Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/2019 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB54 | |
| Presentation: Department of Natural Resources: Permitting, Leases, and Land Conveyances. | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2019
9:01 a.m.
9:01:32 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel; Brent Goodrum, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources; Kris Hess, Deputy
Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeff Bruno, Office of Project Management and Permitting,
Department of Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
SB 54 ALASKA RAILROAD CORP. LAND TRANSFERS
SB 54 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal note: FN 1(CED).
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES:
PERMITTING, LEASES, AND LAND CONVEYANCES.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed housekeeping.
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act approving the transfer of certain Alaska
Railroad Corporation land; and providing for an
effective date."
9:02:53 AM
Senator Bishop MOVED to report SB 54 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 54 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
note: FN 1(CED).
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: PERMITTING,
LEASES, AND LAND CONVEYANCES.
9:04:11 AM
BRENT GOODRUM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, discussed the presentation "Permitting, Leases
and Land Conveyance" (copy on file).
9:05:19 AM
Mr. Goodrum turned to Slide 2, "Road Map", which listed the
order of the topics that would be covered in the
presentation:
I. Historical Backdrop
II. Where We Are today
III. Unified Permit Front
IV. DNR Interagency Coordination
V. Municipal Entitlement Land Conveyances
9:05:54 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed slide 3, "ROAD MAP":
I. Historical Backdrop
Mr. Goodrum referenced Slide 4, "Anatomy of a Large-Scale
Development Project":
?Most often have statewide or strong regional impact
with regards to infrastructure, economic growth and
opportunities
?Generally require long term leases or dedicated legal
access such as easements in order to obtain project
financing
?Often shorter-term land use permits are necessary for
construction
?Material sales need to be timely for development
roads
?Water authorizations are critical for development and
long-term operation
Mr. Goodrum specified that the timeline for the
presentation began in May 2011, when he joined the
department and began to work on the permitting backlog. He
relayed that these authorization types formed the major
muscle movements that enabled large projects to be
developed. He shared that most of the authorizations under
discussion were primarily focused on general state land. He
explained that the state owned and managed 100 million
acres of uplands, and 60 million acres of tide and
submerged land.
9:08:38 AM
Mr. Goodrum spoke to Slide 5, "The Challenge: Address
Permitting Deficiencies," which showed a bar graph entitled
'Permit Backlog.' In late 2010 and early 2011, following
the election of Governor Sean Parnell, there was a great
awakening in determining that there was an issue within
the DNR permitting process. He said that the primary
evidence was the ever-growing backlog of authorizations
building up within the department. He pointed to the slide
and noted that in FY 06 there were 2106 authorizations in
backlog, which had increased to 2658 by 2011.
9:09:41 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for a definition of "backlog."
Mr. Goodrum stated that a backlog in the context of the
slide pertained to all the applications before the
department regarding the 5 authorization types: permits,
leases, easements, material sale applications, and water
authorizations. He furthered that within water rights,
there were traditional water rights and instream flow
reservations. He concluded that that backlog constituted
what was before the department in 2011 that needed to be
addressed.
9:10:51 AM
Mr. Goodrum discussed Slide 6, "2011 Permit Backlog Plan":
?Submitted to the House Finance Subcommittee on 22 Feb
2011
It is now our highest priority to address this
(permit backlog) problem."
?Goal: "To timely process all incoming land and water
use applications, and to eliminate the backlog."
?Comprehensive, multi-facetted approach to eliminating
the backlog and preventing its re-occurrence
9:11:28 AM
Mr. Goodrum looked at Slide 7, "2011 Permit Backlog Plan
Strategies":
?Increase the number of fully funded positions (in FY
2011 (26) DMLW positions were required to remain
vacant due to funding shortages)
?Conduct comprehensive review of the Division's
permitting processes. Find and implement changes that
increase permitting efficiencies. Evaluate:
o Organizational changes
o Statutes, regulations and procedures for
improvements
o Appeals process
o Regulatory relationship between the state,
federal and local governments
o Contracting with private sector
?Drive and leverage the Unified Permit project effort
?Analyze, categorize and prioritize those
authorizations within the backlog (Priority is given
to those applications/projects that provide the most
benefit to the highest number of Alaskans)
Mr. Goodrum relayed and example of a project that
highlighted the backlog problem involving a large
telecommunications project in Interior Alaska. He noted
that working in the interior meant finite field season in
which things could be accomplished. He said that every day
that people and equipment sat idle was costly to
developers. This project had been a catalyst for
Commissioner Sullivan to improve permit turnaround within
the division.
9:13:41 AM
Mr. Goodrum considered Slide 8, "Statewide Permitting
Initiative":
Objective: Improve the State of Alaska's permitting
processes in order to advance the public interest by
ensuring projects are permitted in a timely,
predictable and efficient manner while safeguarding
the environment.
?Improve agencies' internal permitting structure to
create a more efficient, timely, and certain process
?Enhance coordination within different state
departments and with different entities and
stakeholders throughout the state
?Seek input from the public about the permitting
process including input from municipalities, industry
and non-governmental organizations
?Improve coordination between the state and the
federal governmentfederal permitting issues have a
strong influence on state projects
?Anticipate and plan for permitting the next phases of
resource development
Mr. Goodrum said that risk and uncertainty were lethal to
investment. He stated that the department continued to
evaluate each bullet point. He said that evaluations and
conversations were ongoing.
9:14:46 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 9, "Legislative Assistance":
The Legislature took decisive action to assist in
addressing DNR permitting challenges with the long-
term goal of reducing permit backlog and preventing
backlog from reoccurring:
1)People (capacity)
2)Legislative packages
3)Supporting innovative processes
?HB 361 Omnibus Bill - 2012
o New material site designation process
o Priority changes related to leasing and
disposal programs
o Solicitation of interest for leases, if no
interest directly to negotiated lease
?HB 274 Land Exchange Bill 2017
o 2-year lease extensions
Mr. Goodrum said that HB 361 gave the department the
ability to issue a decision one time that delineated where
a material site was, and how much material was there. Then,
every time there was a subsequent request for material to
be extracted, the decision had already been made, which
streamlined operations. He said that changes to leases
included the opportunity to extend or renew. He stated that
the legislature invested in the division by adding the
fully funded 26 positions and added 12 positions in 2012
that had been one-time increments. He furthered that in FY
13, those positions were incorporated into the base of the
division, as well as adding another $1 million to reduce
the vacancy rate within the division.
9:18:07 AM
Co-Chair Stedman recounted that in 2011, there were several
members that had been on the committee and had worked with
DNR to address the significant authorization backlog. He
thought it was notable that the backlog was slowing
development in the state. He felt that the history of the
issue was important.
9:19:41 AM
Mr. Goodrum noted that aquatic farm leases were not
captured in previous legislation for extension or renewal.
He said that future slides would highlight that issue.
9:20:09 AM
Mr. Goodrum displayed Slide 10, "Road Map":
II. Where We Are Today
9:20:18 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 11, "DMLW Active Case File
Overview," which showed a pie chart. He explained that
there were 77,534 active authorizations, managed by 200
personnel 400 casefiles per individual employee. He said
that the largest portion of the authorizations was the
36,800 in mining claims. He relayed that 11.1 percent, or
8,622 were land sale authorizations; 23.9 percent, or
18,500 were in water rights authorizations; 13.1, or 10,152
were other, and easements comprised 4.4 percent, 0r 3,400
of the authorizations.
9:22:10 AM
Mr. Goodrum turned to Slide 12, "DMLW Active Case File
Overview," which showed a bar graph of active case files in
DMLW Management. He said that the information was the same
as on Slide 11, depicted in another way.
9:22:35 AM
Mr. Goodrum referenced Slide 13, "Current backlog Status,"
which showed a bar graph. He pointed out the high point in
FY 11, when there were 2,658 authorizations in backlog. He
said that the backlog numbers dropped quickly due to low
hanging fruit that was identified and addressed quickly.
He said that by 2016 the backlog had been reduced to 938.
He added that there were authorizations in the backlog that
would take the anticipated time to process; work was being
done to refine the capture. He attested that 50 percent of
the number for each year was likely within its normal
timeframe anticipated for processing. He stated that part
of the backlog calculation had to do with water rights. He
explained that traditional water rights were a first in
time, first in right appropriations date. He furthered
that a substantially complete application was date stamped
upon being received, no one filing after you could bump
your place in line. Not captured within the backlog were
temporary water use authorizations, which were issued
timely by the division.
9:26:15 AM
Senator Wielechowski was curious about how long it took to
file an authorization. He asked if Mr. Goodrum had data on
how long it took to process an application.
Mr. Goodrum had general timelines. Permits and materials
sales, within 90 days; leases and easements, 18 months; he
said that the department would work to provide actual
timelines. He stated that the department lacked the tools
to capture the iterative back and forth between applicants
and the department concerning additional necessary
information. He said that the department did not have
enough staff to remind applicants of the lack of requested
information that could be holding up the process.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Goodrum to provide further
detail to the committee. He asked about water right
authorization for smaller, mom and pop operations. He
asked when water rights should be filed for small, remote
parcels.
9:28:18 AM
Mr. Goodrum encouraged people to file as soon as possible.
He reminded the committee that once there was a
substantially complete application, an applicant would have
a date-stamped priority. He qualified that larger projects
with significant economic potential to the state could be
moved to the front of the cue, displacing the smaller, mom
and pop authorizations.
Co-Chair Stedman said that most people recognized that a
water supply to a remote private cabin was not as
significant as some bigger statewide vial interests. He
asked what size water requirement threshold required a date
stamp.
Mr. Goodrum believed the threshold was 500 gallons per day.
Senator Bishop clarified that the threshold was 5,000
gallons per day.
Mr. Goodrum encouraged people to converse with the Water
Section to determine water needs. If the threshold was
below 5,000 gallons per day, an authorization would be
unnecessary. He added that to ensure that water rights were
protected over time it would be smart to reach out to the
Water Section for more information.
9:31:50 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interpreted that if a family would most
likely not use 5,000 gallons per day, filing would not be
required.
Mr. Goodrum stated that if a person was below the
threshold, a water certificate was not required. He
reiterated that people should reach out the Water Section
with any questions.
9:32:44 AM
Senator Bishop clarified that on a water application, use
of 5,000 gallons and above would require public comment.
Co-Chair Stedman appreciated the clarification.
Senator Bishop agreed.
9:33:53 AM
Mr. Goodrum continued to discuss Slide 13, noting that from
2011 to 2018, there had been a 61.8 percent reduction in
the backlog. He shared that the number had crept up a bit
since FY 15, due to the loss of 13 permanent, full-time
positions. He said that the department faced challenges in
the area of recruitment and retention of highly skilled
professionals. He said that a stable and predictable fiscal
plan would help with hiring. He shared that the department
needed to educate applicants that the department did not
have the staff available to remind them of the necessary
additional information needed to advance authorizations.
9:35:38 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 14, "Applications and Issuances":
?Since 2015 DMLW has been trying to catch up with
increasing application volumes, with highest %
increase in lease applications (162%). Over the same
time period number of authorizations issued also
increased, with highest increase in lease
authorizations (79%).
Material Sales follow construction industry cycles
and have seen 10% decline in application volume.
Mr. Goodrum looked at the four data tables:
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a
12 percent increase in in Permits applications
received.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a 3
percent decrease in Permits authorizations issued.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a
162 percent increase in Leases applications
received.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a
79 percent increase in Leases authorizations issued.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a
37 percent increase in Easements applications
received.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was an
8 percent increase in Easements authorizations
issued.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a
10 percent decrease in Material Sales applications
received.
• Between years 2011-2013 and 2015-2018, there was a 2
percent increase in Material Sales authorizations
issued.
9:38:42 AM
Senator Bishop asked about the increase in Leases. He asked
if the number was broken out by types of lease. He wondered
if the increase was from the mining community converting
from claim payments to a Lease option.
Mr. Goodrum did not have the information handy but offered
to follow up with the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Goodrum to consider whether
there was any significance to older structures that crossed
property lines. He thought it could be a subcomponent to
the Lease increases. He was curious about commercial lease
structures versus leases that were residential, or non-
economic drivers.
9:40:56 AM
Senator Shower asked whether buyers were still required to
file yearly paperwork and how access to technology might
limit filing. He wondered if the department had considered
a two-year reporting requirement.
Mr. Goodrum stated that the department looked for ways to
make it easier for individuals to submit required
paperwork. He said that current requirements included
annual affidavits for labor. He stated that multi-year
authorizations could be issued, up to 5 years, but the
department had not looked at mining requirements updated on
an extended timeframe. He said that most of DNRs
regulatory enforcement dealt with reclamation activities,
the provisions of which were in statute, and which was the
majority of DNRs enforcement and education process in
working with the mining community.
Senator Shower asked if the department were to consider
two-year reporting for workload requirements, for both the
state and miners, could it be handled by the department or
would it require legislative action.
Mr. Goodrum thought that since some requirements were in
statute, legislative action would be required.
9:44:48 AM
Senator Bishop was curious about the 10 percent reduction
in Material Sales.
Mr. Goodrum hypothesized that the in previous four years
there had been a more constrained budget. He stated that
DOT was one of the primary purchasers of material. He
thought decreased activity by that department was a factor
in the drop in sales.
9:45:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that there was a change, several
years ago, that dealt with the requirement for royalty and
permit payments for smaller rock pits.
Mr. Goodrum offered to provide the information later.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that the issue had be dealt with,
as the state had subsurface ownership.
9:46:35 AM
Mr. Goodrum spoke to Slide 15, "Current Land Applications,"
which showed a pie chart giving a snapshot of land use
applications received and completed. He pointed out the 41
percent of the pie chart that represented 257 Easements; 22
percent represented 130 Permits; 18 percent represented 114
Land Leases; 14 percent represented 87 Other Leases; 6
percent represented 38 Land Sales.
9:47:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman expressed concern about DNR land sales
around the state and waterfront setbacks. He asked about
setbacks for valuable waterfront properties. He suggested
that as the setback increased from the front, the vale of
the waterfront decreased. He noticed that waterfront
setbacks were not uniform around the state. He recalled
that Southern Southeast Alaska had a 100-foot setback. He
thought that the diminished waterfront value would decrease
state coffers for land sales. He queried differential
setbacks and why the state would have 100-foot setbacks
that resulted in diminished land value upon resale. He
expressed concern that Easements often lacked definition.
9:50:11 AM
Mr. Goodrum agreed that there were occasions when the local
platting authority had additional desires for setbacks. He
said that DNR worked closely with DFG on the matter. He
agreed to gather more information on the issue.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out to the committee that there
was a difference between organized and unorganized areas
concerning platting authority. He noted that platting
authority included a public process for easements, and that
the DNR requirements exceeded local platting requirements
in any of the communities he represented. He was worried
about the value of waterfront property.
9:51:31 AM
Mr. Goodrum discussed Slide 16, "Aquatic Farming Leases,"
which showed a line graph entitled Aquatic Farmsite Lease
Applications Received 2010-2019. He thought aquatic
farming was an exciting and expanding industry in the
state. He recalled that the Walker Administration had
created an Alaska Maricultural Taskforce, which had
resulted in increased interest and applications.
9:52:35 AM
Senator Wilson asked for a brief overview of the aquatic
farming industry.
Mr. Goodrum stated that the Mariculture Task Force was
created in 2016. He stated that the industry included
oysters, shellfish, sea cucumbers, kelp, and other things
that could be grown in the tidelands and beyond. He said
that the desire had been to create an industry that
generated revenue of $100 million by 2040. He spoke of the
Maricultural Revolving Loan fund. He explained that the
state had over 30,000 miles of coastland. He said that the
industry maintained increased growth and interest.
9:54:35 AM
Mr. Goodrum looked at Slide 17, "Aquatic Farm Leasing
Workload":
? All aquatic farm leases are handled by DMLW's
Southcentral Regional Land Office in Anchorage (1
full-time adjudicator manages this program statewide)
? Current Adjudication Process
o 12 to 24 months to go through the DNR leasing
process
o Application received and jointly reviewed with
DF&G for completeness (~90 days)
o 20-day agency notice and review period
o Preliminary Decision (PD) is written (~30 days)
o PD 30-day public notice and review period
o Final Finding and Decision (FFD) written and
issued (~30 days)
o 20-day appeal period
o Final administrative order and decision goes
into effect 31 days after the FFD is issued
o Decision and proposed lease sent to applicant
for execution and requirement for deliverables
from lessee
o Once deliverables (annual lease fee, bonding,
and insurance requirements) are met the lease is
issued
? DMLW currently working on streamlining this process
so that lease adjudication process is 9 to 12 months
9:55:19 AM
Mr. Goodrum considered Slide 18, "Status of Current Aquatic
Farm Lease Applications":
• 36 new applications from 2017 (17), 2018 (16), and
2019 (3) currently in various stages in the
adjudication process
o Average adjudication time is 120 hours, equals
3 work weeks and 2 days per
application
o 2017 Applications Status
? 8 completed the adjudication process,
either issued or lease sent for signature
? 6 files still in the adjudication process
? 3 files closed
o 2018 Application Status
? 2 files closed per the applicant
? DNR & DF&G have reviewed the remaining 14
applications for completeness
o 2019 Application Status
? Application period open from January 1
April 30
? 3 applications received thus far, and
those applications have been reviewed by
DNR & DF&G for completeness
• 23 Renewal applications currently in various stages in
the adjudication process
o Renewals currently follow same processes as new
applications
o Average adjudication time is 80 hours, equals 2
weeks and a day per application
9:56:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the scale of the acreage
related to the permitting was substantially increasing. He
thought aquatic farming was an up and coming industry.
Mr. Goodrum believed some of the increase in the scale had
to do with the addition of kelp farms, which ran hundreds
of acres. He agreed to provide further information on
changing acreage sizes.
9:58:16 AM
Senator Wilson asked who handled the adjudication process
and what were the average costs of the leases.
Mr. Goodrum stated that there was one singular manager for
the maricultural industry, located in Anchorage. He
deferred the question of cost to Kris Hess from the
Division of Mining, Land, and Water.
KRIS HESS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, shared that the
application fees for aquatic farm leases were dependent on
acreage. The application fee for a site that was one acre,
or less, was $600; a site greater than 1 acre, but no more
than 3 acres, the fee was $1,200. She said that if the
application was going to be greater than 3 acres, the fee
would be $2,000. She related that there was a fee schedule
for annual fees on the departments website. A lease site
that was up to 30 acres in size had an annual rental fee of
$450 for the first acre, $125 for each additional acre. She
reminded the committee that the fee schedule was available
online. She offered to provide the numbers in writing.
10:02:37 AM
Senator Micciche wondered whether the department was
working in conjunction with Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) on highlighting
for the public the industrys potential.
10:04:10 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof thought that the department should work
in conjunction with DCCED to determine who was applying for
the loans, how the applications were progressing, and
whether there was a backlog. She queried the degree in
which the department was working with DCCED concerning the
loans for the industry.
Mr. Goodrum stated he would ensure that going forward that
the departments communicated with each other concerning
maricultural loan applications.
10:05:32 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether another agency could help with
the backlog.
Mr. Goodrum stated that the authority to process the
authorizations resided within DNR. He was sure the
department could handle the workload.
10:06:21 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether DF&G had expressed
opposition over the expansion of aquatic farms. He wondered
about impacts to Alaska Native stock.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the question could be better
answered in a resource committee meeting.
10:07:09 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 19, "Road Map":
III. Unified Permit Effort
Mr. Goodrum displayed Slide 20, "Unified Permit Goals and
Timeline":
?Shorten and make consistent cycle times for
authorizations
?Build internal systems that directly support DNR
productivity
?Better internal and external transparency into
process
Mr. Goodrum looked at the flow chart on the slide, which
detailed the departments progress from FY 2002 through FY
2021. He noted that the electronic case file system had
helped with electronic scanning of historical documents,
which provided a better understanding of previously issued
authorizations and created better consistency between the
Northern, South Central, and Southeast regions. He said the
system had added to the defensibility of the departments
decisions.
10:10:07 AM
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that the committee had been
shocked at the backlog of authorizations; and the impact on
the ability to run a resource state.
10:10:46 AM
Senator Shower understood that part of the problem had been
differenced between the regions in the area of consistency
across the state. He asked how much progress the division
had made, and wondered about the coordination between DNR
and DF&G. He asked whether the department reached out to
DF&G before approving applications.
Mr. Goodrum estimated that on a scale of zero to 100, the
backlog was approximately 78.5 percent updated. He said
that communication between regional offices had improved
greatly. He stated that coordination between departments
would be highlighted in future slides.
10:12:35 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 21, "Unified Permit Systems Needed
To Meet Goals":
?Understand that change is hard
?Make work visible
?Rely on good data and research
?Enable business users to fully participate
Mr. Goodrum spoke to the Venn diagram on the slide, which
addressed: reporting, content management, and business
process management. He relayed that the department
currently used Dot Net, which was a Microsoft Office
produce that allowed greater coordination. He spoke of the
suite of capabilities available to adjudicators and
managers to meet goals.
10:14:07 AM
Mr. Goodrum turned to Slide 22, "Realized Value of UP
Project":
Unified Permit Project:
Less Rework
Less Variation
Improved Visibility
Fewer Errors
Fewer Systems
Smoother Handoffs
10:14:50 AM
Mr. Goodrum referenced Slide 23, "Road Map":
IV. DNR Interagency coordination
Mr. Goodrum referenced Senator Shower's question about
coordination with other agencies. He shared that the Office
of Project Management and Permitting provided support to
coordinate activities between departments.
10:15:26 AM
JEFF BRUNO, OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
addressed Slide 24, " Office of Project Management &
Permitting":
Mission: Coordinates multi-agency regulatory reviews
and authorizations, while collaboratively engaging
federal agencies on land use planning and policy
initiatives to maintain and enhance the state's
economy, quality of life, and maximize the value of
Alaska's vast natural resources.
The Office of Project Management & Permitting (OPMP)
supports private industry, regulators, and the general
public by implementing one-stop shop, multi-agency
permit coordination to secure consistent, defensible,
transparent, and timely permit decisions.
This model is unique to Alaska and offers a level of
assurance to companies investing in Alaska that permit
reviews are robust and transparent.
Mr. Bruno discussed the function of the Office of Project
Management and Permitting (OPMP). He said that the program
was voluntary; project proponents signed into the model and
agreed to reimburse state agencies for all services
rendered on a project. In exchange for reimbursement, the
proponent received a more transparent, robust, and heavily
coordinated project. He said that OPMP efficiently
coordinated projects by using established relationships,
communication protocols with state agencies, and
coordination with federal agencies. He shared that each
project was assigned a project coordinator responsible for
setting up timelines and permitting schedules, coordinating
the states involvement on federal reviews and
authorizations, identifying which data gaps had the longest
lead time, and establishing regularly scheduled meetings
for project overviews and permit specific meetings when
appropriate. The project coordinator tracked information
between the applicant and the agencies to consistently meet
project timelines and schedules.
10:18:37 AM
Mr. Bruno spoke to Slide 25, "Agency Coordination":
? Key coordinated agencies include but not limited to:
o State: Department Environmental Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game, Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Department of Health and Social Services
o Federal: Bureau of Land Management, Environmental
Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Parks Service
? Coordinated federal review, State permitting, and
regulatory compliance for major projects including:
o Oil & Gas: Nanushuk Project, Greater Moose's Tooth,
Willow Master Development Plan, Liberty, Alaska Stand
Alone Pipeline, AKLNG, and Point Thomson
o Mining: Donlin Gold, Pebble, Red Dog, Anarraaq-
Aktiguruq, Fort Knox, Greens Creek, Kensington, Pogo,
Palmer Project, Nixon Fork, Livengood, and the Ambler
Mining District Industrial Access Project
Mr. Bruno shared that the OPMP model had proven effective
regardless of project type or size. He said that the
coordinated effort freed up adjudicators, and those that
issue permits to spend more time writing permits. He
furthered that the program offered more consistent
communication between all involved parties, reduction in
duplicated efforts, better information sharing, and a more
transparent process. Ultimately, permit and authorization
decisions were made in a more efficient a timely manner.
10:20:24 AM
Senator Wilson about the average timeline for large oil and
gas and mining projects.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the current and historical
timeline.
Mr. Bruno estimated that currently and oil and gas project
could take 5 to 6 years to work through the process. He
said that mining projects can take longer, 10 to 15 years
for some.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the OPMP program had been
successful.
Mr. Bruno answered in the affirmative.
10:21:48 AM
Senator Shower hypothesized that those with more money to
spend would experience and expedited process under OPMP.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Goodrum to expand on why the
program was created.
Mr. Goodrum stated that some of the most important projects
to the state dealt with the production of oil and gas or
mining. Ventures of the sort were complicated and involved
multiple agencies as well as state, federal and local
governments. He believed that such projects required the
coordination offered by the program. He reminded the
committee that the program was voluntary, and the service
was available to all. He thought that the service provided
by the program was critical to the state.
10:24:59 AM
Senator Shower thought the way the program was presented
seemed to indicate that the process would be expedited if
money were paid. He expressed concern that it could be
considered a two-tiered system.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that similar concerns had been
expressed when the system had been first implemented. He
said that the legislature had examined the backlog and
budgetary constraints and had worked to develop a balance
to smooth out the permit process. He said that attention
was consistently paid to parity and that resource
extraction permits were not bound up in bureaucratic mumbo
jumbo.
10:26:54 AM
Senator Bishop commented that DNR did an excellent job for
small miners. He offered to speak to Senator Shower off the
record.
10:27:18 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 26, "Road Map":
V. Municipal Entitlement Land Conveyances
Mr. Goodrum advanced to slide 27, "Municipal Entitlement
Land Conveyances":
? There are two ways for a municipality (city or
borough) to receive land entitlement provided in
statute:
o A calculation of eligible state land within the
municipal boundary under AS 29.65.030; or
o Based on an amount established by the
Legislature in AS 29.65.010.
Mr. Goodrum stated that at the inception of a municipality
or borough, the state works with the newly created
government entity to convey vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved land so that the local government can create an
economic base. Newly formed Municipalities and boroughs
receive land entitlement in two ways: under statute or
legislative designation.
10:28:46 AM
Mr. Goodrum considered Slide 28, "Municipal Entitlement
Determinations":
? Historically, calculation of entitlement is based
on 10% of vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved (VUU) general grant state land within the
municipal boundary.
Statute was amended in 1978, when eleven existing
boroughs were listed at AS
29.65.010(a), with entitlement acreage amounts that
were previously established
based on the 10% VUU formula.
? North Slope Borough was added to the list because
the entitlement previously
granted to the borough was forfeited, so the
Legislature reestablished it at AS
29.65.010(a)(12).
Boroughs subsequently added to the list at AS
29.65.010 are located in Southeast Alaska, where
available state land is limited compared to other
areas of the state, so these communities sought a
legislative remedy to enlarge their entitlements
beyond the 10% VUU granted to all other boroughs.
? For newly incorporated municipalities under AS
29.65.030, DMLW has two years and six months from date
of incorporation to determine entitlement. Only cities
may request expedited determination within six months
of incorporation.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how to speed up municipal
entitlement determinations.
Mr. Goodrum stated that the municipal and borough
entitlements were a challenge to expedite. He said that the
best way to expedite the process would include clear
communication between the state and the municipality or
borough. He shared that there were 3 personnel that worked
this particular issue.
Co-Chair Stedman had heard feedback that the process had
been slow.
Mr. Goodrum encouraged local governments to work closely
with the Municipal Entitlement Section within the Division
of Land and Water. He said that questions could be brought
to DNR for resolution.
10:31:32 AM
Senator Shower thought the DF&G Division of Habitat was
proposed to be eliminated.
Mr. Goodrum replied that he was not aware of the issue.
10:32:23 AM
Mr. Goodrum showed Slide 29, "Questions."
Senator Micciche worried about the impression that the
project management capabilities of the department were more
readily available based on wealth. He asked for information
about the types of companies that used both the expedited
and un-expedited services.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Goodrum to provide
information to the committee on how often the expedited
versus un-expedited services were used. He disagreed that
the presentation had given an impression either way.
Mr. Goodrum agreed to provide the information later.
Co-Chair Stedman hoped that that the backlog issue would
continue to improve.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:36:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 032819 Backlog Update Memo 2-28-2019 Final.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 Permitting Large Projects in Alaska-2018.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 MunicipalEntitlementSummary28Feb2019.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 Backlog report Jan 2014.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 Permit Example - AquatiC Farming.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 Permit Example - OG exploration.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |
| 032819 DNR SENFIN Presentation FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
DNR Permitting |