Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/16/2005 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB112 | |
| SB102 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 102 | ||
| = | SB 112 | ||
SB 102-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 102 to be up for consideration.
He noted the \F version committee substitute (CS) was before the
committee and asked Mr. Letch to come forward.
2:12:04 PM
DOUG LETCH, staff to Senator Gary Stevens, explained the \F
version CS mirrors HB 189 and would base the deadline for
district coastal program revisions and annulment of the existing
program on federal approval of the state program. The concept is
to give coastal districts additional time to develop revised
plans so that the public has time to understand and comment on
the new program the state and federal government agree upon.
At the end of the previous hearing the Department of Natural
Resources asked to be given the opportunity to respond to the
committee substitute (CS).
2:12:45 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for a recap of the status of the various
coastal districts and what would happen if the extension were
granted.
2:14:26 PM
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director of Project Planning And Permitting,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), recapped previous
testimony. There are 35 established coastal districts and 33
districts currently have approved plans. House Bill 191 required
all coastal districts to review and renew their plans then
resubmit them according to the implementing regulations of the
bill. Of the 33 coastal districts with coastal plans, 27 have
plan revision commitments. Of the 27 that have committed to
making revised plans, the department knows that 16 districts
will put draft plans out for public review by mid April. The
remaining 11 districts are expected to have the revised plans
out for public review by the end of April.
The department made about $900,000 available to provide partial
help for this effort and part of the grant requirement was that
the plans be complete by July 1, 2005. Having the plans out for
public review by the end of April would put the 27 districts on
track to meet the deadline.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Bates whether he had any comments
on the CS.
MR. BATES replied he had no additional comments on the CS, but
the department did provide a new fiscal note to reflect two
years additional staff costs. Federal funding runs out in 2006
so the fiscal note reflects costs for both 2007 and 2008.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that the department believes that
extending the deadline for one year would result in nearly
$200,000 in additional costs for 2007 and for 2008.
MR. BATES clarified the CS actually extends the deadline for one
year beyond Oceans and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
approval, which moves it into the two year timeframe.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recalled that everyone that testified during
the previous hearing spoke in support of the extension.
Districts asking for additional time included: Aleutians West
Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA), Cenaliulriit CRSA, City of
Craig, City and Borough of Juneau, Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Kodiak Island Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, North Slope
Borough. Although the districts said they could meet the
deadline, everyone agreed that the plans wouldn't be complete;
rather they would need additional and substantial revisions.
He questioned the justification for the new fiscal note for an
additional $200,000 per year when the department has recognized
that substantial revisions would be needed and those revisions
would be funded out of normal staffing.
MR. BATES replied the fiscal note reflects the fact that the one
time congressional allocation of Coastal Impact Program money
expires 7/1/05. The key staff that will be looking at the
mapping requirements and enforcement policies included with the
plan revisions are funded out of that pot of money. The
department doesn't have the money to carry the staff beyond the
deadline.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the substantial revisions would be
funded thru normal staffing.
MR. BATES said he wanted to be clear that submitting the
district plan revisions doesn't end the planning process.
Districts can continue to refine their coastal plans and the
current staff is set up to complete the requirements of House
Bill 191 through June 30, 2006. At that point some monies to
keep all the current staff on will expire. However, the
department does expect to assist two to three districts per year
with basic planning requirements and the staffing is adequate to
handle those.
2:23:23 PM
SENATOR ELLIS said he recently heard that the Governor was
threatening to do away with the entire coastal zone plan in the
state if the federal government didn't capitulate on a number of
points that he deemed important. He suggested there must be a
better way to resolve differences than a head-to-head
confrontation.
MR. BATES replied the state has engaged in negotiations with the
granting and approving agency (OCRM) for two years, but "they
didn't come to table the way we expected or asked them to so we
are in the situation we're in." There is a basic philosophical
difference between what Washington D.C. wants in a coastal plan
and what the legislation passed in 2001 and the regulations
promulgated in implementing the bill. The state wants a
streamlined non-redundant program and OCRM is pushing for a
program that duplicates existing state and federal law. One of
the reasons the Murkowski Administration opposes SB 102 is that
if the timeframe is extended, the state is playing into federal
hands in terms of federal management of state resources. "If we
don't keep OCRM working hard, they're going to find that they
can continue to push the state to a program that we simply don't
agree with - that is not going to work for Alaska."
2:26:13 PM
SENATOR ELLIS remarked that's a bad sign for the bill being
signed into law.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced a brief recess from 2:26:21 PM to
2:27:49 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS reconvened the meeting and noted that the
bill had both Resource Committee and Finance Committee
referrals.
2:28:03 PM
SANDRA HARBANUK, Juneau resident, said she didn't come prepared
to testify, but felt compelled to do so after listening to the
previous testimony. She is a former coastal project reviewer
with the Division of Governmental Coordination, DNR, and is
currently employed as a consultant working on seven of the
district coastal plans.
The coastal districts that testified previously didn't point out
some of the very major and significant problems associated with
rewriting some of the plans. The disagreements with OCRM are not
simple and perhaps that's why the districts shied away from
pointing them out.
House Bill 191 has it's own set of problems, but the regulations
that DNR promulgated are stultifying and don't comply with the
standards that are set out in federal law. Districts are
constrained with regard to what they can write policies about
and the regulations serve as a straitjacket for local
participation in the state and federal processes.
She asked the committee to carefully consider the issue because
the testimony just given misrepresented what is actually
happening.
2:30:43 PM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized her position is that the local
coastal zone management districts are trying to figure out what
to do and how to write plans when there is no agreement between
federal and state agencies.
MS. HARBANUK said the guidance coming out of DNR has been
continually changing; the language is confusing for determining
whether an issue has been legitimately and adequately addressed
before a policy can be written. In addition there is the problem
associated with having to designate areas without knowing what
an area might be used for. Overall, the regulations place a
stranglehold on what districts can do.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS questioned what communities might accomplish
with the additional year.
MS. HARBANOK responded she expects that districts would work on
plan parts such as resource inventory and analysis and wait for
state and federal agreement. This would allow them time to write
good policies that would work for the individual districts. It
would also allow time for the public participation process that
the districts spoke to during the previous hearing.
There were no further questions or comments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
2:33:22 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN motioned to report CSSB 102(CRA) and attached
fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|