Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/12/2007 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB46 | |
| Overview: Cook Inlet Gas: Reality & Exploration Potential | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 46 - COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1:01:51 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 46(RES), "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 45, ch. 24, SLA 2003, as amended by sec. 21, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date." 1:02:03 PM SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, paraphrased from the following sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]: Alaska's Coastal Management Program has undergone major modification in the last several years under the previous administration. These changes required the coastal zone management districts throughout the state to completely revise their management plans. Compliance and approval of the new plans by both the state and federal authorities must be achieved before the March 1, 2007 termination date of their existing plans. Of the 28 coastal management districts, 16 have new plans that have been approved or are near approval. Of the remaining districts, 9 are still being revised or are under review and 3 have requested mediation. They are not likely to make the March 1 deadline. The reasons most often given for the delays are the complexity and extent of information required by the Department of [Natural] Resources for justification of the plan proposals. This is particularly true for large districts where revisions to resources inventories and analysis required significant effort. CSSB 46(RES) accomplishes two things. First, it extends the March 1 deadline for completion and approval of district plans six months to September 1. Secondly, it extends a related deadline for the designation of categorical and generally consistent determinations (the ABC list) six months also. I urge you to give favorable consideration of SB 46 and its importance to 70% of Alaska's coastal area and the people who call it home. SENATOR OLSON emphasized that CSSB 46(RES) is entirely focused on extending the deadline from March 1 to September 1, 2007. He said that other related issues will be carried forward in another bill. 1:04:46 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if the extension is sufficient to meet all the deadlines mentioned. SENATOR OLSON stated that he is not convinced it is, but it provides communities the opportunity to complete revision of their plans. One or two districts will probably have difficulty making the September 1 deadline, he said. 1:05:23 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what happens for coastal zone management in those districts that do not meet the deadline. DAVID GRAY, Staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State Legislature, related that the administration supports the September deadline. He further related that the coastal districts are telling Senator Olson that the six-month extension is adequate and a good compromise. He noted that extending the deadline beyond September 1 also has problems. 1:07:01 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to why CSSB 46(RES) is significantly shorter than the original version. SENATOR OLSON explained that the original bill had a section dealing with federal lands and federal leases, which made the bill more complicated than just extending the deadline. Given the time sensitivity of the deadline, he said, the bill was amended to deal only with the deadline issue. 1:07:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his assumption that the coastal zone management districts, along with their planning process, had been eliminated during the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature. He asked what transpired between then and now. SENATOR OLSON offered his belief that the previous administration failed to understand the complexity and detrimental effects that their actions would have on the coastal communities that wished to have a say in fish, gas, and oil issues. 1:09:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to whether there had been a court case or other type of challenge. SENATOR OLSON said he did not know of any challenges in court, but due to the imminent deadline three districts sought resolutions through mediation. 1:09:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what happens to a coastal district as an entity if it is not in compliance by the September deadline. 1:11:18 PM RANDY BATES, Acting Director, Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that OPMP is the lead agency for implementing the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). He related that the OPMP, DNR, and the Palin Administration support CSSB 46(RES). He stated that OPMP will continue working with the coastal districts throughout the time extension to achieve compliance with their coastal programs. He reported that OPMP has worked with the districts over the past two years to ensure that the districts understand the rules of writing enforceable policies and that they are educated as to what they can and cannot do. Once the districts have completed their plans, they will submit them to DNR. The DNR will then evaluate the compliance, respond, and make a recommendation to the commissioner. If the policies are still noncompliant with the laws that govern the coastal program, they will not be approved, he said. The districts are trying to address issues that the state is already addressing, which is not allowed and thus DNR disapproved those plans. 1:13:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired as to what action will be taken for those districts that are not in compliance because they did not submit a plan. MR. BATES explained that coastal management in the state and for the districts is voluntary. If a district voluntarily chooses to participate, it can write district plans according to rules established by statute and regulation. If DNR determines that the policies are noncompliant, the department cannot approve the policies, and the district does not get those policies. If the district writes policies that are approvable, they become law as part of the coastal program that is implemented uniformly throughout the state by DNR, just as the department does for the statutes and the regulations. He stated that a district would not have a plan if DNR disapproved all of the policies included in that plan. Absent a plan, he said, state laws and standards still apply to the entire coastal zone. Therefore, he stressed, protection is not lost for resources or uses in a coastal zone without a district plan. Instead, what a district loses is the local perspective on how to guide development in accordance with ACMP. 1:16:22 PM MR. BATES further explained that in any planning process additional time will always be requested for getting better studies and information with which to prepare a better plan. Given the implementation of House Bill 191 in 2003 and given the eight-month extension afforded by Senate Bill 102 in 2005, he stated that this additional six months should generally satisfy the majority of the coastal districts seeking additional time. He emphasized that the districts must realize this six-month extension is it. The DNR is awaiting submission of district plans so it can finalize its review and make sure it is done in a manner that reaches conclusion by the now proposed September 1 deadline. 1:18:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what happens if the department disapproves or modifies any of the program as referenced on page 1, lines 13-14, in CSSB 46(RES). MR. BATES reported that this provision was passed by the legislature in 2003 and again ratified in 2005 through Senate Bill 102. He noted that it is his task as acting director of the executive branch to carry out the program and ensure that the legislature's language is implemented. The department has used this language to terminate the plans of five coastal districts that have never complied with House Bill 191 by drafting and submitting district plan revisions. The department has not, under any other circumstance, taken any action to disapprove or modify any other part of a program, he emphasized. Furthermore, DNR has been implementing a provision in Senate Bill 102 that requires elimination of certain district policies if they duplicate or restate existing law, and this implementation aligns itself with this provision of CSSB 46(RES) as well, he said. 1:19:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to whether a coastal zone plan becomes null and void if it copies existing state statute. MR. BATES answered, "Yes." If there is a provision in an existing coastal district plan that restates or duplicates an existing state or federal law, it is rendered null and void by Senate Bill 102, he said. Eliminating that duplicity was one of the basic tenants of reform of the coastal program back in 2003. 1:21:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that sometimes it is desirable to transfer authority to the lowest level, and sometimes not. He asked if there is any provision for arbitration so that a district's entire plan is not automatically voided without the opportunity for discussing a duplicative [provision]. MR. BATES related that nationally there are 35 coastal states, and each state has an opportunity to develop a coastal program that best fits its needs. Alaska has chosen to implement a program that includes state laws from the various sister agencies, such as the Office of Habitat Management and Permitting, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Division of Mining, Land and Water. He emphasized that Alaska has also voluntarily chosen to include a local component the state's coastal districts. This is a state program in which the local governments play an important role in helping determine whether projects are compliant with district plans, the state standards, and the existing state and federal law. 1:23:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether local coastal district plans could speak to an "issue" that is already addressed in state law. MR. BATES responded that there are regulations that state what a district can and cannot write. He said there is also statutory language that says a district may not address a matter already covered by an existing state agency authority unless the matter is not adequately addressed. If a district demonstrates that an issue is inadequately addressed, then it can delve into the topic. He outlined the context: Is the resource covered and is the management and protection provided? If it is not and it is within the bounds of what the state has written as far as a coastal program, then the district could address the issue. Mr. Bates further stated that DNR has, under all circumstances, objectively reviewed and evaluated all of the district plans as to whether they comply with state laws. 1:27:40 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised that the state will write a plan without local input for any coastal district that fails to meet the planning deadline or that has its plan denied by DNR. MR. BATES answered affirmatively. He noted that state law still applies to a coastal zone regardless of whether there is a district plan. District plans simply provide a local flavor to the program, he said. 1:28:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON queried as to whether a district would be terminated if its plan is not submitted and/or approved by the deadline. MR. BATES stated that there is no elimination of districts. He cited the communities of Angoon, Hydaburg, Klawock, St. Paul, Kake, Wrangell, and Petersburg as examples of coastal districts without plans. They will remain coastal districts and DNR will still involve them in discussions regarding coastal management. However, he stressed, they will not have a seat at the table during a consistency review of a project, and therefore no due deference in the interpretation of laws. 1:29:32 PM MR. BATES emphasized that a district gains due deference and a seat at the table with an approved district plan that has enforceable policies. Absent those policies and absent an effective district plan, the state still implements the program at a state level, he said. Districts without plans could still comment and participate through ACMP consistency procedures and through any solicitation for public comment on federal or state agency permits. 1:30:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a community could re-submit a plan by September 1, 2007, if its previous plan was denied. She also inquired as to whether a district could deny a permit request before it reached the state level. MR. BATES said that if a plan is not compliant, DNR tells the district what it can do to achieve compliance. If the district is trying to write about an aspect of resource that is already covered by existing law, DNR educates the district on how the coverage is provided. If the coverage is inadequate, DNR instructs the district on how to craft its enforceable policies in order to get to the issue. At this point, he stressed, he did not expect any district to come in with a plan that DNR has not yet seen because it is only a matter of refining plans and accepting what the rules are. MR. BATES then stated that a local district could deny a permit under the coastal program because regulation allows coastal districts to identify areas that are important to them, such as tourism, recreation, subsistence use, or habitat. He said that if a district can draw a boundary around a specific area that needs to be maintained for a particular reason, the district could then disqualify or disallow certain uses in that area. However, he emphasized, a district cannot preempt uses that the state considers important for the preservation of health, safety, or economy, such as oil and gas opportunities. 1:34:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that there are three coastal plans currently in mediation and that some others will soon be in mediation. What happens to the funding stream if these plans are not submitted by the September 1 deadline, he asked. MR. BATES predicted that 26 of the 28 districts will be finished by the September 1 extension deadline. He said he expects that mediation with the three districts will be resolved and their plans approved and in place before the deadline. The department will continue working with the two remaining districts, and any others that may be languishing, to get them to approval. He stressed that funding is continuous for all of the districts that are making progress and are participating in the program. The 28 coastal districts receive an average of $1 million annually in state and federal funds to ensure that they are implementing the program for themselves and for the state's purposes. 1:36:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if this means a district would still receive funding even if its plan is not approved by September 1. MR. BATES indicated that funding for districts that fail to meet the deadline depends on whether the district is making progress on its plan. The department has not heard from a couple of districts, he said, and it would make no sense to continue funding a district if it has no intention of revising its plan. 1:36:45 PM TOM LOHMAN, Wildlife Specialist, Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough; Vice Chair, Alaska Coastal District Association, supported CSSB 46(RES). The North Slope Borough needs the extension, he said, in order to successfully complete its district plan revision. He noted that in terms of coastal area, the North Slope District has the second largest in the state. He agreed with Mr. Bates that 26 of the 28 active coastal districts will have approved plans in place by the extended deadline. However, he stressed, very few districts will be satisfied with their approved plan. Mr. Lohman took issue with Mr. Bates' statements about educating the districts. He said that over the past three years the North Slope Borough has been continually surprised with regard to where it stands with DNR. The borough, he stressed, has found it impossible to craft policies on subsistence and activities in outer continental shelf waters, two topics of extreme importance to the borough. He also noted that the lack of continuity in DNR's staff over the past three years has resulted in interpretations changing numerous times. While there might be other vehicles to address some of those differing interpretations, the deadline extension is essential for the North Slope Borough, he advised. 1:40:01 PM MARLENE CAMPBELL, Coastal Management Coordinator, Government Relations Director, City and Borough of Sitka, supported Mr. Lohman's statements and thanked Senator Olson for the bill. She said that many districts are facing extinguishment of their programs until their new plans are in place on March 1. Sitka has done everything in its power to comply with deadlines, she explained. The state has done three major reviews, and each time has changed Sitka's plan by forcing removal of more of the district's enforceable policies. The district, she opined, now has less than half of what it once did. Furthermore, what is left is not nearly as protective as they had hoped it would be. Sitka submitted its final plan amendment by the August 10, [2006] deadline. However, Sitka did not hear back from the state until the commissioner's November 24, [2006,] approval, which required removal of yet more of the district's enforceable policies. Sitka deleted the policies and submitted its revised plan on January 5, 2007, but this document was not submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for federal approval until January 22, she said. Ms. Campbell emphasized that because of the timeframe there is no way Sitka's plan can actually be in operation by March 1, and the extension will afford continuity of the district's plans. 1:42:37 PM GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal District Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula Borough, stated that the bill is necessary because 14 coastal district plans will expire if the legislation is not passed. Nine of these are the largest of the coastal districts, and this includes the Kenai Peninsula Borough's district, he said. The task of updating the coastal district plans to conform to legislation has been a daunting task, not only for the coastal districts but also for OPMP. This effort has turned out to be much more complex and time consuming than anyone could have foreseen, he emphasized. With at least nine of the districts certain to miss the deadline, he stated, it only makes sense to provide an extension of time because an extension will have no negative effect on any person or process. 1:44:13 PM CAROL SMITH, Planner/Coastal Coordinator, City of Valdez, testified that the [Valdez Coastal Management District] fully supports passage of CSSB 46 (RES). She said that the district had successfully met all of the program's deadlines so far because of the district's small size and a consultant's help. The district received notice of approval of its revised plan on December 13, 2006. However, she continued, the district is now behind in finishing its plan because the director was out of the office for three months due to an automobile accident. Although the state has been helpful in working through most situations, she stated, the Valdez district believes the deadline extension will make it possible for most districts to finish their plans. 1:46:01 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining that there was no one else wishing to testify. 1:46:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the sponsor would be proposing other legislation to deal with the other issues. SENATOR OLSON said, "Yes." 1:46:39 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO moved to report CSSB 46(RES) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 46(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|