Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
01/29/2007 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB46 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 46-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAIR HUGGINS announced SB 46 to be up for consideration and
that CSSB 46(RES), Version C, was before them as a work draft.
3:33:06 PM
DAVE GRAY, staff to Senator Olson, sponsor of SB 46, explained
that the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program (ACMP) has
undergone major modifications in the last several years. He said
that all ACMP districts had completely revised their management
plans and are required to have them approved by both the state
and federal authorities by March 1, 2007 or their existing plans
terminate. Of the 30 coastal management districts, 18 have their
new plans approved, but 9 are still under review and 3 need
remediation. That is the reason for this bill.
3:33:51 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS noted the committee had a list of those districts
before it.
MR. GRAY said many of the outstanding districts are not likely
to reach the deadline; the reason given most is that their huge
size makes the analysis of resources difficult to complete in
the allotted time.
3:34:50 PM
He stated that SB 46 offers a public finding provision in
section 1 for a certain kind of situation on a federal action
that the state doesn't have involvement in. The CS deletes this
section and addresses only changing the deadlines from March 1,
2007 to December 1, 2007. Another kind of deadline relates to
the ABC list. He also mentioned that once a district's plan is
approved, it doesn't have to go through a full-blown coastal
review in future reviews.
3:36:36 PM
MR. GRAY guessed that 70 percent of the state's coastline is
still under question.
3:37:42 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt CSSB 46(RES), version C, for
discussion. There were no objections.
3:38:12 PM
RANDY BATES, Acting Director, Office of Project Management &
Permitting (OPMP), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said
OPMP is the lead agency for implementing the ACMP. He walked the
committee through a brief history of how they got to this point.
3:39:01 PM
He related that HB 191 was passed in 2003 and SB 102 was passed
in 2005, and both called for several coastal management reforms,
including revisions to all the coastal district plans. Among
other things, they established a deadline for the submission of
those revised plans - originally established as July 1, 2005 -
and a sunset for all existing coastal district plans -
originally established as July 1, 2006. He explained:
The theory behind those two dates was the districts do
their work, get their plans revised and into the
state; the state then has a process we need to follow
for review and approval which includes local adoption,
state adoption, and federal adoption. And that process
as we defined it was about a year long....
He stated that those were aggressive timeframes and in 2005, SB
102 was passed; among other things, it extended both deadlines
by eight months - to March 1, 2006 and the sunset to March 1,
2007. And now the March 1, 2006 deadline for the submission of
the revised district plans has come and gone.
3:41:20 PM
MR. BATES said of the 35 coastal districts that were established
in this state, 28 of them submitted revisions compliant with the
deadline. Of those, two will be implemented - the City of Craig
and the Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area - prior to
the March 1, 2007 deadline. Twelve plans are near completion and
are ready to be implemented as soon as the local adoption
procedure is completed. As soon as that is done, they can be
filed with the Lieutenant Governor and be effective 30 days
thereafter.
He said three districts have already gotten through the state
review and approval process, but before going to the federal
government, they have asked for mediation of the DNR
commissioner's decisions; two plans are pending with the federal
granting office. This leaves nine coastal districts still
working on their plans. Two of those appear to not be making any
progress and he has not had successful communication with them
to ascertain what their intentions are.
MR. BATES said the other seven districts are actively working on
plan revisions and with his office to establish a review and
approval schedule.
3:43:20 PM
MR. BATES said that SB 46 extends the existing district plans'
sunset date by six months. This would allow the remaining 26
districts additional time to complete their plan revisions. This
seems to be a reasonable time based on his conversations with
the various coastal districts. SB 46 also extends the revision
of the ABC list, one of the mandates in SB 102. He wanted to
time the revision of the ABC list to be after coastal district
plan revisions are finished to make sure they take into account
the new policies that will complete the reform of the coastal
program overall.
3:44:28 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked him for a "30 second burst" on the ABC list.
MR. BATES replied that the actual title is "Expedited
Consistency Reviews and Permits Subject to the ACMP." The ABC
list is an opportunity to, in one fell swoop, review a general
category of activities and make sure that that category is
consistent with the laws of the ACMP. Any activity thereafter
that qualifies for that ABC list item no longer goes through an
individual review.
He used ice roads on the North Slope as an example. They can be
constructed if certain standard measures are applied - they
can't be built at a certain time; they have to be built with a
certain type of water and other conditions. A company that wants
to build an ice road can apply for building it; his department
would apply a general consistency determination on the B list,
thereby excluding the project from a 50-day consistency review.
This timeframe is generally what the consistency reviews are.
This streamlines the review process by a company having to do it
only one time and making sure that any time it's applied, the
conditions are met.
3:46:10 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE remembered that the original HB 191 was very
controversial. She asked how he knew six months was going to be
enough time and if the state would take on any liability as a
result of extending the deadline. She asked, for example, if
other competing activities and uses would be put on hold during
the six-month period because there is no compliance requirement.
3:47:29 PM
MR. BATES replied that he couldn't say that six months was
enough. Of the 28 districts he discussed, 2 would be done. The
additional 16 would be done within the next two months. So a 2 -
3 month extension would satisfy a good majority of the
districts. The remaining 9 coastal districts he believed would
be finished with their review process within the six months. A
couple districts could use additional time, but those might not
have staff or the intention to finish. Both he and the
Administration support this bill and the deadline extensions
contained within the CS.
3:49:18 PM
He said it's important to recognize that the policies the
districts are working on are just one aspect of the law. The
coastal program has two other aspects - the first is the
district policies; the second is the coastal standards
[applicable throughout the state's coastal zone including the
municipalities and the district boundaries]; and the third piece
is all the existing state authorities including the office of
Habitat Management and Permitting's authority, Mining, Land and
Water's authority, DEC's authority, and ADF&G's authority for
special areas.
He explained that any project that occurs anywhere in or
affecting one of the coastal districts is automatically subject
to state laws and standards. Having a district plan is voluntary
as is developing enforceable policies that are applicable to
activities that would occur in a district's area. "Just because
a district doesn't have a plan does not mean that projects
escape the scrutiny of other laws."
3:50:51 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he meant that coastal zone planning is
voluntary.
MR. BATES replied yes. The Coastal Zone Management Act was
created by Congress to allow all 35 coastal states, including
territories, to voluntarily participate in the program. Alaska
availed itself in 1979 and its program was approved at that
point. He said:
We continue to voluntarily participate as a state. In
addition, all of the municipalities around the coastal
region of the state can voluntarily participate in
coastal management. There is no mandate that they do.
If they do choose to participate, we have set out the
rules by which they have to play. In other words, have
policies and get policies approved as a planning
function or how they participate in the consistency
review of an actual project that may be occurring in
their region.
3:52:01 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked what DNR's recourse was to the two districts
that aren't responding.
3:52:28 PM
LINDSAY WOLTER, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), responded that this bill doesn't open the state up to any
additional liability and that the real effect of the sunset
dates on coastal district plans is that when a project comes
forward, the coastal districts will not be able to interpret
their own plans and use them in evaluating their projects - even
though they can go forward on their projects.
3:53:46 PM
MR. BATES answered that the state doesn't have recourse if the
two districts choose to voluntarily drop out of the program. He
said the five coastal districts chose not to submit district
plan revisions in accordance with the new rules by the
established deadline of March 1, 2006 and they were removed from
the ACMP. They could come back at any point and develop a new
coastal plan. In addition, any of the districts that are
undergoing this current round of review could also continue to
revise their plan.
3:55:12 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS reminded him that the committee is trying to
expedite this bill and asked him to sensitize the chain of
command above him. Mr. Bates said he had already done that.
3:55:50 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he had heard of any resistance to the
process.
MR. BATES replied that he has had two conversations reflecting
some discomfort with the extensions. The first was that some
coastal districts have expressed frustration with the continued
extension because they have done everything on the front end to
meet their mandate and deadline. The other conversation he had
was about the how extending the deadline would affect the ABC
list, a very important tool for staff and industry in expediting
consistency reviews of certain activities. He reminded them that
there is nothing that prevents his office from finishing early.
3:57:23 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS noted two letters of support in their packets, one
from Milli Martin from Homer and one from Jim Goossens from
Cordova.
3:57:45 PM
DUANE DVORAK, Acting Community Development Director, Kodiak
Island Borough, supported CSSB 46(RES). He said Kodiak is one of
the nine districts that hasn't submitted its final plan for
approval, but it has been working diligently. He said Kodiak has
a large coastal area and a lot of environmental diversity and
communities, which makes building consensus on regional planning
challenging and time consuming. He thought six months would be
enough time for the district to complete its plan and share it
with the public and give them an opportunity to comment on it.
4:02:27 PM
CAROL SMITH, Planner and Coastal Coordinator, Valdez, supported
SB 46. Her district made all its deadlines; however, her
supervisor had an auto accident and was out of work for three
months while the program was being reviewed and it was not
totally completed. Once it is completed, it still must still go
through the public process in Valdez and she was concerned that
they would not meet the March 1 deadline.
4:04:25 PM
MARLENE CAMPBELL, Government Relations Director, Sitka,
supported CSSB 46(RES). Said Sitka has tried to meet the
deadlines, but it wasn't able to. She said they were caught in a
situation that was way beyond their control - they received
commissioner approval on November 24, but were told they were
losing more policies and were required to make more changes,
which required substantial changes to their documents. Those
were submitted on January 5. She learned that the plan was not
actually sent to NOAA for its approval until January 22, 2007.
She said:
Even though we know we are getting local approval
contingent on the federal approval, there is no way
the adoption at the state level is going to take place
before March 1. So, for us here in Sitka, to have a
plan sunsetting before a new one is in operation
strikes fear in my heart and I know a lot of other
people are very concerned....
She also supported allowing other districts the opportunity to
complete their process.
4:08:52 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, Program Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough
Coastal District, said the borough's plan is nearly ready for
resubmission and that "It's been a difficult process to complete
this and the reasons are many." The scope of the original
legislation, Byzantine administrative rules, and some divergent
interpretation of the rules by OPMP have conspired to delay the
process, he said.
4:12:21 PM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director, North Slope Borough Planning Department,
supported CSSB 46(RES) saying they worked in good faith to
complete the extensive mapping and language and tried to get it
right; however, they needed more time to complete their
revision. He stated the program is very important to his
district, but it is so large that they have not been able to
agree on a lot of things.
4:15:01 PM
TERI CAMERY, Planner and Coastal District Coordinator, City and
Borough of Juneau, said Juneau is one of the three districts
that has filed for mediation under its plan. She thought the
plan could be quickly completed after the mediation was
completed. However, it must still go through the local approval
process and won't be finished before the deadline. She supported
CSSB 46(RES).
4:16:40 PM at ease 4:18:13 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to pass CSSB 46(RES), version C, out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|