Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
02/24/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Oversight Hearing: Alaska Coastal Management Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2005
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
Senator Kim Elton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERSIGHT: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BILL JEFFRESS, Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to the disagreement between the
federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
and the state of Alaska.
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to the future of the Alaska
Coastal Management Program.
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described the implementation process of
House Bill 191.
TOM LOHMAN
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described frustrations with the state
regarding the Alaska Coastal Management Program, including
changing mandates and taking away local control.
PETER FREER
Planning Supervisor
City and Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the administration's new
Coastal Management Program, saying it takes the heart and soul
out of it with a severe curtailment of enforceable policies.
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor
Lake and Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the administration's new
Coastal Management Program, because DNR excludes fresh water
lakes out takes away local control and input.
DAN BEVINGTON, Former Coastal District Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the administration's new
Coastal Management Program is confusing and limits local pro-
active involvement.
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director
Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource Service Area
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the administration's new
Coastal Management Program because DNR eliminated mining
projects from the ACMP, and the local people who are the most
affected will lose their influence.
THEDE TOBISH, Senior Environmental Planner/Coastal District
Coordinator
Department of Community Planning and Development
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to the problems of the
implementation of House Bill 191, including the exclusion of
Anchorage's extensive wetland management program.
KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Director
Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
administration's position on the Alaska Coastal Management
Program because it is inconsistent and there appears to be no
place for local policy.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:03:05 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Gatto, Elkins, Gardner, and
Seaton. Representatives Ramras and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^OVERSIGHT HEARING: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
8:04:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business was the
oversight hearing on the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP).
CHAIR SEATON said the purpose of the meeting is to overview the
implementation of a statute signed into law in 2003, House Bill
191. There have been reports of problems, he said, and the
committee is not rehashing the bill, but wants to look at its
implementation. There are a couple of bills currently being
addressed to consider this matter, he added, and the legislature
needs to know some background to determine if this new
legislation is necessary.
8:07:00 AM
BILL JEFFRESS, Director, Office of Project Management and
Permitting, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said the
governor wrote a letter and a press release responding to a
letter to the state of Alaska from the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). The letter from OCRM, which
is under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), was dated January 28, 2005. The governor's response
highlights the frustration that the administration has
encountered in negotiations with OCRM regarding its approval of
the state's amended Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
He said, "After months of negotiation at a continuously moving
target presented by OCRM, we have unfortunately reached a point
where the state of Alaska can no longer subrogate state
sovereignty in our ability to manage our natural resources
through a federal agency such as OCRM for a voluntary program."
MR. JEFFRESS referred to the letter [included in the committee
packet] saying OCRM contends that Alaska's environmental laws
and regulations are inadequate to protect coastal resources. He
said that OCRM also contends that other federal resource
agencies have laws and regulations that do not meet the
standards of OCRM, "which cascades far beyond the authority
granted by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act." The OCRM
letter requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to add
redundant regulations and complexity to a program without a
corresponding environmental benefit, he said. "This is a
state's rights issue." He noted that there was an OCRM
statement recently received by the state that he hasn't
reviewed. He said, "This is indicative of our relationship with
NOAA, rather than responding to the administration - or even
copying the administration with this document - it was sent
directly to the House of Representatives." The opinion of OCRM
is neither valid nor supported by the federal enabling
legislation, he opined.
8:10:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON said there is joint responsibility between the
House State Affairs Standing Committee and the House Resources
Standing Committee for this overview, and the two committees
decided that the House State Affairs Standing Committee should
do it.
8:11:23 AM
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, noted
his appreciation that Kurt Fredriksson, Acting Commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Conservation, is in the
audience. Commissioner Irwin directed attention to a letter
[included in the committee packet], which he said was sent to
all Alaskans and was written by four commissioners. He
highlighted a portion of the letter, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The State of Alaska is committed to ensuring that
resources of the state are adequately managed and
protected. As part of that commitment, the State has
been implementing the Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP) since 1979. The ACMP, a voluntary
program funded and authorized in part by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), had
broad authority to address a variety of resource
management issues. While the ACMP served an important
purpose when it was created, it has languished in the
past several years without the needed updates to its
purpose and policies. This resulted in the ACMP
becoming fragmented in its implementation, subjective
in its application, and an additional regulatory
burden within an already comprehensive resource
management system. As a result, projects have been
unnecessarily delayed without a corresponding
environmental benefit.
To modernize the ACMP, the Alaska State Legislature
and Administration passed House Bill 191 in 2003.
This directed State agencies to amend the ACMP in a
manner that simplified and clarified the 25-year old
program. The State agencies have worked hard toward
developing a program that meets the priorities and
needs of Alaska while still comprehensively and
responsibly managing Alaska's coastal uses and
resources. Unfortunately, NOAA, the federal approving
agency, has in their January 28, 2005 letter, mandated
that the ACMP expand its broad regulatory authority,
regardless of its duplication and increased
complexity, and refuses to acknowledge the State's
rights in developing a program that works for Alaska.
NOAA's mandate and attempt to further expand federal
control over Alaska through coastal management is not
acceptable. Without a change in NOAA's current
position, the ACMP will expire in the summer of 2005
by operation of law.
8:13:31 AM
COMMISSIONER IRWIN said DNR clearly understands its
accountability to the legislature. The department had a clear
directive to proceed and has worked hard "in that direction."
He added that his staff has been spending nights and weekends
responding to letters and jumping through hoops to meet
timelines to honor the wishes of the legislature and the
administration.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN stated the four commissioners feel strongly
that Alaska is protected. He said, "We can and do protect the
resources of this state and certainly the environment." He
added that DNR, as a business accountable to the legislature,
has worked hard getting oil companies and mining companies to
the state and helping the timber industry survive. He said,
"Adding to the duplication that NOAA is asking us to do is
exactly the wrong message that you folks told us to go do when
this bill was passed." Commissioner Irwin asked the committee
to keep in mind the real message that is being sent.
8:15:33 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said:
The implementation of [House Bill] 191 is linked to
the OCRM federal approval process, and it has been
greatly influenced by the directives and guidance
provided by OCRM under the umbrella of program
"approvability." DNR and OCRM maintained a very open
and continuous dialogue once House Bill 191 was
introduced and EO [Executive Order] 106, and that
communication continued through March and May. OCRM
reviewed House Bill 191 and provided edits related to
ACMP "approvability," so they have been part of this
process from day one. The effective date of EO 106
was April 15, 2003; that effectively transferred the
coastal program and the staff from the Office of the
Governor to DNR. This is where some of the hurdles
really started.
MR. JEFFRESS noted that the employees within the governor's
office were exempt and, once they moved to DNR, it was a
classified system, thus, new position descriptions had to be
written, and staff had to reapply for the positions that they
currently held. Through attrition and cuts there was a vacancy
rate of 47 percent, he said. It took quite awhile to get the
department re-staffed, he stated, but very few projects missed
their timeline.
8:18:02 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said due to staffing shortfalls the regulatory
revision process required by House Bill 191 was delayed until
October 2003 when DNR hired a contractor to revise 6 AEC 50, 6
AEC 80, and 6 AEC 85. The department also established a work
group with several of the coastal districts, many state
agencies, and OCRM staff, the latter of which provided a
comprehensive review of the revised regulations, he added. DNR
held two coastal work groups in December 2003, one in Anchorage,
and one in Juneau.
8:19:23 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said during meetings with OCRM a three-step process
for program approval was created: to submit EO 106, House Bill
191, House Bill 86, and House Bill 69 to OCRM for review; to
submit the revised regulations; and to submit the coastal
districts' revised plans, which must first be approved by DNR.
Staffing shortfalls didn't allow DNR to complete phase one until
January 2004. In February 2004 DNR's revised regulations went
out for public notice, he said, and OCRM made the decision to
wait until the regulations were implemented and then go through
the review process of both the regulations and the legislation
together. The department didn't want that, but they proceeded,
he said. The revised regulations had a 45-day comment period,
and they became effective on July 1, 2004, he noted.
8:21:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if that was "the communication from the
federal government that said that this could not be considered a
minor plan amendment and had to be a major revision of the
plan."
8:22:06 AM
MR. JEFFRESS answered yes, with the legislation combined with
the revised regulations "they then considered that as a major
amendment, where previously they had said that if we submitted
them in the three steps they would be reviewed and approved as
routine program change." He added that DNR found areas needing
clarification after the revisions were made, including Section
112 of the revised regulations, which went out to notice for
comment on August 9. On October 29 the regulations became
effective. During this period, DNR was preparing amendment
packets for submittal to OCRM, and OCRM told DNR not to submit
them until the final revisions to the packet were complete and
adopted. So, on September 30, 2004, DNR submitted the
revisions, the amendment, and the new project descriptions, he
said. It was still not decided whether an environmental impact
statement or an environmental assessment would be required.
8:24:12 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said since September 30, DNR has gone through two
revisions and worked endless hours to revise the program to fit
the mandates established by OCRM. These negotiations continued
up until a week before OCRM's January 28 letter, he added, and
DNR was surprised by the letter, because DNR had thought it had
made substantial progress. The letter informed DNR that the
OCRM rescinded some of its agreements with DNR. He said, "So,
we actually lost ground, and they're expanding the program
beyond where it was even prior to [House Bill] 191." Mr.
Jeffress said DNR is still trying to keep communication with
OCRM and is surprised that it chose to respond to the committee
and not even "copy the administration on this." He added, "But
this is ... an indication to you how they've been dealing with
us."
8:25:56 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said House Bill 191 did not require a comprehensive
rewrite of the coastal district plans. The department sent a
letter to the districts advising them that if they didn't have
the time or resources it was their decision whether to do a
comprehensive rewrite or just address the issues of local
concern that would allow them to submit their plan for approval
by DNR, he stated. He added that there is nothing in DNR's
regulations or House Bill 191 that would prevent them from
future revisions of their plans to include additional
enforceable policies. One of DNR's frustrations in giving
guidance to the districts is the "ever-changing landscape that
OCRM has provided us," he concluded.
8:27:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee is not here to say the
department has not worked hard; the question is with the
changing landscape that DNR has been faced with and if House
Bill 191 gives adequate timelines to the districts for rewriting
their plans.
8:28:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, asked
about the districts being able to submit "something" to meet
deadlines, but if it is just a list or a stop gap measure, won't
it leave the status of the program in limbo and be confusing for
people getting permits?
8:29:47 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said the districts were allowed time to develop
enforceable policies, and there have been numerous amendments to
those plans over the years through the regulatory body. House
Bill 191 called for no duplication or redundancy in existing
laws. He noted that since 1979 there has been a huge increase
in the number of environmental regulations at the federal and
state level. Many areas weren't adequately covered in 1979 that
are now, including: air, land, and water quality. He stated,
"All the federal agencies have matured and implemented [the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)] - in some
cases to the extreme - so that the resources are adequately
covered." He continued as follows:
Now, if there is an area ... [where] a local district
feels ... there is inadequate coverage and [the
district] can demonstrate to DNR - on the criteria
that's set forth in [House Bill] 191 - that there is a
hole there and that there's an enforceable policy that
meets local concern, or they have the scientific
evidence to demonstrate this needs to be covered, then
those are the areas that we ask them to focus on
first. If it's a question of a resource not being
protected -- I mean, this is one of the things that
you mandated with [House Bill] 191, that it not be
redundant. And even before [House Bill] 191, there
was Senate Bill 308 that was passed in 2002 that also
mandated that the districts revise their plans so that
they don't duplicate or restate state or federal
policies.
MR. JEFFRESS said that DNR directed the districts to either do a
comprehensive rewrite or just pick the areas most vital to their
own district and address those issues. Later, after July 1,
2005, if additional resources are available, they can do further
rewrites. However, the districts must demonstrate to DNR that
there isn't an existing state or federal regulation that
adequately addresses their area of concern. He said, "That's
what we're all looking for is a simple area that we can point
somebody to comply with this federal or state law and the
resources protected."
8:33:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how many districts have done this.
8:33:48 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said Randy Bates can provide details.
8:34:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Jeffress if he had said that DNR
asked the federal government to point to an area that lacked
regulation.
8:34:29 AM
MR. JEFFRESS clarified that DNR asked the districts not to
duplicate existing regulations when writing their enforceable
policies.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it wouldn't be easier to point to
and address the law or regulation that already exists, instead
of finding an area where the law doesn't exist.
MR. JEFFRESS said the Campbell Group put together a matrix. He
remarked that there has been a plethora of regulations since
1979, and he thinks it is very easy to determine whether it's a
water quality issue and if there's a standard involved. He said
there are laws with broad coverage like the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and if a district sees a specific point of local
concern that the act doesn't address, the department leaves it
up to that district, "because they know their situation." Staff
is always available to direct districts while writing their
enforceable policies, he said.
8:38:36 AM
RANDY BATES, Deputy Director, Office of Project Management and
Permitting, Department of Natural Resources, said he will
briefly explain DNR's process of the implementation of House
Bill 191. He said DNR has taken steps to involve all interested
parties. In October 2003 it hired the Campbell Group to draft
regulations, and DNR put together the Regulations Review Team
with representation from state agencies, coastal districts,
industry, and the environmental community. The team had weekly
meetings for two months. He said that DNR also held conferences
in Juneau and Anchorage to engage dialogue with coastal
districts. DNR created draft regulations for discussion with
the districts, took comments, and went back and created a formal
packet. It then went out for a 45-day public review, and a lot
of comments came in. After considering comments, DNR submitted
the revised regulations that went into effect in July 2004.
8:43:22 AM
MR. BATES said DNR held a three-day district conference in
Anchorage to go over the regulations and then held eight
teleconferences since July to offer assistance in writing
policy.
8:44:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee wants to focus on the problems
that the districts are finding, and it has no issue with how
much effort DNR has made.
8:45:30 AM
MR. BATES said that of the 35 coastal districts in Alaska, 33
have coastal district plans in effect, and 27 of those have
committed to revising their coastal plans to comply with House
Bill 191. Of that 27, 25 have hired consultants to do the plans
for them. DNR has currently reviewed draft plans for the
Aleutians West coastal resource service area, the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough, the City of Craig, and the City of Valdez - 4
of the 27 that DNR expects to receive.
8:47:38 AM
TOM LOHMAN, North Slope Borough, said the people at DNR have
worked hard taking on the task of House Bill 191, but the
districts felt DNR's timeline was "unreasonable from the get-go,
largely because the state was pushing the change in the program
as a routine program change, and on its face it was clearly
something more than that." He added that it was obvious the
process for approval was going to be longer than envisioned by
House Bill 191.
MR. LOHMAN said that the North Slope Borough started its coastal
zone management process in 1983, and it was passed in 1988. It
is not an easy process to get a plan approved. There are eight
villages in the North Slope Borough, and the oil industry does
not sit on the sidelines when a resource plan is created, he
noted. The borough got one of the bigger grants to do the
revision, but it's still not enough, he stated.
8:50:44 AM
MR. LOHMAN said the reason the borough exists is to protect the
Inupiat subsistence culture, and all policies reflect that. The
borough wants to know whether it can craft policies dealing with
subsistence, including the land and water where it takes place.
House Bill 191 was the administration's bill, and "the initial
drafts did away with the program altogether - did away with the
ability of local communities to craft any policies at all." It
was legislative hearings like this that put back some ability of
the communities to craft policy, he noted. The borough asked
the administration directly if it could craft policies on
subsistence and for the outer continental shelf (OCS), and the
administration said absolutely yes. Then, as showed on DNR's
web site, those policies were no longer approvable.
8:52:44 AM
MR. LOHMAN said the issue of federal lands and waters involves a
wrinkle that deals with designations. He said in order to apply
a state policy, an area needs to be designated as a subsistence
area or special habitat area, and OCRM has said that federal
lands and waters cannot be designated. Areas available for
subsistence, like bowhead whaling, cannot have a policy, he
noted. There is no clarity in the districts, and they have no
idea how to deal with it. He said they need more time; the
North Slope Borough is not going to meet its deadline. The
borough cannot go out to the villages and get public input, and
the ACMP is very important, he stressed. Mr. Lohman added that
the language in the bill is unclear, and it is ludicrous that
the intent of the bill is to create clarity.
8:56:28 AM
MR. LOHMAN said the consultants were under pressure, and there
was not the give-and-take that the districts would have liked.
There are countless issues that the consultants don't have time
to address. "If there is clarity today - and I don't think
there is - we've got four months before July 1, and we have
internal processes that back up three or four or five months off
of that." He said, "We love the oil industry, we just want to
make sure they do their job in a way that allows the subsistence
culture, the Inupiat people, to be preserved." Working with the
oil industry is not a quick process because they have very
strong concerns and opinions, he said.
8:57:53 AM
MR. LOHMAN remarked on the governor's letter where he said
"Alaskans should make these kinds of decisions for Alaskans,"
but apparently that philosophy stops in Juneau, he opined.
"This added hurdle of having to designate an area - which we
can't do on federal lands or waters - in order to apply the
state subsistence standard and write policies on subsistence--
we're not sure what's left," he said.
8:59:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the North Slope Borough is unsure whether
it can write an enforceable policy dealing with subsistence and
habitat.
8:59:25 AM
MR. LOHMAN said he is unsure regarding federal land or water.
There are people who believe we cannot extend our land
management regulations, Title 29, to federal lands or waters.
9:00:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that the old ACMP allows districts to comment
and create enforceable policies for federal lands and waters.
9:00:37 AM
MR. LOHMAN said it does but the program is not perfect. He said
the vagaries of the program turned out to be one of its
strengths because it brings the industry to our table very early
in the process. He said [the industry] wants to know: "How are
you going to interpret this when we come down to a review?
Let's work it out now."
9:01:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how much time would be adequate.
9:02:05 AM
MR. LOHMAN answered that there needs to be clarity before the
approval process begins. Absent that, he said he would like to
see a one-year delay.
9:03:38 AM
PETER FREER, Planning Supervisor, City and Borough of Juneau,
said he supervises staff who work directly with ACMP. Juneau's
coastal management plan was adopted in 1987, after several years
of development, because Juneau took it seriously and wanted it
to accurately reflect areas to be protected and areas to be
developed. Two important parts of Juneau's plan include the
identification of special waterfront districts that received
pre-approval for development, and the wetlands management
program.
9:05:34 AM
MR. FREER said there is a severe curtailment of the kind of
enforceable policies Juneau can write, which are the heart and
the soul of the plan. Juneau's current plan has about 80
enforceable policies, and the most important are the habitat and
coastal development policies. Juneau believes it would be
severely cut back, he said. This is an important local control
issue, and it gives districts a seat at the table. He stressed
the benefit of coordinating with other interested parties during
the ACMP review process.
9:07:27 AM
MR. FREER said Juneau is being rushed and the whole public
participation component is circumscribed. He said he agrees
with Mr. Lohman regarding a one-year delay for the submittal of
district plans, because, "Why do this twice?"
9:09:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee is concerned about the
disruption of coordinating elements of the consistency review,
and he asked if Juneau has adopted the enforceable policies into
ordinance for the borough.
9:09:53 AM
MR. FREER answered yes.
9:10:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if that would make it an extra step for a
developer to get approval from the City and Borough of Juneau if
it is no longer covered under ACMP.
9:10:36 AM
MR. FREER answered yes.
9:10:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested it is a difficult task to
rewrite the ACMP, and she asked if OCRM has been changing its
guidance to the districts.
9:11:23 AM
MR. FREER said he has observed from the district level that the
guidance from DNR has been evolving and changing "to the point
where the time we have gotten to prepare a plan has collapsed."
He said he hasn't dealt directly with OCRM, but his impression
is that the January 28 letter from OCRM to DNR was simply OCRM's
assessment of DNR's submittal and not a factor of changing
guidance.
9:12:20 AM
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor, Lake and Peninsula Borough, King Salmon,
said, as an example, the disposal of dredge spoil policy under
the current ACMP will be significantly watered down with the
changes, and it is taking away local control. The borough is
comprised of 18 communities and all are on either lake or salt-
water shoreline. Mr. Alsworth also gave an example of losing
control over navigation obstructions.
9:16:37 AM
MR. ALLSWORTH stated that ACMP has been very helpful to the
borough, and it spent five years writing the last program,
holding meetings in all 18 communities. Public process and
local input is important, he said. A critical concern, he
stressed, is that the revised regulations exclude fresh water
lakes, which are vital to the citizens' subsistence lifestyle;
removal of fresh water is the same as removing the Great Lakes,
he said, and there would be no local input on the development of
these important shorelines. The current coastal management
program provides a vital tool for managing our resources, he
said, and many policies are interwoven through the borough
ordinances.
9:21:18 AM
MR. ALLSWORTH agrees with delaying the deadline by a year.
9:22:21 AM
DAN BEVINGTON, Former Coastal District Coordinator, Kenai
Peninsula Borough (KPB), said KPB has written 12 ordinances and
25 resolutions in support of the ACMP over the years. A
significant enforceable policy affected by the revision is the
mitigation policy, in which KPB has been very successful. The
revision eliminates that policy. He said, "It really reflects
the management intent of the state's changes" to limit local
pro-active involvement.
9:24:47 AM
MR. BEVINGTON said the current program brings KPB to the table
and ensures that local concerns are considered. The state
doesn't have that comprehensive view, he said. He gave an
example of a boulder removal project on the shoreline in which
the state did not factor in local concerns.
9:26:44 AM
MR. BEVINGTON said his main problem is confusion, and it's been
disheartening to hear the administration saying, "You do it our
way or get out." He stated that the districts have been
faithful to the state and they are being painted as holding up
the bus. He said the timeline was not provided with much
forethought, and he agrees that the deadline should extend
beyond the OCRM approval so that it will be known exactly what
the process is going to entail.
9:29:36 AM
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Cenaliulriit Coastal Resource
Service Area (CCRSA), said the CCRSA serves 38 villages in the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. He said the district is more dependent
on renewable resources than anywhere in the United States.
Subsistence is essential to the Yupik people, and they fervently
believe in the wise use of the resources for future
sustainability, but the new requirements make it uncertain.
Mining policies were taken out in these regulations, and there
are several mining projects in the region. He asked what this
would mean to the potential impact of mining or large sand and
gravel extractions near subsistence resources, and how much
influence the [new] regulations would provide "those most
affected in the decision-making." House Bill 191 leaves an
unpredictable future for the people, and, he said, the ability
of local people to comment on mining "has been taken away and is
no longer our concern." Cenaliulriit has only one first class
city, twenty-five second class cities, and twelve tribally run
communities. These communities use the ACMP to address resource
protection and subsistence because they do not have ordinances
relating to those issues, he stated. The ACMP is their only
avenue.
9:32:44 AM
MR. OSCAR said locals have had very little influence on the new
plan. He also noted that the new regulations are not well
defined, and he must translate them in Yupik and share them with
the 38 villages. He said the people are also concerned about
decisions that are "bases on bias" and made behind desks that
are hundreds of miles away. He added that he would have to
travel over "5,000 air miles in my district to explain the
project and acquire support to the new regulations that may not
sit well with them." The short timeline guarantees failure
because of the vastness of the region, he said.
9:35:12 AM
MR. OSCAR quoted his uncle as follows:
My learning and knowledge was handed down by your
ancients' ancients, where the whole group was as
important as one person's fate. Your children's
children - preservation for the long term. Yet today,
we're threatened by the pervasiveness of the human
nature. We live in a hurried world of technology -
the clock, and the (indisc.) thought for self-gain -
and forget who holds our lives. We are faced with
written laws and regulations that change instantly the
next day from a far-off land, from a few who offer
promises and good words; but in the end, you are
forgotten when the true face of hidden misdeeds and
false words is revealed in their crafty law.
9:36:43 AM
THEDE TOBISH, Senior Environmental Planner/Coastal District
Coordinator, Department of Community Planning and Development,
Municipality of Anchorage, said he supports much of what has
been said. He said Anchorage was optimistic when House Bill 191
passed, because its plan was written and adopted in 1980 and was
used as an example of a plan that needed work and clarity. He
said the best example of an enforceable policy that will be
damaged by the ACMP revision is Anchorage's wetlands management
plan, which covers approximately 200 individual wetland areas.
"We have been variously told off and on over the past year that
we can or cannot include these policies, and it is very clear to
me that the regulations now preclude the incorporation of these
polices in our plan revision." He added that the effective
enforcement of these policies has been through the ACMP
consistency review process. He said that the policies evolved
through the consistency reviews and led Anchorage to obtain
general permits from the Army Corps of Engineers which allowed
the city to issue wetland permits. He said it is unclear what
the loss of these policies will mean.
MR. TOBISH stated that Anchorage is willing and ready to use its
Title 29 authorities to implement elements of the existing and
new ACMP plan, but sorting it out in the remaining time may not
be possible. "We want to get this correct once, but we doubt we
can with the current timeframe," he said. The task is complex
and the state's regulations are a moving target, he added.
Anchorage currently has three major plans under the approval
process and the effort required to do the revisions is vast. He
said he wants more time and wants the deadline to be triggered
by the final adoption of the new regulations.
9:41:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about Anchorage's enforceable policies being
adopted in ordinance and if a developer would have to go through
an approval process in addition to the consistency review.
9:42:12 AM
MR. TOBISH answered yes.
9:42:21 AM
KAROL KOLEHMAINEN, Program Director, Aleutians West Coastal
Resource Service Area (AWCRSA), stated that AWCRSA will be
distributing its amended plan today, beginning the 30-day review
period. Prior to the complete revision of the ACMP, AWCRSA had
just finished a substantial revision as part of its ten-year
review cycle, she said, and that is part of the reason why
AWCRSA could attempt to complete the amended plan on time. To
fulfill the requirements of DNR, most of the policies had to be
deleted and many more were considered wrong by DNR.
9:44:43 AM
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said that aside from the ACMP consistency
reviews AWCRSA participates in, it is an active political
subdivision of the state. She said this year AWCRSA is working
with the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association and the Department
of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development to complete a
mapping project for the communities of Atka and Nikolski. She
said those maps are going to be used by state agencies and
applicants to reduce costs when planning projects in these
remote communities. She stated, "I think in light of the
governor's letter that the program would go away, it's
particularly significant to recognize that the CRSA is a viable
part of the state network."
9:45:50 AM
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said inconsistency is the biggest issue. "Prior
to the October workshop we had a different understanding where
we were headed then we did at the conclusion of the workshop and
in the months that followed," she said. She noted that the
state has created an impossible threshold for local coastal
districts to address this matter of local concern and to write
local policy. Ms. Kolehmainen said there appears to be no place
for local policy and that testimony by the state during the
House Bill 191 hearing was misleading. She noted that seven
months ago it was understood that districts could develop policy
where it could be demonstrated that state policies either did
not address the issue or were not adequate to meet local needs,
and then later, DNR turned around and said the districts could
not write policy that was more stringent than state or federal
standards.
9:48:06 AM
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said it is important that the coastal policies
apply to resources and not just a designated area. Designation
is problematic in a district as big as AWCRSA without Title 29
authority. She indicated that the AWCRSA has grave concerns
about the loss of due deference and [the] decision-making
process.
9:48:43 AM
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said the new process will result in uncertainty
for developers, and AWCRSA has serious doubts that the 19
remaining policies will survive DNR's upcoming review. Ms.
Kolehmainen said citizens of AWCRSA will receive little notice
for projects that impact them, and will be unable to provide a
coordinated response, and any response will not be afforded due
deference. Citizens will lose their status as local experts,
and the state will lose its ability to call upon local expertise
to understand local needs. Beneficial projects, like community
mapping, may be jettisoned. She concluded that the revision of
ACMP needs to occur in partnership and retain the important
elements. She said AWCRSA has acted in good faith, but is
reluctant to continue to invest time and resources in an effort
that may not result in a viable program with local involvement.
9:52:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Kolehmainen to send the draft policy to
the committee to review, and he stated his understanding that
her area does not have Title 29 authority and thus has no
alternative way to adopt enforceable policies.
9:52:43 AM
MS. KOLEHMAINEN answered that's correct. She said the city of
Unalaska has a city code, but it relies on the ACMP to address
those issues.
CHAIR SEATON asked if Unalaska would adopt the enforceable
policies if they were lost through the ACMP.
MS. KOLEHMAINEN said she can't answer that for the city; however
the city of Unalaska is a very small part of the Aleutians West
area, which extends 1,000 miles.
9:54:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed that districts seem to be expressing
confusion.
9:55:12 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said he heard that the districts want additional
time on issues "where we have not had clear guidance from OCRM
to pass on to the district." He said subsistence is the large
issue, and it is not going to be resolved through ACMP. He
noted that DNR can't get OCRM to acknowledge that other state
and federal agencies "have a hand" in subsistence issues. The
department has requested guidance from OCRM on subsistence, and
their response may make ACMP reviews consider areas beyond the
coastal zone, which Mr. Jeffress did not think was the intent of
ACMP. He again expressed frustration that OCRM won't
acknowledge that there are other federal agencies working on
subsistence. Mr. Jeffress concluded:
Aside from those, there's a number of other areas that
we've given guidance to the districts that they can
write enforceable policies and submit their plans.
And then - when this becomes clear to us, through
additional guidance or policy that we can agree to
with OCRM - ... they can address these other issues of
concern.
9:57:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that DNR's frustrations
are similar to those of the districts; the districts frustration
is related to "not wanting to write, and rewrite, and revise
each time there's a new interpretation."
9:58:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO quoted the governor's letter: "Therefore
if OCRM does not immediately abandon the new requirements ...
the ACMP will expire by operation of law in the summer of 2005."
Representative Gatto asked, "Is that what we're on track to do?"
9:58:56 AM
MR. JEFFRESS replied:
The old standards - 6 AAC 80 - were extended until the
federal approval of our program. Without those new
standards being approved - 11 AAC 112 - we don't have
federally approved standards that can be implemented
in federal consistency. Eighty-five to ninety percent
of our consistency reviews concern a federal activity
or a federal authorization. And this is where we have
the problem with a major portion of our program; our
consistency reviews would sunset. What we're trying
to do, again, is we made provisions with our
negotiations to modify some of our regulations at
their request - and in some cases verbatim their
wording. But they went beyond that in the letter of
January 28 to the point where they are dictating how
the state is to implement and regulate all of our
coastal resources, well beyond what we feel they are
authorized [to do] through the Coastal Zone Management
Act.
10:00:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked about the termination of ACMP as matter of
law, and asked if the entire program goes away or if the
standards aren't going to be there to enforce. He told DNR to
let the legislature know if legislation is required to terminate
ACMP.
10:01:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said his understanding is that the federal
government contributes $2.5 million to "the $4.5-million
program." He indicated his concern regarding funding
10:02:06 AM
MR. JEFFRESS said one of the points in the letter signed by four
commissioners is that the resources are adequately addressed.
10:02:29 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:02:36 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|