|
Bill would re-establish coastal council House Resources committee substitute extends ACMP to January 2017; 9-member Alaska Coastal Policy, Appeals Board created in DNR Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
The Alaska Legislature’s House Resources Committee has been hearing testimony on the Alaska Coastal Management Program and has generated a committee substitute for the governor’s ACMP bill, House Bill 106.
The governor’s bill was a barebones extension of the program, which ends July 1 without legislative action.
The committee substitute makes substantial changes in the program. Topping those changes is reestablishment of a board with coastal district representatives and commissioners; the committee substitute also includes a multitude of other changes. The changes are issues the committee heard addressed, most recently in the ACMP audit done by the Legislative Audit Division and in testimony by Glenn Gray, a consultant for some of the coastal districts.
Legislators from coastal districts have proposed revisions in the program since major statutory changes were made in 2003 and 2005. The 2003 changes eliminated a coastal policy board, transferred board authorities to the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, moved the program from the governor’s office to DNR and restricted the ability of coastal districts to write local enforceable policies.
According to documents on contents of the work draft posted with the bill, the Alaska Coastal Policy and Appeals Board established by the bill would have authority to resolve differences between DNR and coastal districts, review elevations of proposed consistency determinations and jointly adopt ACMP regulations with DNR.
Consultants an issue An issue which came up in the audit was the refusal of the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management, which runs ACMP, to provide materials for review to consultants acting on behalf of coastal districts.
Legislative Auditor Pat Davidson, talking to the committee in a March 11 hearing about the audit her division did of ACMP last year, said the division had concerns and recommended to DNR that consultants be allowed to represent coastal districts. Many coastal districts are political subdivisions, she said, and delegation is a matter for them — not DCOM — to decide. Davidson said that DCOM is trying to foster good participation by stakeholders by insisting on local participation, but said the Audit Division believes DCOM overstepped by refusing to allow coastal districts to be represented by consultants.
The committee substitute says that DNR will provide data and information to representatives of coastal districts, including consultants and that if DNR provides funding to a coastal district, that funding can be used to employ or retain consultants.
DEC carve out eliminated Changes made to the ACMP in 2003 and 2005 included what is called the Department of Environmental Conservation carve out — DEC’s permitting process was “carved out” of the ACMP process.
This legislative change, Davidson told the committee, was to allow DEC to conduct its review concurrently rather than consecutively, an issue for applicants because some of DEC’s permits take a long time. Davidson said industry liked this change, but coastal districts did not because it eliminated the option for a coastal district to develop enforceable policies related to air, water and land quality issues.
Coastal districts can comment on DEC permits through the public process, Davidson said, but because they can no longer develop local enforceable policies on air, water and land quality issues, their comments are not given the due deference given to enforceable policies.
Designated areas eliminated Another issue for coastal districts is designated areas.
Under the present program they need to designate specific areas for concerns such as subsistence and habitat, but only a handful of such designated areas have been approved.
Davidson said the DNR threshold for designated areas requires scientific evidence, which is difficult and expensive for districts to provide and probably costs more than grant money the districts could get from DCOM.
Glenn Gray, a consultant for some of the coastal districts, said in a March 16 hearing that designated areas can be for important habitat areas and for subsistence areas, but he said only three small areas have been approved for habitat under the current program, and for subsistence, areas have been denied for 52 percent of total coastal district acreage.
And Gray said the rules have changed for subsistence areas, from 2005 when an entire coastal district could be designated as a subsistence area, to requirements that each subsistence type must have a separate designation and DNR must approve types, which must reflect a species life history and be linked to specific areas on maps on a scale of 1:63,360. Gray said that new map scale, required last year, is very costly and noted that at that scale the Northwest Arctic Borough would need 2,108 new maps.
The committee substitute for HB 106 repeals the designated area requirement.
Board established The committee substitute creates the Alaska Coastal Policy and Appeals Board in the Department of Natural Resources. There are five public members appointed by the governor, one at-large from any coastal resource district and four members from specific areas, one each from: northwest Alaska, southwest Alaska, upper Cook Inlet and Southeast Alaska.
The board also has four commissioners: Commerce, Community and Economic Development; DEC; DNR; and Fish and Game.
The board will select co-chairs, one from among the public members and one from among the commissioners.
Duties of the board include resolving differences between DNR and coastal resource districts over district plans; reviewing proposed consistency determinations; and adopting regulations jointly with DNR.
The audit did not recommend reestablishment of the board, but it did recommend allowing coastal districts to designate their own representations and the completion of two ongoing regulatory processes: revision of the ABC list and the ACMP regulations.
| 