|
Running out of time Administration wants new ACMP regulations approved before Knowles leaves office; final approval rests with gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer Kristen Nelson PNA Editor-in-Chief
Proposed changes to the consistency determination portion of the Alaska Coastal Management Program regulations are in what the state Division of Governmental Coordination hopes will be final revisions after facing strong opposition from both industry and the environmental community at a Coastal Policy Council meeting June 20-21.
The regulations are the basis for a determination by the state as to whether a project, such as a proposed oil field, is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. They also determine which projects are subject to a coastal zone program review.
Tom Atkinson, executive director of the Alaska Conservation Alliance, told the council the proposed regulations “eviscerate” the ACMP while Judy Brady, commenting on behalf of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said the proposed regulations are “fatally flawed,” lack clarity and predictability give the program an unlimited geographic reach.
DGC Director Pat Galvin said the regulation revisions would not be presented for council approval in June, as originally planned, but would be revised for a July meeting. Three-year process Revision of the regulations began in 1999 when the DGC received a federal $100,000 grant to revise regulations which govern state determination of whether projects in the coastal zone — or projects potentially impacting the coastal zone — are consistent with the coastal zone regulations. The state program is the result of a federal program enacted by Congress in 1972. Galvin said the program turned coastal zone management over to a state once it developed a plan which met federal standards. The federal government provided some of the funding and federal agencies agreed to follow the state’s plan for their own activities.
Randy Bates, the DGC project analyst who has been working on the regulations revision for three years, said Alaska’s regulations went into effect in 1984 and there have been very few changes since. The proposal brings the regulations up to date, Bates told the council, including compliance with federal regulations, which were amended in December 2000. Fatally flawed Industry comments at the June Coastal Policy Council meeting and in writing focused on uncertainties industry sees in the proposed regulations: uncertainties about whether projects will be determined to be impacting the coastal zone and therefore need a consistency determination and uncertainty about how long that determination will take.
In written comments to the council, Brady, executive director of AOGA, said the organization’s members are unanimous in believing the redrafted proposed regulations are “fatally flawed,” a description echoed in other comments.
Brady said key problem areas include lack of clarity and predictability in applicability and scope: an unlimited geographic reach; provisions in conflict with federal regulations requiring a clear and exact inland boundary to the coastal zone; an incomprehensibly broad definition of activity.
In comments to the council, attorney Tom Leppo, speaking on behalf of AOGA, said activities covered by the regulations are so broad that “subsistence qualifies as an activity under this.”
Leppo said AOGA has been involved in this and can’t tell by looking at the regulations if they would apply to a project or how long it would take to get a consistency determination.
A number of companies and organizations told the council they concurred with AOGA’s comments, including: Sealaska Corp., Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co., Phillips Alaska Inc., Unocal Alaska, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., the Alaska Miners Association Inc., Chugach Alaska Corp. and SeaRiver Maritime Inc.
The North Slope Borough said for the most part it believes the proposed regulations are an improvement over the current regulations, but has concerns with some of the language. Scope too narrow The Alaska Conservation Alliance told the council the scope of the consistency review is “overly constrained” and will not ensure that projects are consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. In written and oral comments, Tom Atkinson said the scope of review in the regulations forces focus on a small portion of the project and limits review for project expansions. The cumulative impacts review — not only direct coastal effects of a project, but also indirect and cumulative effects — is eviscerated, he said
Decision sought under Knowles administration Galvin said DGC would revise the proposed regulations and have a new version out in two weeks so that the council can take testimony again when it meets July 23-24 and finalize the regulations then.
The goal is to have the package through the approval process under this administration, Galvin said, and the Department of Law has said that the end of July is the latest the council could act to get regulations on the books before a new governor takes office.
Once the council has approved the regulations they go to the Department of Law for review and changes that could require council approval. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also has to approve the regulations.
Then the lieutenant governor has to sign off. Program at critical juncture Galvin told the council he believes the program is at “an extremely critical juncture in its evolution and potentially its survival.”
“The political environment that we’re in right now which is, frankly, that permit reform, whatever term you want to use for the concept, is going to come, one way or another,” Galvin said, with industry groups, major candidates for governor and the Legislature all talking about a review of the permitting process.
“Coastal management, like it or not, is going to be a very big part of that discussion. And frankly, you’re heard over the course of testimony, very differing philosophical views about what the program is and also what it should be.”
Galvin said that if the council doesn’t pass a package, the program will be “extremely vulnerable” to a new administration.
“And so I do feel that having the package… is going to be an extremely critical thing for this program when it comes to the next level of discussion.”
Galvin said the council will face some hard choices when it meets in July:
To make the program more specific regulation language will have to be limited, he said, and there are already arguments between those who say the current language is too limited and those who say it is too expansive.
“I don’t want to give you the illusion that over the next couple of weeks some magic’s going to happen and we’re going to be able to come up with a plan that’s going to meet all these concerns.”
| 