Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/07/2011 09:00 AM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| 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 | |
SB 45-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
9:08:24 AM
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 45.
9:08:36 AM
SENATOR ELLIS [moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 45( ), labeled 27-GS1965\B, as the working document.] Hearing
no objection, version B was before the committee.
9:09:01 AM
CHAIR OLSON, commented that a lot of testimony has been heard
from coastal districts on issues with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP). He noted that the Senate Community
and Regional Affairs committee (SCRA) heard similar testimony in
2007 [25th Alaska State Legislature] with the introduction of SB
161 and in 2009 [26th Alaska State Legislature] with the
introduction of SB 4. He noted that these previous bills
attempted to improve the coastal districts' participation in the
program and both bills were forwarded from SCRA with a "do pass"
recommendation. He explained that SB 45 has many provisions from
earlier bills and includes the recommendations of the
Legislative Audit Division and many of the suggestions from the
2008 evaluation by the United States Department of Commerce's
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
9:09:44 AM
DAVID SCOTT, Staff to Senator Donny Olson, said version B is
very different than the original bill, proposed by the governor.
He noted that the governor's provisions are also included in the
CS. He explained that version B does three things: establishes a
Coastal Policy Board, eliminates the designated area
requirement, and includes various process changes to alleviate
some of the coastal districts' concerns and frustrations that
currently exist with the program.
He continued by providing a sectional analysis of version B:
Section 1 extends the Alaska Coastal Management Program to 2017.
He added that this extension was proposed by the governor.
Section 2 establishes the Alaska Coastal Policy Board.
Section 3 requires an annual report from the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), which would update the department's
progress in drafting and adopting regulations to ACMP.
Section 4 adds the Alaska Coastal Policy Board to the entities
that DNR can work and consult with.
Section 5 states that DNR must provide planning and consistency
review data to coastal resource districts and annually solicit
issues for discussion from the Alaska Costal Policy Board.
Section 6 states that if DNR provides funds which include
restrictions on how the funds are to be spent, it will specify
the state statute or federal regulation requiring the
restriction.
Section 7 requires that a district's costal management plans
must not conflict with statewide standards.
Section 8 requires that the enforceable policies of a district's
management plan apply to all the land and water. He noted that
this is the "heart" of getting rid of the designated area
requirement.
Section 9 retains the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) Carve-out. He explained that it also changes the term
"areas of the coast that merit special attention" to "special
management areas".
He explained that if a coastal district submits a plan for
approval and DNR does not accept it, the plan would then go to
the Alaska Coastal Policy Board for review. Section 10 and 11
lay out that process.
Section 12 requires DNR to approve a coastal district plan if it
does not conflict with statewide standards or the enforceable
policies do not duplicate federal or state law.
Section 13 requires the department to allow members of either
the governing body of a coastal district or the coastal resource
service areas to participate in the consistency reviews.
Section 14 states that the commissioners of Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, DEC, and DNR conduct elevations of consistency
determinations.
Section 15 specifies that the 90-day consistency determination
is suspended if there is an elevation.
Section 16 defines a "reviewing entity" as one of the three
resource agencies.
Section 17 requires that modifications to a coastal plan may not
be inconsistent with the statewide standards.
Section 18 defines "elevation" and "special management area".
Section 19 includes a sunset for the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board.
Section 20 changes the definition of "area which merits special
attention" to "special management area".
Section 21 includes standard transition provisions for a board,
which can be seen throughout the legislation.
Section 22 provides that if SB 45 does not become law by the
sunset date and the program terminates, that it may be revived.
Section 23-25 includes conditional sunset language.
Section 26 includes an immediate effective date.
9:15:52 AM
SENATOR MENARD noted that she is happy to see that the version B
addresses the concerns of her constituents, in particular
reinstating the Alaska Coastal Policy Board. She turned to
Section 13 on page 11, lines 10-11, of the CS which deals with
public notice and comment. She emphasized the importance of
public notices being published in local areas affected as
opposed to only on the internet. She asked if this has been
discussed.
MR. SCOTT replied that the language in this section is a
duplicate of the language in the bill passed by the House, HB
106. He noted that a fairly lengthy discussion occurred on
getting notices and information out to communities in the House
Resources Standing Committee.
CHAIR OLSON commented that in rural Alaska there isn't internet
and the only way to get these meetings posted is in the local
newspaper.
SENATOR MENARD reiterated the importance of having these notices
properly advertised.
SENATOR ELLIS turned to Section 18 on page 13. He asked if
"elevation" is a term of art in this field or if it is a word
that was made up and defined in statute in order to achieve a
goal with regard to this legislation.
MR. SCOTT replied that it is both. He explained that the crux of
ACMP is the consistency revision. The state reviews these
consistencies and if there is an issue from either one of the
three commissioners of the resource departments or a coastal
district, then, at that time, it becomes an elevated issue.
9:20:09 AM
CHAIR OLSON asked Mr. Scott to explain the fiscal notes.
MR. SCOTT replied that there are [four] fiscal notes: one from
DNR, two from DEC, and one from SCRA. He explained that the
fiscal note from the committee reflects what has happened in the
operating budget [HB 106]. He explained that the Senate has
withdrawn funding for the program pending the passage of [HB
108], currently in conference committee. He continued that DNR's
fiscal note (Fiscal Note Number 1) for FY2012 is zero and $4.691
million for the following five years. He explained that for the
committee's fiscal note he took out the zero for FY2012 and
replaced it with $4.691 million.
9:21:53 AM
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), said the governor offered a clean extension of the
program for six years on this particular bill, and this would be
DNR's preference in moving forward on ACMP. He explained that at
this stage in the process, DNR supports moving the bill along
and continuing reviews in order to see what the final product
will ultimately look like.
He explained that, with regard to Senator Menard's question on
public notice, not every community has a newspaper. He said to
ensure that communities are notified, notices can be published
either in the local newspaper or online with notices posted in
three public places in the community. He added that nothing has
been changed by the provisions on page 11 of version B.
SENATOR MENARD said ACMP is slated to have 33 employees. She
asked whether this is an adequate number.
MR. BALASH replied the fiscal note that's been developed
reflects the status-quo, plus any additional personnel that
might be necessary to support increased activities and reviews
that will be necessary. He explained that, for example, there
will be a significant workload in supporting the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board and its meetings and activities. He noted that DNR
needs to make sure that it understands what the rules are. For
example, if the department must supply districts with hardcopy
duplications for a district it will be more expensive; however,
if DNR has the latitude to do so electronically the cost will be
reduced.
9:25:31 AM
FRANK KELTY, Board Chairman, Aleutians West Coastal Resource
Service Area (AWCRSA), said AWCRSA wants ACMP to move forward
and it is very important to the communities in the Aleutians
West. He noted that the board passed a resolution in 2010 in
support of the reauthorization of the plan. He continued that
the board also supports the inclusion of the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board so long as it has a meaningful role. He added that
the House's version [CSHB 106(RES)] does not do this. He spoke
to his involvement with the policy board in past years. He said
AWCRSA believes that the policy board did a good job in the past
and gave residents of the area an opportunity to weigh in on
issues when there were concerns.
CHAIR OLSON noted that there will be plenty of time for review
of the CS and opportunities for public testimony in the future.
9:29:09 AM
BILL JEFFRESS, Alaska Miners Association, said that the
association is still looking for the program to have a
predictable process. He noted that once the association is able
to review the CS it will form a position as to whether to
support it. He cautioned that it is where the "rubber meets the
road that really makes or breaks a program." He explained that
in implementing some of these policies, it is how it is put
together and implemented that will really affect the program
overall.
9:31:22 AM
CHAIR OLSON closed public testimony.
9:31:36 AM
MR. SCOTT said that a lot of work has been put into this bill
and the sunset is coming up this session so something has to
happen.
CHAIR OLSON thanked the House for all of the work it put into
this issue as well.
9:32:09 AM
SENATOR ELLIS moved to report CSSB 45( ), version B, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, CSSB 45(CRA) moved from the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee..
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|