Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/10/2011 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB106 | |
| SB46 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 46 | ||
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 106(FIN)
"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."
1:09:07 PM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed Housekeeping.
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft SCS CSHB
106(FIN) Work Draft version 27-GH1965\H 5/13/11, as a
working document before the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
1:10:47 PM
}David Gray, Staff, Senator Lyman Hoffman{ explained
version H of the bill. He stated that the bill maintained
the House structure of the new coastal policy board: four
commissioners, four representatives from coastal districts
in the four Alaskan regions, and one industry
representative from industries operating in the coastal
zone. He stated that the board would act to review and
provide oversight for the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The department would retain all responsibilities for
program management.
1:12:03 PM
Mr. Gray detailed the Senate changes to the bill. He cited
page 3, line 31 through page 4, line 7. In the House
version, the public members of the board served at the
pleasure of the governor. The Senate version would require
that members be removed for cause only. Causes for removal
were as follows: lack of contribution, neglect of duty,
incompetence, inability to serve, and misconduct. A removal
recommendation could be made by the board or the governor.
The individual up for removal could appeal the removal
recommendation.
Mr. Gray looked at page 8, lines 11 through 16. The
language detailed a new concept for coastal districts to
present enforceable policies. The language stated that the
districts must present a policy that employed the least
restrictive means to achieve its objective. Senate changes
added the factors of: the economic effects of alternative
methods, the technological feasibility of the alternative
methods, and any other relevant factors. The Senate version
recognized that the requirement to provide an economic
analysis could be beyond the means of smaller coastal
districts. The Section had been added to provide
flexibility enough to cater to the needs of each district.
1:14:57 PM
Mr. Gray cited page 10, lines 8 through 12, which had been
amended to read:
* Sec. 13. AS 46.40.060(c) is amended to read:
(c) After the board has reviewed the district
coastal management plan and submitted recommendations
under (b) of this Section [IF, AFTER MEDIATION, THE
DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED], the department
shall enter findings and, by order, may [REQUIRE]
(1) approve the plan or portions of the
plan;
(2) require that the district coastal
management plan be amended to meet [SATISFY] the
provisions of this chapter [OR MEET THE STATEWIDE
STANDARDS] and district plan criteria adopted by the
department;
(3) require [(2)] that the district coastal
management plan be revised to accommodate a use of
state concern; or
(4) require the coastal resource district
to submit additional information if, in the judgment
of the department, additional information is necessary
for the department to approve the plan or portions of
the plan [(3) ANY OTHER ACTION BE TAKEN BY THE COASTAL
RESOURCE DISTRICT AS APPROPRIATE].
Mr. Gray discussed the changes found on page 12, lines 6
through 8. Subsection (d) of the Senate version stated:
(d) Notwithstanding AS 46.40.030(a)(4), in
reviewing and approving a district coastal management
plan under (a) of this Section, the department may not
require a district to designate areas for the purpose
of developing an enforceable policy.
1:16:39 PM
Mr. Gray referred to page 15, section 24. The previous
House version had offered two definitions, one for local
knowledge and one for scientific evidence. The Senate CS
would delete both definitions. Under current regulations
the language "not contradicted by scientific evidence" was
unnecessary.
Mr. Gray looked at page 16, Section 27. The House version
required the policy board to make recommendations to the
legislature concerning clean water and air pertaining to
coastal management determinations. The amended Section
would require a second report from the board every four
years containing an overview of the entire coastal
management program. Finally, the Senate version provided
clear language as to who would be making departmental
decisions in discussions with the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, SCS CSHB106(FIN) Work Draft 27-GH1965\H
5/13/11 was ADOPTED.
1:19:36 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman offered thanks to his staff for crafting
the new version. He believed that the version before the
committee could be agreed to by both bodies.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the two fiscal notes from the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that had
already been adopted by the Conference Committee on the
Operating Budget and looked to the new fiscal note from DNR
for $6,715,800 to cover the cost of the Alaska Coastal
Policy Board and 34 staff positions.
1:20:52 PM
Senator Olson queried the DEC "carve out" had not been
included in the bill.
Co-Chair Stedman requested an explanation of the carve out.
Mr. Gray explained that the DEC carve out required that
nothing pertaining to DEC permitting would be rolled into
coastal zone management program permit overviews.
Essentially, the DEC permits would be automatically
accepted by the coastal zone management program; this
limited the action districts could take concerning coastal
zone management. The federal government had asked the state
to review the carve out in order to allow for more local
participation.
1:22:28 PM
Senator Olson stated that the frustrations he had heard
from constituents were that some local plans had been
rejected by DEC. He wondered what local communities could
do to appeal departmental decisions. Mr. Gray stated that
communities could appeal directly to the commissioner. He
added that the DEC deputy commissioner would be on the
board, which would create an avenue for appealing directly
to the commissioner.
CSHB 106 (FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
1:23:49 PM
RECESSED
3:37:21 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SCS for CS for HB 106 version H.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| NEW DNR Fiscal Note HB 106 51011.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| Rpt 1a 2011 05 10 Statewide Totals CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1b 2011 05 10 Agency Summary CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1c 2011 05 10 HD Summary CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 1d 2011 05 10 Project Compare by HD CS2 vs CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2a 2011 05 10 Statewide Totals CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2b 2011 05 10 Agency Summary CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 2c 2011 05 10 HD Summary CS3 vs Gov.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| Rpt 3 2011 05 10 MultiYear Agency Summary CS3.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |
| SCS SB46 Ver S 51011.pdf |
SFIN 5/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SB 46 |