of
the program, and then build the discussion through public
workshops and meetings about the key elements needed. The
agencies should then build a proposal for the stakeholders,
the legislature, and the administration to review. He
believed that HB 106 could be a starting point for the
process.
Commissioner Hartig pointed out that sunsetting the program
did not preclude other opportunities; he hoped sunsetting
would not cause people to back away from the discussion. He
noted that other programs had been built in the manner he
described. One of the challenges that had been recognized
during the regular session was the amount of distrust that
existed; people were unwilling to talk with each other.
There had been a breakthrough when the North Slope Borough
and industry communicated with the administration with the
help of key legislators. He recommended that all involved
keep moving forward.
10:52:11 AM
Attorney General Burns agreed. He referred to communication
with the North Slope Borough about critical habitat issues.
He had been struck with the level of distrust; he felt
progress was only made when people moved beyond distrust
and engaged in conversation.
Representative Neuman asked whether the commissioners had
discussed together what would happen next and how the state
would move forward.
Commissioner Hartig replied that since they did not know
what would happen with ACMP, he felt it would have been
premature to talk about a new program. He reported that
there had been many discussions about concerns voiced by
local districts and other stakeholders and how to enhance
the other public permitting processes at state and local
levels, as well as how to engage local groups with the
federal agencies.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there would be a significant
amount of public testimony on SB 45.
10:56:02 AM
Representative Wilson asked whether there were states in
the country without a coastal management program.
Attorney General Burns did not know, although he knew there
were non-coastal communities that did not have the program
but had the same opportunity for input that Alaska would
have without an ACMP.
Representative Wilson recalled communication received about
the issue and asked whether other groups in the country
were solving the problems Alaska was facing so that Alaska
could benefit from what they had learned.
Representative Gara believed that Illinois had been the
last state in the country not to have a program, and that
its program had just been approved. He stated that Alaska
would be the only state without a program.
Representative Gara summarized that if ACMP was lost, state
policies would be enforced in coastal zone areas through
NEPA. He thought NEPA was a weak alternative, as under it,
the federal government only had to ask for public comments
and prove that the comments were considered before making a
decision. He referred to past complaints about NEPA, which
he viewed as a much weaker way for the state to have a
voice than a law that enforced state policy.
Attorney General Burns agreed that NEPA, like the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), mandated the
opportunity for a public voice. He reported that the state
had recently sought opportunities to increase the state's
participation in the federal agency process through trying
to qualify for cooperating agency status under NEPA, which
would provide the state with a more elevated position in
the process.
Commissioner Hartig agreed that NEPA was a process-oriented
statute and was not substantive, while ACMP was both. Under
ACMP, there could be enforceable policies that set
standards not existing under federal law; NEPA focused on
process coordination.
Representative Gara read from a May 25, 2011 letter from
U.S. Senator Mark Begich, stating that in the areas where
the coastal zone policy applied,
the partnership ensures state and local interests are
addressed in managing coastal resources and requires
federal actions to be consistent with state policies
if the state has an approved program.
Representative Gara asked whether the letter was a fair
summary of the coastal zone policy.
Attorney General Burns believed the summary was accurate.
Representative Gara continued reading from the Begich
letter, which said that without the coastal zone policy,
federal authorities would no longer be required to
ensure their actions in areas such as aquaculture, oil
spill response, forestry, and mining are consistent
with state policies as the current coastal zone
policy.
11:00:34 AM
Attorney General Burns responded that [federal authorities]
did not have to assure that proposals were consistent, but
they were still obligated under APA and NEPA to issue
regulations and invite public comment.
Representative Gara believed there was a big difference
between a law that allowed the public to comment but then
ignored the comment, and a law (ACMP) that made state
policies enforceable. He argued that the loss of ACMP would
represent a big loss of state sovereignty.
Representative Gara addressed claims that the state could
not make the program work. He assumed that there were not
state employees breaking the law. Currently, because of
lack of staff, applicants did not have to go through the
coastal zone consistency process. He assumed that the same
thing could be done through SB 45; until the program was
ramped up, applicants would not have to go through the
coastal zone consistency process until a certain time, or
other transitional regulations could be adopted to allow
development to move forward. He believed there should be
ways to make the transition work.
Attorney General Burns clarified that the consistency
review did not take the place of the requirement that the
applicants meet the permit requirements. Applicants had to
meet all permit requirements, regardless of whether a
consistency review was done. He claimed that sunsetting the
program would not violate federal law. The dilemma related
to violating federal regulations and possible litigation
would come in if a transition plan allowed the picking and
choosing of which items would apply or suspended the
requirement to do any.
11:04:12 AM
Attorney General Burns believed Representative Gara was
saying that one of the options was to keep the program, and
say that the requirements had to be met because it was
federally sanctioned. However, if the program remained and
nothing was done, the state would clearly be in violation.
He believed those were the issues that had to be struggled
through.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to a past House Finance Committee
hearing.
11:05:27 AM
RECESSED
11:19:43 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed housekeeping and OPENED public
testimony.
11:20:24 AM
ALICE RUBY, CHAIR, BRISTOL BAY COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE
AREA BOARD, and MAYOR, CITY OF DILLINGHAM (via
teleconference), testified in support of the
reauthorization of ACMP. She reported that she had been on
the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) Board
for over twenty years. She stressed that having ACMP had
allowed the state to have a seat directly at the table in
considering permits and other activities. Her district did
not have an organized borough and relied on the state for
representation on development issues, both pro-development
and pro-resource. She felt that relying on the NEPA process
would set the process back and that her district would lose
its voice.
Ms. Ruby did not believe it was too late to revive the
program. She asserted that the boards, offices, staff, and
active citizens in coastal districts would go away if the
program was allowed to lapse. Her board was still
functioning; the landlord had agreed to let them stay in
their office until the issue was settled. The board and
staff had been volunteering and were ready and able to
assist the state in reviving the plan. She pointed out that
a lapse would require all the regional plans and
infrastructure to be set up again from scratch.
Ms. Ruby did not want to lose strong say by the state
(deference) in regions without organized boroughs. She
believed allowing the program to lapse would be a disaster.
11:26:15 AM
FRANK KELTY, CHAIR, ALEUTIANS WEST COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE
AREA (via teleconference), testified in support of saving
the ACMP. He noted that Dutch Harbor in Unalaska was the
number one commercial fishing port in the nation. He
described the various important fisheries that took place
in his region and stressed that the region depended on the
resource. He stated that it was necessary for his area,
which was unorganized, to have a seat at the table on
development issues.
Mr. Kelty stated that people were keeping track of the
National Oceans Council and the marine spatial planning
program, which would be zoning the coastlines of Alaska. He
strongly urged the state to maintain its place at the table
in coastal management discussions and stressed the need for
local input.
Mr. Kelty agreed with Representative Kerttula that the
state had the resources to put the program back together.
11:30:28 AM
MARV SMITH, MANAGER, BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH (via
teleconference), strongly urged support for the retention
of the coastal management program. He thought that the cost
of rewriting each district plan would exceed the cost of
rebuilding and re-staffing the program. He felt the coastal
districts needed a voice at the table.
REBECCA LOGAN, GENERAL MANAGER, ALASKA SUPPORT INDUSTRY
ALLIANCE (via teleconference), testified on behalf of 460
member companies against moving the bill out of committee.
She noted that the alliance president Mark Hylen had sent a
letter detailing their position (copy on file). She
expressed concerns about the ability of a reduced staff to
review permits in a timely fashion and about the delay of
future projects. The organization wanted more clarity about
the term "aggregate evidence," which they feared opened the
door for litigation and delay. She stressed that delays
meant job loss for members.
11:33:59 AM
BILL JEFFRESS, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference), testified against the passage of SB 45. He
cited experience as a former director of the state's office
of project management and permitting. He stated that the
program had had conflicts between the district CRSAs, DCOM,
and industry. He thought HB 106 had been a good bill. He
felt that SB 45 was a sub-optimal bill. He referred to a
letter sent by Director Steve Borell to the committee
detailing the association's stance (not on file).
Mr. Jeffress believed that the best resource that DCOM had
in ACMP was the experience of the staff. He noted that CRSA
directors also had a lot of experience with regulations and
issues. Although DCOM did not issue permits, it largely
controlled the timelines for permitting. He disagreed that
the program would take six months to get up and running
again; he believed from his experience that it would take
longer and cost the coastal areas significantly. He pointed
out that 82 percent of the state's population resided in
coastal areas and 84 percent of economic development was in
the areas. He felt that projects would be delayed, which
would be bad for industry.
Mr. Jeffress described the application process, and thought
there could be a serious lag. The investment companies that
he worked with would not want to work in the state. He
stressed that not only the mining industry would be
affected, but many small businesses. He emphasized that
most state permits had a federal element because of
wetlands and the Rivers and Harbors Act. He wanted to spend
the next two years developing a new program rather than
reinstating the current one.
11:41:12 AM
CELESTE NOVAK, DIRECTOR, BRISTOL BAY CRSA PROGRAM (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She
stated that former ACMP director Randy Bates had given a
limited overview of the program to the legislature during
the regular session. She noted that in the past, the ACMP
statewide conference had been held in Juneau in the spring,
which would have given people who work in the program a
chance to speak directly to legislators; the meeting had
been moved to Anchorage in May 2011. She felt the change
had been made to deter contact with legislators. She felt
that the governor had wanted to end the program.
Ms. Novak referenced a May 25 email to the Bristol Bay CRSA
from Mr. Bates stating that they were legally obligated to
continue the Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) process
[consistency certification questionnaire] until the end of
the program on June 30. Two days later, on May 27 (right
before the Memorial Day weekend holiday) they received a
stop-work order for May 31. In her opinion, the actions
were an indication that someone was trying to stop the
program.
Ms. Novak believed there were a number of options related
to keeping staff, including a temporary assignment for
former ACMP staff and other staff that were still working
(without pay) to ensure the information needed to make the
policy decision was available. She opined that current
projects could be allowed to become consistent in 90 days
without a finding, as provided in AS 46.40.096(n). She
believed litigation was not an issue, as citizen lawsuits
had been eliminated in 2003; review participants could
litigate, but rarely had.
Ms. Novak referred to administration testimony in the media
and presentations made to various organizations
communicating that the state would not lose much if ACMP
were shut down. She pointed out that the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) was the only program with state and
local enforceable policies that federal agencies had to
follow. She noted a "muddled response" to a question about
the state's enforceable policies needing to be re-
submitted; she argued that nothing would have to be re-
submitted if SB 45 passed.
Ms. Novak referred to a $500,000 grant approved for the
Bristol Bay Region; there was no one to disburse and
administer the grant.
Ms. Novak asked why the state grant application was not
filed with the federal government. She questioned the usual
date the grant was filed.
Ms. Novak informed the committee that DCOM had not given
clear instructions for the wind-down. She did not think the
program had been running smoothly.
11:49:09 AM
Representative Gara asked whether the coastal zone
management program had sped up the permitting process.
Ms. Novak responded in the affirmative. She stated that the
CPQ afforded the opportunity to review permits that would
be required for whatever project that was being worked on.
Her organization was able to help people streamline the
process. For example, if there was going to be an issue
with subsistence related to the repeater stations proposed
for fiber optic infrastructure, the program could help
alter timelines to lessen the impact. She felt that losing
the program would mean losing the thousands of lifestyles
that rely on the program to have a voice.
11:50:17 AM
GARY HICKLING, ALASKAN RESIDENT (via teleconference),
testified against the legislation. He thought that the
coastal management program was a "job killing program"
because it was an additional layer of bureaucracy. He felt
that the program stopped mining projects. He suggested that
the legislature review the Alaska Constitution and let its
simplicity inform decisions. He pointed to Article VIII,
Section 1: "It is the policy of the State to encourage the
settlement of its land and the development of its resources
by making them available for maximum use consistent with
the public interest." He added that Section 2 of the same
article read that "the legislature shall provide for the
utilization, development, and conservation of all natural
resources belonging to the State, including land and
waters, for the maximum benefit of its people."
Mr. Hickling noted that people in Bristol Bay might not
like the Pebble Mine, but they would get the jobs and other
benefits the mine would generate. He believed the
government should not stop jobs but put people to work. He
believed every layer of bureaucracy made it more difficult
to get projects going, which were needed especially in
areas in the state without jobs and the resulting social
ills. He reiterated concerns about the size of bureaucracy
in the state.
ART ALLEN, ALASKAN RESIDENT (via teleconference), urged
support of the coastal management program and the passage
if SB 45.
Mr. Allen believed the ACMP provided people in outlying
communities with opportunities to be heard about coastal
management projects.
11:58:08 AM
MICHELLE RIDGEWAY, MARINE ECOLOGIST, JUNEAU, testified in
support of the program and the passage of SB 45. She echoed
the testimony of Mr. Kelty from Dutch Harbor; she believed
he had explained the value of the program to people who
relied on it to advance programs that were vital for
employment to coastal communities. She had served on the on
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for over a
decade and had heard testimony from hundreds of Alaskans
that the program had directly benefited Alaskan residents
and industry. She assured the committee that the federal
fishery management program had benefitted tremendously from
the direct input of coastal residents that depended on
fisheries and associated activities.
Ms. Ridgeway reported that she was currently serving on the
federal advisory committee for marine protected areas and
on a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning subcommittee
because she strongly felt that Alaskans had to have a voice
at the table during discussions concerning coastal land
management.
Ms. Ridgeway noted that she had had direct experience with
ACMP and had served as a consulting biologist for mining
companies and government agencies. She highlighted the
value of the program in bringing groups together to create
synergy when considering specific projects. She thought
that allowing the program to stop would leave Alaskans
without a vehicle for participating in discussions with the
federal government about coastal issues. She urged
restarting the program.
12:03:43 PM
MARILYN CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION (AOGA), spoke to concerns about SB 45. She
stated that AOGA represented oil and gas producers and
explorers, the three in-state refineries, and Alyeska
Pipeline, as well as a couple of new players. She had
closely followed ACMP issues from its inception. She stated
that AOGA supported a program that had predictability and
certainty.
Ms. Crockett listed concerns about what would happen during
the transition. She believed SB 45 would leave the current
program in place and the changes would apply in July 2012.
She stated that the association was "extremely concerned"
about not having the resources in the state to process
consistency determination applications. She emphasized that
AOGA members would not proceed with operations if the
statutes and regulations required them to have the piece of
paper.
Ms. Crockett detailed that operations and projects would be
delayed. She noted that operations were conducted on a
seasonal basis, with construction in the summer and
operations in the winter. She did not believe that the
applications would be processed in time for the summer
activity even if the applications could be processed with
the limited staff at ACMP. She noted that the activities
required a federal permit of some kind; there were serious
concerns about the federal component, especially the OCS
component. She pointed out that Shell had exploration plans
for the Beaufort Sea; the required documents were lengthy,
technical ones that would take time and expertise to
process. The timelines for Shell and other offshore
projects were very specific and the project could easily
die based on missing a deadline.
Ms. Crockett stated concerns about what would happen on
July 1, given the language in SB 45. She detailed that AOGA
supported a coastal management program that met two
criteria: the certainty of the timing for permit issuance
and consistency determinations, and the ability to predict
what the process would be.
Representative Joule stated that he used the same criteria
when he supported development.
12:08:03 PM
Representative Gara believed things would speed up once the
program was up and running because of coordinated
permitting; once that was lost, the state would be subject
to the whims of federal government. He asked whether the
program would help development through coordinated
permitting.
Ms. Crockett replied that the coordination process through
ACMP was an important component, but less critical for oil
and gas operations. She referred to previous testimony
related to how ACMP provided resources to individuals and
companies that did not understand the permitting process;
she believed the function was valuable for companies that
did not routinely operate in Alaska. However, the oil and
gas companies had a long history of operating in the state
and had expertise and familiarity with the process. She
noted that AOGA members formed the largest component of
consistency determinations. She believed the function was
important, but not critical.
Representative Gara stated concerns related to a state oil-
spill contingency plan applying under the ACMP; the state
could craft a strong plan that was better than federal
requirements. He asked whether losing ACMP and stronger
oil-spill plans would negatively affect offshore
development.
Ms. Crockett responded that she was not as concerned about
the issue currently as she would have been two years prior.
She thought the federal requirements would continue to be
lowered and that the federal government would seriously
consider comments submitted by Alaska's governor and local
communities related to a plan of exploration.
Representative Gara argued that state contingency plans
have been much stronger and gave the state the best chance
of developing offshore.
Representative Wilson asked whether AOGA had been in favor
of HB 106.
Ms. Crockett replied that AOGA had been neutral on HB 106,
which was a different stance than other trade associations.
She added that AOGA had concerns that unanticipated
consequences would be experienced when HB 106 was
implemented. She stated that AOGA wanted to see coastal
zone management work in Alaska, but not at the risk of its
operations. They were not convinced that HB 106 would
accomplish its goals, but not to the degree that they
opposed it.
Representative Joule pointed out that the neutral stance
had been important.
12:12:46 PM
KELLEY WALTERS, ALASKAN RESIDENT (via teleconference),
voiced support for SB 45. He expressed concerns,
particularly about testimony by the Bristol Bay CRSA about
the program being shut down over Memorial Day weekend. He
did not want Alaska, the state with the largest coastline
in the country, to be left without a coastal management
program. He believed that the administration was
surrendering the sovereignty of the state to the federal
government.
Mr. Walters wondered how the state would recover the many
of millions of dollars that Alaska could lose without a
coastal management plan. He pointed to other coastal states
with plans that shared in the federal government's revenue,
as much as 30 to 35 percent. He questioned the cost of the
special session and the political uncertainties. He hoped
that the House could show that it was not an extension of
the Parnell Administration. He felt the governor was
planning to veto the bill.
Mr. Walters shared concerns about the Pebble Mine and
building the largest open-pit dam on the planet in a
volcanic and earthquake seismic area. He thought the input
of Bristol Bay and other coastal Alaskans was needed.
12:18:12 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Hawker offered clarification to the recent
testimony related to risks of sharing revenues from the oil
and gas industry with the federal government. He stated
that the state's royalty-sharing agreements and revenue
sharing would not be affected by the ACMP changes. However,
some amount of federal funding was at stake through grants
that were available for operating activities within the
various regions of the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed significant effort had been made
by the administration related to state sovereignty.
12:20:07 PM
RECESS
3:09:42 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze mentioned three fiscal notes, two from DEC
and one from DNR.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that the fiscal note originally
prepared by the Senate Finance Committee included some
money that was a duplicate of something already
appropriated in the capital budget, which explained the
difference.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED that the committee adopt the three
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSSB 45(CRA)am (27-GS
1965\B.A) out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Neuman OBJECTED. He did not feel the
legislation was ready to move forward.
Co-Chair Hawker recommended that the committee move the
bill and noted that he would make a "do not pass"
recommendation on the committee report sheet. He thought
the issue merited the full vote of the House.
Representative Gara stated that he would support the bill
moving out of committee so that there would be a full
debate on the House floor. He acknowledged and supported
the right of any committee member to call for a vote in the
committee. He thought that the public deserved a full
debate and vote on the House floor. He pointed out that 27
representatives had voted to come to a special session.
Representative Gara referred to prior testimony regarding
what would happen if coastal management people were not
hired back quickly. He believed there were many creative
ways to get the program running quickly again, but pointed
to a statute stipulating that someone filing a complete
application was entitled to a "yes" or "no" answer within
90 days; if they did not get the "yes" or "no" within the
90 days, they would get the consistency review approval. He
stressed that any one filing a complete application would
get approval in 90 days if the state did not hire back any
staff.
3:15:45 PM
Representative Gara noted that the governor had stated that
the bill was a "job killer." He saw the bill as a job
creator; ACMP would speed up permitting, was one of the few
areas of the state with coordinated permitting, and
permitting would be under state law instead of more
stringent federal law. In addition, there would be a local
voice. He argued that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline had been
constructed and the North Slope and Cook Inlet had been
developed under a more stringent coastal zone program than
proposed by SB 45.
Co-Chair Hawker commented that the statement about an
application being approved after 90 days was partially
correct when relating to state-only permits, but was not
accurate related to federal project permits. More
importantly, the 90-day clock would only begin running
after the department determined that there was a completed
application on file. The department had a separate
timeframe for completing the pre-compliance determinations.
3:18:41 PM
Representative Costello stated that she would vote to move
the bill out of committee and save her true feelings for
the vote on the floor.
Co-Chair Thomas stated that the bill was poorly presented
and lacked back-up information, sectional analysis, and a
sponsor statement. He stated that the bill should be moved
forward to allow for debate on the floor. He emphasized
that he did not like the presentation; the administration
had not presented their own bill, they only spoke in
opposition to a bill. He thought good public policy was
lacking.
Representative Wilson appreciated the vetting of the bill
in the committee. She felt that the bill was bad for
Alaska. She expressed disappointment in the bill and said
she would vote against moving it out of committee.
3:20:53 PM
Representative Gara responded to Co-Chair Hawker regarding
the timelines for completed applications. He stated that
the completed application point was the trigger; an
applicant had only to file a completed application and
would get the permit within 90 days if they did not have an
answer. He believed a smart applicant would file a
completed application.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would support moving the
bill out of committee, with some of the same reservations
already voiced.
Representative Neuman MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to the
motion to move the bill from committee.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Joule, Costello, Edgmon, Hawker, Gara, Thomas,
Stoltze
OPPOSED: Neuman, Wilson
Representatives Fairclough, Doogan, and Guttenberg were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7/2).
CSSB 45(CRA)am was REPORTED out of committee with a "do not
pass" recommendation, two new fiscal impact notes by the
Department of Environmental Conservation, and one new
fiscal impact note by the Department of Natural Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 45 Letters.pdf |
HFIN 6/28/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 45 |
| NEW FN SB 45SCS(CRA)-DEC-WQ-06-28-11.pdf |
HFIN 6/28/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 45 |
| NEW FN SB 45 SCS(CRA)-DEC-CO-06-28-11.pdf |
HFIN 6/28/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 45 |
| NEW FN SB45 (CRA)am-DNR-DCOM-06-28-2011.pdf |
HFIN 6/28/2011 9:00:00 AM |
SB 45 |