Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/14/2005 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB42 | |
| SB102 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 42 | ||
SB 102-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 102 to be up for consideration.
He asked for a motion to adopt the draft committee substitute
(CS).
1:38:20 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN motioned to adopt \F version draft CSSB 102 as
the working document. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Letch to come forward and introduce
the bill.
1:38:34 PM
DOUG LETCH, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, sponsor, introduced
SB 102 as a solution to a problem many Alaska coastal district
management programs face. It would change the law established
two years ago in House Bill 191 and extend the 7/1/05 deadline
for submitting revised coastal management plans an additional
year.
He explained that Senator Gary Stevens introduced the bill in
response to requests from municipal planners. Additional time is
needed because this is a time consuming and complex process.
Also, because there is a discrepancy between state & federal
plans for the coastal zone program, the sponsor believes that
the proposed extension would help coastal districts better meet
the deadline and have an orderly and efficient transition to the
new program.
The CS would base the deadline for district coastal program
revisions and the annulment of the existing program on federal
approval of the state program.
1:40:16 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Randy Bates to come forward.
1:40:36 PM
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director, Office of Project Management and
Permitting (OPMP), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
explained that OPMP is the lead agency for the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. He said he would give a brief overview of
the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and its current
status in relation to the proposed bill. He hadn't reviewed the
CS so his comments would not reflect those changes.
1:41:39 PM
With regard to the history of the ACMP, Mr. Bates said:
Coastal management is a voluntary state program. The
value of the voluntary program is that it provides the
state with a formal role in the review and approval of
federal activities and federally permitted activities
that may affect coastal uses and resources within the
state's coastal zone.
The state began developing the ACMP in the middle to
late 1970s and voluntarily chose a program structure
that involved a coordinated review process at the
state level comprising both state and local standards.
The state component of the program includes the
guidance statutes and the implementing regulations
including the consistency review process, the state
standards, and a district plan guidance regulations.
The state program, as we developed it, has been in
place since late 1979.
The local component includes an opportunity for a
coastal district to develop a local coastal district
management plan that address more specific and local
management issues. The local standards are referred to
as the district enforceable policies and they are
included within a district's plan. These district
enforceable policies add specificity to the broad
general state standards.
The way the current program is structured is we have
35 coastal districts and 33 of them have current
operating coastal plans. The majority of the local
coastal management plans were developed in the 1980s
as the program developed. Few of them have been
updated since that time. There have been revisions,
but for the most part the average age of the district
plan is 14 years old. They just simply aren't updated
as frequently as we've needed.
As far as the funding issues go, at current levels the
state receives approximately $2.8 million from the
office of Oceans and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM). This is our federal approval and granting
agency that distributes the money to us. These monies
- the $2.8 million from the OCRM - in addition to
approximately $2.0 million of state and matching
monies are used to implement the ACMP.
The state provides the local districts with
approximately $750,000 as half of their monies to
implement their coastal plans. The state provides
additional monies to the local districts that are
working on plan revisions. So in addition to the
$750,000 that we provide for basic implementation on
an annual basis we also provide a fair amount of money
to assist those districts that are revising their
plans.
The ACMP unfortunately began experiencing some
significant implementation problems in the early
1990s. From 1994 to 1996 an ACMP steering committee
was put together and they conducted a formal program
assessment. The assessment generated various summary
reports and CPC resolutions and identified many needed
changes to the ACMP.
In 1998 progress on the changes recommended by the
ACMP steering committee and what was known at the time
as the Coastal Policy Council - the governing body of
the ACMP. Those changes were slow to come about.
Consequently an initiative was introduced before the
Legislature to repeal in its entirety, the Alaska
Coastal Management Program.
As an alternative to repealing the program, in 2002
the Legislature passed SB 308, which required a
district to amend their coastal plan if it
incorporated, by reference, any statute or regulation
adopted by a state agency. The purpose at that time
was to eliminate the redundancy that was inherent
within the existing coastal plans.
If a district ignored the mandate at that time - of
that law - the Coastal Policy Council - the governing
body - would strike those policies from the existing
district plans. Unfortunately this law, mandating
coastal plan revisions, was ignored.
In 2002 it became obvious that the ACMP had become a
program that was regulatorily redundant with other
state and federal laws. It was complex in its
implementation; and the state and local enforceable
policies were vague and subject to drastically
inconsistent application on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, the coastal management program is used by
many coastal districts as a surrogate to those
districts implementing what were properly municipal
planning functions through Title 29 of the Alaska
Statutes.
In 2003 HB 191 was introduced to reform and streamline
the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
1:47:18 PM
MR. BATES further stated:
House Bill 191 was signed by the governor on May 21,
2003 and portions of HB 191 became effective
immediately. Those portions related primarily to the
consistency review process and the criteria for
dealing with the review of the projects. There were
delayed implementations, which we get to at the July 1
or '04 and '05 and '06.
Beginning on July 4, 2004, we had to have new
regulations implementing the new reformed coastal
program in place. We had to revise three chapters of
regulations and be specific in the revisions and the
streamlining of the ACMP. We were able to get those
regulations completed by the deadline, July 1, 2004.
1:48:50 PM
There are then two concurrent tracks that have to go
on before July 1, 2005. You'll see the first arrow
talks about the state developing and submitting the
amended ACMP to OCRM. We have done that; we've
submitted the amendment - which is the statutes and
regulations - to OCRM. The dialog between us, the
state, and our approving agency, OCRM, is still
ongoing.
1:49:18 PM
The second track that's important to recognize is the
districts had a year from the time the regulations
went into effect to develop their district's plan
amendments and submit them to DNR for what is the
state's review and approval process.
1:49:35 PM
The districts have to have the revisions done by July
1, 2005. There are two deadlines that occur on that
date, which is in just a couple months. Our state
standards, which are how we apply consistency to
projects sunset on that date by virtue of HB 191 and
the districts must submit their planed revisions to
DNR by July 1, 2005.
1:50:07 PM
Between then and 2006 we've got an internal state
review process to review and approve those district
plans. That includes a very public process where we
solicit for comments on each and every one of the
district plan revisions.
I'll move back to some of the tests but I want to make
sure you cover, but I will get to some details that
happen to districts if they fail to meet this existing
deadline because I think that's what's most important
at this point.
1:50:38 PM
So we get to current status of ACMP - the second
portion of what I wanted to cover today. We are
nearing on the timeline July 1, 2005. As I mentioned,
there are two independent deadlines to be aware of.
Let's talk about the first one, which is the first
arrow up top - the deadline for approval of our state
standards. As I mentioned, we have submitted our ACMP
program submissions to OCRM for review and approval.
Without OCRM - the federal granting agencies -
approval, our state standards sunset on July 1, 2005.
We are working with our federal agency, OCRM, on what
additional information they may need in order to offer
us preliminary approval though our respective agencies
are struggling to reconcile some very basic
philosophical differences regarding the degree to
which the federal agency can dictate to our state what
our coastal management should be and how that
management should occur.
We had a productive meeting with OCRM and other NOAA
officials last week when we were back in Washington
D.C. and we are awaiting OCRM's further response
regarding the approvability of our program.
The second independent deadline that I want to talk
briefly about is the deadline for submittal of
district plans. We have worked with the district
staff, the consultant that they have hired, and the
municipal officials of the districts to make sure they
were aware and understood the deadlines and the need
to be focused and strategic in their efforts to revise
their coastal plans to comply with HB 191.
Of the 33 coastal districts with plans, 27 of those
coastal districts intend to submit plan revisions for
review and approval by the deadline of July 1, 2005.
To assist those districts in making those plan
revisions we did make available $900,000 to those
districts. We shared that amongst I believe 26 that's
applied timely.
To date we've also provided opportunities for sharing
information and prepared various materials for them to
succeed in developing and submitting their plan
revisions by the deadline. These materials include a
dedicated web site for downloading plan revision
guidance, written responses to various questions, an
annotated bibliography for their use, sample
enforceable policies for their review and use,
timelines for plan revisions and completions, model
chapters for districts to cut past and tailor specific
to their local issues, and other such products.
1:53:25 PM
The July 1, 2005 submission deadline gives the
districts what we would call priority processing under
the regulations such that the plan can be reviewed and
approved by DNR and our federal granting agency, OCRM,
in advance of the sunset deadline, which is 2006.
A district that fails to meet the submission deadline
is not excluded from the ACMP. However, their existing
plan may sunset in July of 2006 simply because we
don't have the resources to review that plan in
addition to these others that are on time.
1:54:00 PM
A district that chooses to ignore the submission
deadline can continue to work on plan revisions under
the more general regulations, but they do risk their
plan sun setting in July '06 if their revised plan
cannot be approved.
It's also important to note that once a district has a
revised plan in place - now we're talking a little bit
about the future - they can continue to amend their
plan and embellish their policies as they see fit. So
this is not a one time only planning process. We would
expect, over the course of time as with any planning
function, districts will refine their plans and we
will work with them to make sure they are up to date.
1:54:42 PM
MR. BATES concluded that should bring members up to date on the
issues and set the stage for the testimony from the coastal
district representatives.
1:55:03 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for clarification on what is entailed
in working with the federal government. Specifically he
questioned whether the districts needed to know something from
OCRM before they completed the revised plans.
MR. BATES replied:
Unfortunately in this circumstance when we have a
federal agency that oversees a program like this, the
promulgation of statutes is not the end. We actually
have to get approval by this federal agency to approve
and then implement the statutes that this body would
pass. That's the process we're in right now. We have
taken the statutes of HB 191 and the regulations we
promulgated, which implement HB 191, and submitted
them as a single approval package called an ACMP
amendment.
OCRM is looking at that amendment to determine whether
we have met the criterion that is laid out in federal
law and if it is approvable under their regulations.
The dialog is, as I mentioned, ongoing.
OCRM has written a letter to us dated January 28,
2005, which details a number of issues that they
either want more information on or additional
regulatory changes. We disagree with some of the
philosophical issues or revisions that they have
brought up and we're trying to come to resolution with
those issues. That was part of the purpose that we
went to Washington D.C. for last week.
1:57:12 PM
There are a couple of issues that they have brought
up, which would result in regulatory changes and
awhile aback we were even ready to make those
regulatory changes until they came out with the litany
of un-approvable issues.
However, it's important to recognize that the language
that they are asking to change, does not necessarily
impact a district's write enforceable policies. It
impacts how the standards, particularly the state
standards and certain district policies, would be
implemented - not how they are written.
1:57:48 PM
The OCRM wants us to make changes. If we did make
those changes, it doesn't affect how the districts
should be writing their policies necessarily. To the
extent that it might, we could certainly massage those
in the future. Not only through their review and
approval process, but the DNR review and approval
process.
1:58:14 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped the response saying the material DNR
is waiting approval on from OCRM won't impact how the districts
write the plans, but it will impact how the plans are
implemented. Therefore, what DNR is waiting for shouldn't
interfere with a district preparing its plan.
MR. BATES replied that is correct at this point.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN said he was interested in the points of
disagreement.
1:59:02 PM
MR. BATES said it depends on which agency is characterizing the
issues. OCRM would say there are four issues while DNR would
describe 50 issues. Furthermore:
There are an incredible amount of points that they
have chosen to challenge us on. I think it boils down
to a very basic issue in that HB 191 and the
regulations that were developed after that are an
attempt by Alaska to develop a program that works for
Alaska.
On a national coastal management basis, they have
identified 58,000 coastline miles. Alaska has 34,000
of those miles and in fact our coastal zone extends,
in many cases, 200 miles inland. So we're talking
about a massive zone.
The revisions that we made under HB 191 in the
regulations were intended to reflect that very issue.
We are not necessarily lined up with all other states,
but we've got a huge area that we're trying to manage
up here. And we built a program that worked for
Alaska. What we're finding is the federal government
is coming in and trying to tell us - tell the state -
how we should be managing our coastal users and what
we should be doing to manage them in the fashion that
they believe that we need to manage them.
What that means in many cases is that they are not
willing to recognize the network structure that we
have created up here. In other words, we rely on
existing state agencies and federal agencies. And we
have incorporated as their authorities into the ACMP.
The federal government is mandating a redundant state
program. They will not accept that the Corps of
Engineers is doing a good job managing wetlands. They
will not accept that our water quality regulations
through DEC are complete and comprehensive. And they
want the ACMP to be a duplicitous comprehensive
program irrespective of what other state agencies or
federal agencies are doing. That is the basic
philosophical problem we have with OCRM at this point.
We are hoping it will come to resolution. We're
certainly working hard on it.
2:01:11 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said the committee heard from the districts
about various concerns and he would like a rundown on where the
districts stand with regard to complying with the July 1, 2005
deadline.
2:01:51 PM
MR. BATES explained that 27 of the 33 districts with existing
plans have indicated an intention to submit revised plans by the
deadline. To date 16 of the 27 coastal districts are prepared to
put the plans out for public review by mid April. DNR has
tentative dates on when each of the plans will go out for the
21-day public review and comment period and expects that the
remaining 11 districts will have plans ready for public review
by the end of April. This should put all 27 districts on track
to meet the July 1, 2005 deadline.
2:03:00 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about the other six districts.
MR. BATES replied they have either "fallen off the screen" or
haven't received funds to implement the coastal program, but the
state is still obligated because those local district plans are
part of the state regulations.
2:03:41 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked Mr. Bates if there are large areas of the
state that aren't covered by a local plan.
2:04:16 PM
MR. BATES explained there are two types of coastal districts.
One type is a municipality and the other type is called a
coastal resource service area. Those are areas formed
specifically for coastal management purposes. A coastal resource
service area isn't any sort of municipality, but it can develop
a local coastal program to manage the resources of the
unorganized area.
Most of the areas in the northern part of the state are covered
by coastal plans, but from Prince William Sound down through
Southeast there are more pocketed communities with coastal
districts that extend no farther than the municipal boundaries.
State compliance policies are applicable throughout the state's
coastal zone so even if there isn't a local coastal zone
program, the state standards still apply.
2:06:03 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Freer to come forward.
2:06:32 PM
PETER FREER, Planning Supervisor, City and Borough of Juneau
(CBJ), reported the CBJ testified at the February 24 House State
Affairs Committee in support of an extension to provide
districts with additional time to prepare the revised plans. At
that time, the CBJ supported a deadline of one year following
the date of OCRM approval.
The extended deadline makes sense, he said. Although the CBJ
might finish its plan by the end of June, it would have no
program into which the plan could go if there is no
reconciliation between the state and federal governments.
Furthermore, the extension would provide the opportunity to
write a plan after all rules and regulations are known.
2:08:07 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS questioned what the CBJ would accomplish with
the extension that it couldn't accomplish without the additional
year.
MR. FREER replied the first point is that the CBJ doesn't know
if the federally approved plan might not be different from the
plan that was submitted. Currently the CBJ would be writing its
plan based on what was submitted, but not necessarily on what
has been approved.
The second point is that when the Juneau Coastal Management
Program was written in the 1980s, it took about three years to
complete. In developing the revised plan any meaningful public
participation process has been circumscribed because of the
short timeframe. Furthermore, the ground rules for writing the
plan weren't well known until months into the writing. The
borough has a consultant and it will certainly produce a plan by
the June 30 deadline if it stands, but the plan is prepared in a
more hasty fashion than desired and with less public
participation than is typical for such an issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about the statement that not having
federal approval might impact plan implementation, but not the
writing of the plans.
MR. FREER replied, "Perhaps if in the final plan there were more
scope to the development of enforceable policies in local plans
that would change how we would write the plan."
2:10:27 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS opened teleconference testimony.
2:10:34 PM - 2:12:31 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, District Coast Zone Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough, testified from Soldotna in support of the intent of SB
102. The district would file its plan before the deadline, but
the issue is filing a qualitative document. Not only is
sufficient time necessary to meet the detailed requirements of
the state mandated program update, time is also needed to do the
mapping, public scoping and the public review of the district
coastal zone plan.
The complexity of conducting a resource inventory update for a
district that is as large, diverse and active as the Kenai
Peninsula Borough and meeting the additional requirements of
resource-specific mapping is very time consuming. He expressed
concern that the district might spend scarce resources on an
effort that may well require further revision.
He said he isn't opposed to updating the coastal zone plan, but
the timeframe that the state has imposed is problematic. He
asked the committee to provide an extension of one year for
districts to complete and present the updated plans.
2:12:35 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to comment on Mr. Bates' comment
that the lack of federal approval wouldn't impact the writing of
the updated policies. It would impact just the implementation.
2:12:52 PM
MR. WILLIAMS replied the issue is that an extensive mapping
process is required to substantiate the enforceable policies.
That is a huge problem in delineating erosion zones, habitat
areas, and shellfish rearing areas.
The borough would like to take its plans to each community and
scope them before going to the planning commission to initiate
the 21-day public hearing process, but there isn't enough time
to do everything in the allotted time.
2:13:57 PM
DUANE DVORAK, Kodiak Island Borough Planner and Community
Development Department Director, testified from Kodiak. He has
20 planning years planning experience and 16 are in coastal
communities. He said he came to discuss the deadline issue
addressed in SB 102 rather than the structural and programmatic
changes to the ACMP.
Over the years he has seen both good and bad plans and his
assessment is that the current process is bound to produce
inadequate plans even though good people are working and the
state has provided money for the process. Adequate time is
lacking. This isn't just a matter of making the planners
understand and then writing a plan to a certain regulatory
specification. This is about process and making the people in
the communities understand.
Allocating inadequate time to get around to the different
communities and help the people to understand what's happening
and to communicate the ramifications is problematic. The
different interpretations and opinions need to be worked out and
it's difficult to create understanding in the public when the
planners are the go-betweens for agency personnel and
communities.
2:16:35 PM
There appears to be disagreement between the state and OCRM
regarding whether the current regulations fit with the federal
intent of coastal zone management program. He opined CSSB 102 is
the way to go to resolve some of the issues and provide suitable
time for the process. He suggested that 18 months is minimal in
light of having recently participated in the 18 month DNR
process to develop the Kodiak area plan for Alaska state lands.
Revision of the coastal plan deserves at least as much time once
all the program issues are settled.
He mentioned that Kodiak had one of the first plans in the state
and has used that plan for 22 years. To move community
understanding from 1983 to 2005 in the short time allocated is a
daunting challenge for the staff. He would like the public to
feel it had time to consider the ramifications and that they
were allowed to adequately express themselves through the
process.
2:18:37 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked why the district needs additional time
and how they would use 12 more months if it were available.
2:18:51 PM
MR. DVORAK replied the borough would spend more time in the
public information process and in trying to get more public
involvement. Although the Kodiak Island Borough is located in
the City of Kodiak, it has outlying communities that have been
out of the loop in the process so far.
As mentioned earlier, there is disagreement in how the state
regulations fulfill the intent of the federal legislation for
coastal management programs. As to whether there are 4 or 50
points of disagreement, the borough would like those to be
resolved before the process goes forward. If there were no
outstanding issues then it would be easier to move forward.
2:20:39 PM
TOM LOHMAN, North Slope Borough Representative, testified in
strong support of CSSB 102. He reported the borough testified at
a previous hearing on the ACMP to express support for an
extended timeline to the approval date of OCRM.
From the time House Bill 191 passed, the timelines have been
problematic. The North Slope Borough isn't atypical, yet it took
five years to get the coastal management program approved. In
large part it took that long because the oil companies they deal
are not passive stakeholders when it comes to something as
important as the coastal management program.
The timelines clearly became a problem when DNR lost 5 months
putting contractors to work on the substantial revisions of the
implementing regulations due to staffing problems. They have
publicly testified to the fact that at one point they had 47
percent vacancy within DNR because of problems associated with
moving staff from the governor's office to DNR.
The timelines became more problematic when OCRM deemed the
proposed changes to the state program to be an amendment rather
than a routine program change as the state characterized it to
be. At each point the districts urged the state to seek
legislative relief from the timelines, but to no avail.
The fact that the changes were considered to be an amendment was
news to no one involved with the program. The head of OPMP in
DNR was hired to that position after House Bill 191 passed and
repeatedly referred to the major program overhaul that was
taking place. He suggested the administration was trying to
slide one by and OCRM properly said no, it is a major program
amendment and it should be viewed as such.
Finally, the deadline appears to be insurmountable, as the
guidance for planner visions to the districts has changed.
Respectfully contradicting some of the statements Mr. Bates
made, he said the district is waiting for guidance on some key
issues for the North Slope Borough.
The two primary enticements that the federal government offers
states to get involved in the voluntary program are money - $2.8
million in this case - and the assurance that federal activities
and federally permitted activities will be made consistent with
state plans. On the North Slope that is very significant because
the Inupiaq do Bowhead whaling offshore in federal waters of the
Beauford and Chukchi Seas.
The North Slope Borough includes the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve and if the borough is
to have a seat at the table, it is critical that they have some
control over what goes on in those areas. However, DNR has not
provided final guidance as to whether or not the borough can
craft meaningful subsistence policies or habitat protection on
federal lands or waters on the North Slope.
These are significant issues and even if you were to believe
that the state isn't waiting for anything from OCRM, DNR would
have to admit that if the guidance is final right now, it wasn't
final a short time ago. Every district has its own story with
respect to the substantive problems with the amendment and
although this is not the time for dealing with those, you are
hearing unanimity among the districts in terms of the need for
additional time.
With regard to the question of how the additional time would be
used, he said the North Slope would do public outreach to the
communities and the oil companies. It is to everyone's advantage
to engage in that dialog before putting pen to paper and
submitting a plan to the state. Situations always get more
difficult when two sides are entrenched in dealing with a
proposal on paper. It's better to get together and work things
out beforehand.
The borough has an internal process of visiting all communities
and regional tribal and corporate entities. That is impossible
to do before the deadline and still submit the plan to the
planning commission and get final approval from the assembly.
The spring subsistence cycle is underway and it is playing a big
role in making it difficult to impossible to do the best job
possible and meet the deadline.
In conclusion he restated strong support for the CS for SB 102
and emphasized that the requirement for district submittal of
revised plans should be tied to the OCRM approval. Districts
don't want to waste precious resources redoing plans that were
just redone and submitted.
2:27:37 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the borough would submit the revised
plans on time and how it would feel about the plans if the
deadline weren't changed.
MR. LOHMAN replied they would submit the plan on time, but if
the deadline isn't changed DNR will certainly be faced with
considerable extra work. If they aren't sure about what they are
supposed to do in terms of crafting policies on subsistence,
habitat protection, or outer continental shelf (OCS) activity,
they will include them and write them as strongly as possible
and let DNR sort it out.
2:30:19 PM
MARV SMITH, Lake and Peninsula Borough Community Development
Coordinator, testified that the borough strongly urges passage
of the committee substitute for SB 102 to extend the deadline to
complete the district plans and plan revisions as required.
The borough is committed to the task and will complete the job,
but it is logical to extend the deadline because the state and
federal government haven't resolved differences and it isn't
clear what the amendment will encompass. He suggested that
continuing to write policy without clear guidance would likely
necessitate a rewrite.
The current direction regarding development of district
enforcement policies is unclear and the guidance from DNR is
ever changing. The timeframe is far too short to provide for
adequate public process. It took the Lake and Peninsula Borough
four years to complete the current plan and the 21-day review
before passing the revised plan on to the state really isn't
adequate. Furthermore, adequate time for mapping of the large
borough is lacking. It's important to visit each of the 18
communities in the borough with the current timeline, but that
won't be possible.
If the state allows the statewide standards to sunset in July,
he questioned who would be at the table during federal
consistencies. Also, at the recent conference in Anchorage the
Lake and Peninsula Borough was told it couldn't write any
policies on subsistence. He emphasized that is the heart and
bone of the citizens in the borough and that decision is wrong
and should be changed.
He asked that OPMP and DNR be directed to listen to the
districts. A number of suggestions have been put forward and
none have been heard. The Alaska Coastal Management Program has
been helpful to the Lake and Peninsula Borough and has been
successful in getting grants for a number of programs. If the
ACMP is dropped, a large void for grant money will be created
across the state.
He questioned how the state could even consider letting the
program lapse because it would become dependent on the federal
government managing over half the coastline in the U.S. He urged
members to pass the bill to give districts an additional year
after the environmental impact statement is approved and after
OPMP and OCRM have agreed on the amendment.
2:35:18 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there were things the district would
like to see included in the plans that aren't allowed. If that
were the case, he asked for specific examples.
2:35:37 PM
MR. SMITH replied they want to include subsistence and the
opportunity to be involved in federal consistencies.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the borough manager was present.
JEFF CURRIER, Lake and Peninsula Borough Manager, expressed
agreement with the statements Mr. Smith made.
2:35:52 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the borough manager wanted to
comment.
2:36:10 PM
BRIAN TEMPLAN, Craig City Planner and District Coordinator,
reiterated support for CSSB 102. He explained that Craig is a
relatively small district and it expects to have a fully revised
plan in place before the July 1, 2005 deadline. However, to meet
the deadline Craig started the process in spite of the
unresolved issues between DNR and OCRM.
Eelgrass an essential fish habitat that covers more than 12
percent of the tideland/submerged areas within the municipality
so the existing plan includes policies regarding eelgrass. The
revised plan was to include eelgrass policies too, but an issue
came up about the requirement that policies meet a threshold of
a local concern.
To avoid duplicity, part of the local concern must be that a
policy was not adequately addressed by state or federal
regulation. As late as the October 2004 meeting between ACMP and
OPMP, the interpretation of "adequately addressed" was that any
state or federal agency that had currently regulated activities
and/or the authority to potentially regulate activities in the
future were considered adequately addressed. Because of that
interpretation, many policies were held at bay while districts
waited on OPMP and OCRM to resolve the issue and that didn't
occur until December 16.
The OPMP and OCRM staffs have worked very hard, but the many
complex issues have been overwhelming. To be completing the plan
so close to the deadline when the district has a very few miles
of coastline and one municipality, is indicative of the
difficulties larger districts face.
2:40:57 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recognized Mr. Kelty, former Unalaska mayor.
2:41:13 PM
FRANK KELTY, Chair, Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service
Board, spoke from Unalaska to concur with previous testimony in
support of CSSB 102. He emphasized that providing additional
time to the coastal districts is important.
The Aleutians West finished rewriting its ten-year-old plan in
the spring of 2003 at about the same time that House Bill 191
passed. As a result, it spent most of 2004 reworking the new
document. The plan completed in 2003 had about 41 enforceable
policies, but the revised plan has just 19 enforceable policies
and it's likely some of those will be lost as well.
Several weeks ago the district put the revised plan out for
review in a rushed process. When the plan was taken to the City
of Unalaska, the planning commission had just one meeting for
its review and the city council will also have just one review
opportunity. Rather than taking the plan to Nikolski and Atka
for a face-to-face review of the rewrite, it will be done via
teleconference, which is indicative of a rushed process.
If SB 102 is adopted the district would have time to address the
comments from the plan review and any changes that might come as
a result of the differences between OCRM and the state.
2:44:19 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called on Carol Kolehmain.
2:44:39 PM
CAROL KOLEHMAIN, Program Director, Aleutians West Coastal
Resource Service Area (AWCRSA), reported she is working with
board chair Frank Kelty and noted that she faxed her testimony
to the committee.
MS. KOLEHMAIN said she would read portions of a March 4, 2005
letter the Alaska Coastal District Association sent to Mr.
Jeffers to set the tone that the districts have given back to
the state. She read:
We're writing this letter out of great concern
regarding the status of the Alaska Coastal Management
Program. The coastal districts have worked diligently
to meet the requirements of the revised ACMP and have
always supported a viable state program with a
meaningful role for local districts.
We feel that preserving our opportunity for continued
participation to the ACMP in state and federal
decision-making is of paramount importance. In view of
the recent exchange of letters between OCRM and the
state, many districts are confused regarding how best
to proceed in the revisions of our local plan. While
we have many questions regarding recent events, we've
narrowed them down to a basic few that need to be
addressed and we trust that you'll take the time to do
so.
Then we had some questions:
1. Will the Department of Natural Resources continue
to assist the districts in completing their plan
revisions?
2. What does Governor Murkowski mean when stating in
his February 23 letter to NOAA that the ACMP could
expire by operation of law in the summer of 2005?
She read: "If OCRM does not immediately abandon the
new requirements and broken promises contained in
its January 2005 decision, the ACMP will expire by
operation of law in the summer of 2005."
3. If the statewide standards expire this summer
without any legislative action, does the state
agree that consistency reviews could continue using
our district policies?
4. If the Legislature approves the bill extending the
time periods for amendment of the state Coastal
Management Program and for districts to submit new
revised plans, will the Administration support the
extension? - If the Administration will not support
an extension we have the following additional
questions.
5. If the state program is eliminated, will all the
implementing Alaska statutes and regulations
previously adopted also go away?
6. How will the federal program be implemented in
Alaska if the state program is eliminated?
7. Will the state or districts have the opportunity to
comment or otherwise directly influence federal
projects within our jurisdiction?
8. Will federal grants and assistance still be
available to Alaska coastal districts from the
federal government for the operation of the local
coastal management plans?
We ask for a written response to our questions as soon
as possible, but no later than March 18 because the
time is truly running short for districts to complete
their plans - because also, if the ACMP will terminate
on July 1, we're going to develop a course of action
as soon as possible.
We are very concerned for the future of the coastal
zone management program and that we desire continued
participation in the management of our coastline.
2:49:16 PM
MS. KOLEHMAIN said she read the letter because it typifies
the interactions districts have had with DNR and reflects
the sincerity of the coastal districts. There is a great
deal of confusion about the direction the program is
heading and there are a number of questions that require an
answer. OCRM has raised many legitimate questions. As
originally created, the program relied heavily on local
policies for implementation. The amended program has
reduced the opportunity for local policies and to a great
extent it relies on state standards and existing
regulations. Right or wrong, this major restructuring
raises questions that require an answer if federal funds
are to be provided and spent.
MS. KOLEHMAIN used the analogy of a three-legged stool and said
that if one leg is significantly changed, it needs to be
apparent how balance might be achieved with what remains and the
coastal program is all about balance.
She urged the committee to pass CSSB 102 to allow the time to
make an orderly and efficient transition to the new program.
2:51:08 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he hadn't received her letter and asked
her to fax it and her testimony to his office.
2:51:29 PM
JOHN OSCAR, Coordinator for Cenaliulriit, made the point that
everyone is working to make this possible, but districts such as
his, which has 38 villages need the deadline extension. He
reported that DNR provided little funding to allow him to visit
all areas of his district, which is the largest in the state. He
emphasized that it would be difficult to receive supporting
resolutions from every community in the short time frame after
public review of the plans. It's hard enough to explain this in
plain English much less in Yupik Eskimo.
Although the intent is to streamline standards, he's had
difficulty pinning down what DNR requires with regard to
subsistence standards. The process is unpredictable and
confusing because DNR expects districts to conform to
regulations that weren't accepted by the OCRM minimum
requirements from January 2005.
He expressed frustration that the inability to say anything
about land, air and water quality including habitat standards
and mining. Also of concern is that subsistence policies can't
be applied to federal lands and waters. They can only apply to
activity in designated areas and designated areas can't be made
for federal lands. Designated areas are the lands that districts
have documented and converted into use areas. This is referred
to as mapping.
Although the ACMP doesn't allow allocation issues, it does
provide a voice to the people in his region that depend on
subsistence resources. If the ACMP is eliminated he wasn't sure
what protection Alaskans would have from decisions made in
Washington D.C. on federal water and land. He questioned whether
it makes sense to remove the system that protects the civil
right to harvest and gather for your family.
2:58:16 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he could appreciate the translation
problems then Mr. Oscar about the villages in his district.
2:58:33 PM
MR. OSCAR explained that the district has 38 villages, the
first-class city of St. Mary, 25 second-class cities and 12
tribal run communities.
2:59:02 PM
DAN SALMON, Village Administrator for Igiagik and Lake and
Peninsula Borough Assembly Member, urged passage of SB 102. He
reported that he has worked in Igiagik for 24 years and holds a
degree from the University of Alaska in natural resource
management and planning.
The original coastal zone planning program was implemented
during the 10 years he was on the borough planning commission.
The effort took over four years, but it had public input and
there was confidence in the process and in the finished product.
In contrast he described the current guidance for the revised
plans as constantly in flux with no clarity or consistency. In
his region the public is wary and sees the possibility of doing
away with the program as a possible attempt to limit local input
and a potential to reduce the quality of water dependent
resources. The public views the coastal zone program as a way to
ensure that if mining comes into the region the activity is
thoroughly reviewed and done correctly from the beginning.
Communities in the region aren't connected by a road system,
which makes it time-consuming and costly to put the proposed
revisions through without adequate time and staff.
He urged passage of CSSB 102 and any complimentary House bills
to allow for an extension.
3:02:21 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Salmon how the additional time
would be spent if it were available.
MR. SALMON replied it would provide more opportunity for borough
staff to educate the public and get input from the various
communities.
3:03:34 PM
MEL THOMPSON, Matanuska-Susitna Valley resident, described
himself and other valley residents as victims of House Bill 191.
He said the changes that were made that bypassed the public
process were detrimental. With all due respect he said people in
his area don't see DNR as a leader. They view the agency as
following the wishes of the Administration.
He questioned why DNR is leading the charge up the hill in
support of the July 1 deadline when everyone else is heading in
the opposite direction. Everyone has testified that more time is
needed and he could see no reason not to pass CSSB 102 because
these resources and the coastline belong to everyone in the
state.
3:05:18 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Policy and Program Coordinator, Alaska
Municipal League (AML), stated that every community that
testified on SB 102 is a member of the AML. When the debacle
started about two years ago she was in local government. At that
time not a single community member she spoke with expressed the
view that the timeline was working well.
Changes dealing with resources and coastline that are of this
magnitude can't be done over again when mistakes are made. She
stressed that it is truly in the state's best interest to give
communities as much time as possible to get the plans done and
done correctly.
The Alaska Municipal League wholeheartedly supports SB 102 to
extend the deadline.
3:06:40 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked that the testimony was interesting
and Mr. Thompson's comment about leading the charge up hill with
no one following was particularly telling. He asked Mr. Bates to
respond.
3:07:32 PM
MR. BATES acknowledged that he heard the message that districts
would like more time. He also heard the responses to the
question regarding what districts would do with more time. He
heard coastal districts say they don't need more time; they will
get the plans submitted by the deadline. He stressed that
districts will succeed and the Administration can give assurance
that the planning process doesn't end with plan submittal.
Districts can continue to refine plans as much as they should
each year. Most districts are poised for success and DNR is
working through issues the districts have.
3:08:35 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said a concern they heard is that if
districts do submit the plans in a timely fashion then it would
be DNR's problem to ensure that all are in compliance.
MR. BATES said Mr. Lohman probably did suggest that the onus
would be on DNR to review the 27 district plans, However, DNR
has been under the gun for two years. Staff has risen to the
challenge and has set up an internal process for review and
approval of all 27 district plans, which will facilitate the
review by the state and federal agencies. In addition it will
give the districts what they need as far as the amendments that
are necessary to comply with House Bill 191 and the implementing
regulations.
The DNR goal is to massage each and every plan so that the
districts are satisfied and the plans are in compliance with
state law. "We are set to succeed as the staff at DNR," he
asserted.
3:10:05 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether he was speaking in support of the
extension or not.
3:10:18 PM
MR. BATES replied, "At this time the Administration does not
support SB 102 in its original form. We came here to speak on
that bill, I think at this point it would be preliminary to
suggest that we don't support the CS. We would like the
opportunity to look at that and revise the fiscal note as
appropriate to address the impacts with that CS."
There were no further questions.
3:10:40 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced he would hold SB 102 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|