|
Coastal districts want ACMP control Administration, industry oppose plan to establish coastal policy board with authority to approve district management plans Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
The Alaska Coastal Management Program is back in the Alaska Legislature — and at least one legislator, Rep. John Harris, R-Valdez, who went through the major rewrite of the program in 2003, is not happy to see it.
Harris asked the program’s manager, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management Director Randy Bates if he could explain to the House Committee on Community and Regional Affairs what the administration was doing to try to work things out so legislators didn’t have to see a bill in front of them to amend the work they did a few years ago to supposedly streamline the process.
Bates said the division, part of the Department of Natural Resources, began a “fairly robust public process” to engage all stakeholders in July. He said the division has asked for input on changes and has put some thoughts out in the form of draft statutes and regulations for conversation purposes and has held meetings to talk about proposed changes and ask for more input.
Bates said the division got a number of suggestions on changes, but hasn’t been able to come to consensus with participants on what changes could be achieved.
It’s a complicated program that involves many entities, from communities to industry, he said, and there is obviously a difference of opinion on how best to implement a coastal policy.
Districts not happy The bills reflect changes the coastal districts want to see in the program and include establishment of a coastal policy board — a smaller and somewhat more limited version of the old coastal policy council done away with in 2003.
Somewhat different House and Senate bills were introduced, but Senate Community and Regional Affairs adopted a substitute bill which is the same as the House version, a bill which that committee passed out Feb. 6. The next stop in the Senate is the Resources Committee.
In testimony in the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee Feb. 6 and in House Community and Regional Affairs Feb. 10, coastal districts supported the legislation, which is opposed by the administration and by industry, represented by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and ConocoPhillips Alaska.
In his sponsor statement for Senate Bill 4, Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, chair of Senate Community and Regional Affairs, said the 2003 changes “unduly impacted local participation in development reviews and approvals affecting both state and federal actions in the coastal zone.”
He said that since the 2003 changes coastal districts have faced “controversy and delay” by DNR in getting approval of district management plans. Such disputes were formerly handled by the coastal policy council, Olson said, but disbanding the council “concentrated all decision-making power within DNR.”
Rep. Reggie Joule, D-Kotzebue, sponsor of House Bill 74, said the bill focuses on restoring checks and balances by establishing a coastal policy board representing coastal districts and resource agencies; streamlining project review by reincorporating air and water quality concerns of DEC into the consistency review process; restoring the ability of coastal districts to establish enforceable policies that do not conflict with state or federal law or address matters preempted by state or federal agencies; and restoring state rights by reinstating provisions eliminated by 2003 legislation.
Administration opposed Bates said the administration opposes the bill because it creates a new oversight authority and invests it with the ability to override agency authority, rendering the Legislature’s establishment of laws moot.
The administration also opposes the bill because it is reflective of the desires of only one leg of a four-legged stool: coastal communities, the public, agencies and industry. This bill is specific to only the issues of coastal communities, Bates said, and doesn’t represent all stakeholders.
Fiscal notes accompanying the bill show a projected $116.6 million cost for DEC because the bill requires DEC to “process its permits in accordance with the ACMP coastal consistency review procedures where permits are currently processed independent from those procedures,” DEC said in its fiscal note. The changes would also require a new half-time position to serve as ACMP lead for DEC responsibility for internal and external coordination of ACMP matters, that department said.
The DNR fiscal note is for $165 million for fiscal year 2010 for contractual regulation rewriting and travel for board members to meet at least four times annually; subsequent years show a $115 million fiscal note, primarily for travel.
Industry opposed Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said in prepared comments that AOGA has been actively engaged in the Alaska Coastal Management Program since its inception in 1977 because virtually all of its members’ operations occur in or adjacent to Alaska’s coastal zone.
“In the late 1990s and early 2000s it became clear that the ACMP had become unmanageable in terms of process and scope, leading to confusion, misinterpretations and significant delays in processing permits, largely due to the significant evolution of environmental laws and regulations. The revisions to the program adopted by the Legislature in 2003 resolved these challenges and transformed the program into one that provides certainty for the state, local districts and the regulated community.”
Crockett said the proposed bills eliminate the certainty put into place by the Legislature in 2003.
Steve de Albuquerque, director of health, safety and environment for ConocoPhillips Alaska said in prepared testimony on HB 74 that ConocoPhillips opposes the changes. “Simply put, we do not think ACMP legislative reform is needed at this time and question the need for the significant changes proposed” in the bill.
He noted that coastal districts told Senate Community and Regional Affairs “that these proposed changes to the ACMP will streamline the permitting process and save applicants time.” Albuquerque said he is the person in charge of permitting for ConocoPhillips and he does not believe that would be the case.
He said he is unaware of a single case in which “any district’s input or concerns were not adequately addressed in the project decision.”
Districts support changes The North Slope Borough was one of a number of coastal areas supporting the bills.
North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta said in a Feb. 3 letter that the borough supports the legislation “because it will restore meaningful local involvement in the ACMP, implement checks and balances and streamline project reviews.”
Enforceable policies were at the forefront of comments from many districts. Itta said that “many of our proposed enforceable policies were denied on the basis that they addressed an agency’s authority. We made an extra effort to focus our proposed policies on matters that were not addressed by existing laws, but still they were denied.”
The borough supports establishment of the coastal policy board which would approve changes to ACMP regulations, amendments to coastal district programs and overall grant programs. Itta noted the board has fewer members than the former coastal policy council and would not be responsible for project consistency reviews.
Johnny Aiken, director of the North Slope Borough department of planning and community services, told House Community and Regional Affairs Feb. 10 that the borough doesn’t want to stand in the way of development. The North Slope Borough is as dependent on oil and gas as the state is, he said.
Aiken said one thing the borough wants to see is DEC back in the ACMP consistency process. He said an unintended consequence of removing DEC from the ACMP review process — DEC air and water permits are presumed under the 2003 legislation to meet ACMP standards — is that air and water issues were removed from project reviews.
The effect of an oil spill is one of the borough’s biggest concerns, Aiken said, and the borough can’t address that under the present ACMP program.
| 