|
Continuance of ACMP hangs in balance House Finance working on CS; administration says work on bill at impasse; program dies June 30 if not extended in this Legislature Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
The fate of the Alaska Coastal Management Program was unknown as this issue went to press and the Legislature approached the April 17 end of this year’s session.
ACMP goes away if not extended in this session. The program was substantially changed in 2003 under Gov. Frank Murkowski, over objections of the state’s coastal districts. In 2005 the Legislature gave the program a sunset date of June 30 — not a wind-down year but a drop dead date.
Gov. Sean Parnell introduced a barebones extension but progress on amended versions of that bill appears to have stalled.
House Finance heard from the Department of Natural Resources and the attorney general on some of the concerns the administration has at an April 11 hearing and Finance co-Chair Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak, said a committee substitute would be prepared.
But by April 12 there were press reports that negotiations had stalled.
Sharon Leighow, the governor’s spokeswoman, told Petroleum News in an April 13 e-mail that negotiations were at an impasse for the reasons outlined by the attorney general at the April 11 hearing.
What happens if ACMP is not reauthorized? As DNR Deputy Commissioner Joe Balash explained at the House Finance hearing, the federal government, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, created a voluntary program which, if a state participates, gives it the ability to participate in reviews of certain federal activities. ACMP is the state’s program, and if ACMP goes away, the state loses that ability.
Administration prefers simple extension The 2003 changes to ACMP solved issues industry had with the program, but coastal districts have been unhappy with the changes, which — among other things — removed a coastal policy council and transferred final decision making to the DNR commissioner.
The House Resources Committee fleshed out the governor’s bill to address some of the concerns coastal districts have had with the program and a committee substitute moved to House Finance, with the Senate and Community Regional Affairs moving what appeared to be the same committee substitute. A referral to Senate Resources was waived on the Senate floor April 8, and the bills are in the Finance committees in both bodies.
Balash told House Finance April 11 that while the administration told House Resources it preferred that an extension bill be separate from substantive changes to the program, when the committee chose to amend the bill DNR engaged with members of the committee “and sought to make those amendments more acceptable to the administration and keep the program operating in a predictable manner with objective standards and clear lines of authority.”
He said the engagement has been at all levels of the administration, including the Department of Law.
Legal concerns Alaska Attorney General John Burns told House Finance that he had several concerns, but believed they were issues that could be worked through.
For example, the bill describes the creation of a board that provides a forum for parties to discuss issues.
“There’s a statement here that talks about attempt to resolve issues, to discuss and attempt to resolve issues. When you attempt to resolve issues and you can’t resolve issues, then what happens? Are we inviting litigation?”
Burns said he wasn’t certain about the consequences of the terminology that the board would attempt to resolve issues.
Another area of concern was language which says changes in coastal district management plans may not conflict with statewide standards. Burns said the wording in the bill would allow “significantly more stringent standards,” and could potentially allow coastal districts to set critical habitat designations, something on which the state doesn’t have a statewide standard.
Then there is the addition of special management areas: What are the implications of that designation, he asked.
Burns said additional litigation is an issue with language that says an affected person may take an issue to court: “A person can be anybody, but not just the coastal district.” He said there is the potential to create another level of review, “policies that anybody can challenge.”
On the requirement that the federal government object or a local standard would take effect, Burns said there is no way the state can tell the federal government that if it doesn’t object within a certain period of time it’s lost that right. “The federal government always has the right to object at anytime and so we can’t arbitrarily constrain them,” he said.
Burns said he also had a concern about retroactivity, and asked whether those who have been in the process under existing ACMP standards would have to go back to square one because new policies had been adopted.
Protection from outsiders Rep. Bob Herron, D-Bethel, said the attorney general had shared his concerns with Herron and Rep. Reggie Joule, D-Kotzebue, and said the process the bill was attempting to create would be “a process that protects the state from quote-unquote outsiders because it’s our process that we’re trying to create and protect.”
Joule told the committee that coastal legislators have been waiting for about five years to have this discussion. He said he believes the sides in the discussion about ACMP are “closer together than we are far apart” and even with just a few days left in the session “I still have confidence that we can reach a level of agreement to bring closure to this,” adding that he would rather have a state coastal program than not.
Rep. Bryce Edgmon, D-Dillingham, said he believes that if the program is crafted correctly ACMP “will in fact be an enabler for resource development as opposed to a disabler.” A collaborative process between the local regions and the state “would help us form a buffer against some of the NGOs and the other interventionists that really are bringing us into court for years and years on end,” Edgmon said.
Still concerns Michael Satre, executive director of the Council of Alaska Producers, a nonprofit trade association representing large metal mines and development projects in the state, said the organization supports a simple extension of the program, but it understands coastal districts have significant concerns. Among other concerns, the council would like to see industry representation on the coastal policy board.
Frank Kelty of Unalaska, chairman of the Aleutians West coastal resource service area, said the district hasn’t really had time to review the committee substitute and would like more opportunity for testimony. He did say the proposed coastal policy council “doesn’t have a lot of strength to it.”
Steve Borell, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association, said the association is bothered that changes to the program are being driven through at the end of the session, and said it prefers straight extension with time to allow for “a very considered debate” on changes. He also recommended representation of regulated industries on the council — specifically oil and gas, mining, fishing and forestry.
Jason Brune, executive director of the Resource Development Council, said RDC “has members on every side of this contentious issue,” and is “committed to enhance local input and ensure coastal districts feel that they have a meaningful role for input on projects,” but is concerned that there isn’t time for constructive feedback on the committee substitute. He said RDC has concerns with a number of sections of the bill, which he listed, and also endorsed the idea of including industry representatives on the coastal policy board.
Kara Moriarty, deputy director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said AOGA does not support the committee substitute, believing it does not maintain the four principles the administration identified as crucial for the program.
| 