Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/15/2018 11:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| Presentation on the Permitting Process by Dnr | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 15, 2018
11:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative David Eastman
Representative Mark Neuman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): DNR PERMITTING PROCESS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KYLE MOSELLE, Associate Director
Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on the
permitting process by DNR and answered questions from the
committee.
BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water (DML&W)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on the permitting process by DNR.
ACTION NARRATIVE
11:08:47 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 11:08 a.m. Representatives
Stutes, Kreiss-Tomkins, Neuman, and Tarr were present at the
call to order. Representative Eastman arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^Presentation on the Permitting Process by DNR
Presentation on the Permitting Process by DNR
11:10:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
a "Presentation on the Permitting Process by DNR."
11:10:38 AM
KYLE MOSELLE, Associate Director, Office of Project Management
and Permitting (OPMP), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
introduced himself. He turned to slide 2, titled "Department of
Natural Resources," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Our mission: Develop, Conserve, and maximize the use
of Alaska's natural resources consistent with the
public interest.
What we do: DNR manages all state-owned land, water,
and natural resources, except for fish and game, on
behalf of Alaskans.
How we are organized: DNR is comprised of seven
divisions that reflect its major programs.
11:13:00 AM
MR. MOSELLE turned to slide 3, titled "Key Terms," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 38.05.965. Definitions (abbreviated)
(14) "navigable water" means any water of the state
forming a river, stream, lake? sea or ocean, or any
other body of water or waterway within the territorial
limits of the state or subject to its jurisdiction
that is navigable in fact in any season, ? and for any
useful public purpose?;
(21) "public water" means navigable water and all
other water, whether inland or coastal, fresh or salt,
that is reasonably suitable for public use and
utility, habitat for fish and wildlife in which there
is a public interest, or migration and spawning of
fish in which there is a public interest;
(23) "shoreland" means land belonging to the state
which is covered by nontidal water that is navigable
up to ordinary high water mark ?;
(24) "state land" or "land" means all land, including
shoreland, tideland, and submerged land, or resources
belonging to or acquired by the state;
(25) "submerged land" means land covered by tidal
water between ? mean low water and seaward to a
distance of three geographical miles ?;
(26) "tideland" means land that is periodically
covered by tidal water between the elevation of mean
high water and mean low water;
11:13:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the department has public
noticed changes for definitions of water quality and noted that
this would be useful information for [HB] 199.
CHAIR STUTES stated that she wanted to caution the committee
that this presentation relates to the current permitting
process. but it has nothing to do with HB 199.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN acknowledged the presentation would be
beneficial for the committee.
11:15:23 AM
MR. MOSELLE deferred to the division director, Brent Goodrum, to
respond.
11:15:41 AM
BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining,
Land and Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
answered that water quality falls under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The division
has a scoping process pertaining to some of its water
regulations, but typically it does not involve water quality
standards.
11:16:40 AM
MR. MOSELLE turned to slide 4, titled "Division of Mining, Land
and Water," which read, in part, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Generally Allowed Uses
?As provided in 11 AAC 96.020
?Travel across state lands
?Aircraft landing
?Use of watercraft
?Anchoring mooring buoy
?Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering
?Recreational gold panning/prospecting/suction
dredging
Permit/Authorization/ Approval
? Mineral exploration & mining
? Placer mining
? Temporary water withdrawal
? Commercial recreation activities
Weir
? Floating dock
?Notice of application may be provided
Easement & Leases
? Rights-of-way
?Utility easement
?Boat launch
?Aquatic farm site
?Marine access facility (commercial dock)
?Public notice required
?Best Interest Finding required
MR. MOSELLE stated that the DML&W regulates a broad spectrum of
activities using various tools, guided in its administrative
decisions by the Alaska Constitution, state law, agency
regulations, and policies, DNR area and management plans,
previous decisions, and case law.
MR. MOSELLE said that many uses and activities are generally
allowed on state land managed by the division and do not require
prior approval from the division provided standard conditions
are followed. Uses and activities on state land that are not
generally allowed under state law require written authorization
from the division. He said that land use permits authorize
temporary, non-exclusive activities that can be effectively
managed through project specific conditions. As a matter of
agency policy, applications are posted to the statewide online
public notice website. Easements and leases convey and interest
for use of state land; therefore, the division must find it is
in the best interests of the state prior to granting an
"easement release" and public notice is required.
11:17:48 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether there was a public process on all
approvals for permits.
MR. MOSELLE responded by referring to slide 4, to the generally
allowed uses provided in 11 AAC 96.020. That regulation would
have gone through a rule-making process to define those uses;
thus, those allowable uses do not require a full public noticing
process. He stated that applications under the middle tier,
titled "Permit/Authorization/Approval" as a matter of division
policy would be public noticed through the statewide online
notice website. Applications under the third tier, "Easement
and Leases," by statute require public notice, he said.
11:18:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the uses listed on slide 4
under the second tier "Permit/Authorization/Approval" also had
an approval process within other departments; for example, he
said that floating docks would require approval from Alaska
Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G's) Division of Sport Fish and
Division of Habitat. He asked for further clarification on
other departments' roles in the permitting process.
MR. MOSELLE answered yes. He agreed there may be other state
permit authorizations, laws, and regulations that apply to
permitted activities. During its review process the DML&W
would consult with the other departments as needed in that
peripheral relationship; however, the applicant would be
responsible for securing all federal, state, and local approvals
for the activity, he said.
11:20:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that the
departments worked collaboratively with other agencies.
CHAIR STUTES related that in its presentation, the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat went into
more depth on the various departments and agencies that work
together on permits. She acknowledged that his point was well
taken.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN concurred that there were "checks and
balances" in the permitting process. It was not just one person
making the approval decision, he said.
11:21:13 AM
MR. MOSELLE turned to slide 5, titled "Single Agency Review,"
which depicted process diagrams, which contained the following
headings and action items, as follows:
Application
Completeness review
Consider proposed action
Research
Review relevant resource data
Review ownership and legal data
Determine classification
Review relevant area or management plan
Agency Review
Develop maps and necessary information
Identify conditions, stipulations, mitigation
Conduct interagency consultation
Consult applicant on issues of concern
Preliminary Decision
Draft preliminary decision
MR. MOSELLE stated that this slide and the next slide showed a
generalized summary of a single-agency review by the Division of
Mining, Land & Water (DML&W) for a process related to a lease or
easement.
11:21:25 AM
MR. MOSELLE explained the application process, such that once a
completed application was received by the division, technical
staff would research relevant resource data and area plans and
develop supporting information and would consult with other
state agencies. For example, during the division's review, it
would consult with ADF&G to gather relevant fish and wildlife
information and evaluate potential impacts from the proposed
activity on important habitats or known harvest areas. The
division staff would also consult with the applicant to discuss
issues of concern. All information would then be compiled in
the project record and the agency would draft a preliminary
decision for management review.
11:22:05 AM
MR. MOSELLE turned to slide 6, titled "Single-Agency Review,"
which depicted a diagram showing public notices and
coordination. He stated that the division would public notice
the decision in local newspapers and on the statewide online
public notice website. The division would then collect public
input, consider each comment received during the public notice
period, and consult with other state agencies on substantive
issues. The final decision would then be public noticed, he
said.
11:23:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that the division was
working to reduce federal paperwork and conduct inspections for
small mining operations.
MR. GOODRUM responded that one important issue to miners in
Alaska was in places where the state had state-selected lands.
Last year the division brought in approximately 17 federal
mining claims, he said. Several months ago, the division
brought in 709 acres immediately adjacent to the Fort Knox mine,
which would allow that small operation to continue to operate.
Further, the division recently received a decision from the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding land in and near the
Graphite One Resources, Inc. project. He anticipated that the
division would be able to bring in both mining claims and allow
them to be converted to state claims, he said. He characterized
this as being an important issue to Alaska.
11:25:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that this project could help
small miners since the permitting authority would be in Alaska
and the state would be more familiar with the processes and
local issues.
11:25:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slides 5-6, regarding the single
agency review and the public noticing. She directed attention
to the Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUA) on slide 7,
[consisting of a flowchart of the permitting process], which
does not seem to have a public process. She suggested that the
department may wish to add a public review component to this.
She further noted that there may be other circumstances of
single-agency review that do not solicit public input. She
related her understanding that a scoping period was begun to
collect public comments on the Temporary Water Use Authorization
(TWUA) and asked for further clarification on the status of
public input.
MR. MOSELLE, in response, referred to the "key" on slide 7. He
explained that the yellow box around the TWUA represents a
"courtesy public notice," which was a term used to mean that
there was not a statutory or regulatory requirement to public
notice for that specific activity as there would be for a lease,
easement, or water right. He explained that the red boxes on
the chart represent "public notice required," either by statute
or regulation. He clarified that as a matter of DNR's policy,
the TWUA applications would be posted on the online public
notice website.
11:27:55 AM,
MR. GOODRUM offered further clarification on TWUAs, such that
the TWUA authorizations never advance to become "water rights"
and would always be revocable at will by the state. He stated
that these TWUA authorizations were ones generally used on
projects throughout the state, but were of limited duration, not
to exceed five years. He acknowledged that DNR does reach out
to ADF&G and DEC to ensure that any issues or concerns are
addressed within the DNR's TWUA process. As Mr. Moselle
previously mentioned, the division provides courtesy public
notification of any TWUA applications received.
11:29:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the courtesy notice also
includes a public comment period.
MR. GOODRUM answered that there was not necessarily a formal
"public comment" opportunity; however, any feedback or input the
division received would be considered during the adjudication
process for the application. He commented that there was not a
"hard set" 30-day period established for public comment.
11:29:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that this was an issue that was
brought to her attention as an area that might be one which [the
legislature] might wish to address statutorily. She said she
was not as familiar with some of the authorizations but will
research some of the yellow boxes for authorizations listed on
slide 7. She referred to Administrative Order 266, noting that
some people had submitted comments calling for reform on the
TWUA process, including for public comment. She asked for
further clarification on whether the division had considered
formalizing the public comment period or if the department
believes it has been receiving enough feedback from the public.
She acknowledged some permits would be less controversial than
others.
MR. GOODRUM responded that the division has received comments
through the water rights' regulations process and the division
has been evaluating all the comments; however, it has not yet
come to any consensus on any necessary revisions. To the degree
that the division has not performed any scoping in some areas,
the division would address any issues that arise at that time,
he said. In further response to Representative Tarr, he
restated his comments on water regulations and scoping and how
the division might better look at the processes.
11:32:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked to make some generic comments. She
said that she wanted to address the public process concerns
because she has heard concerns voiced by some members of the
public about the "lack of public process;" however, she
acknowledged that some of the concerns expressed may not be
related to a specific project. She offered her belief that
sometimes trust can be broken between the public, the
department, and the developer in instances in which people feel
the public process is lacking. She expressed hope that the
division would consider revisions to allow for more
collaboration on the front end of projects to potentially avoid
longer delays that result from lawsuits. She reiterated that
sometimes people feel the department has not made enough
information available.
11:33:42 AM
MR. MOSELLE directed attention to slide 8, titled "In Summary,"
which read as follows:
DNR manages all state-owned land, water and natural
resources, except for fish and game, on behalf of the
people of Alaska.
Proposed uses of those resources may be generally
allowed, or require written authorization from DNR.
Approvals that diminish state interest must be found
to be in the best interest of the state and publicly
noticed.
DNR consults other state agencies and grants deference
to ADF&G on fish and wildlife matters and ADEC on
water quality.
For large projects, OPMP facilitates intergovernmental
coordination with state, federal, and local government
agencies to ensure effective communication, less
duplication, and greater consistency in the permitting
processes.
MR. MOSELLE added that leases and easements that convey an
interest and use of state lands require a best-interest finding
and public notice process.
11:34:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that the department must be considering
some significant involvement in the proposed road project in
King Cove [a proposed 12-mile road corridor from King Cove to
the Cold Bay Airport, connecting to existing roads in the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge], and she queried if that was
the case.
11:35:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related her understanding that the project
involved a land transfer between the regional Native Corporation
and the federal government since refuge lands would be
transferred to the corporation. She expressed an interest in
whether the federal government would maintain an ownership and
if the project would go through the state's permitting process.
CHAIR STUTES asked for further clarification.
11:35:54 AM
MR. GOODRUM responded that land exchange was between the local
community [Aleutians East Borough] and the federal government.
He anticipated that if a road was being built at King Cove that
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
would be involved; however, he said he was uncertain as to other
activities, noting that any water authorizations would be
reviewed by the division.
CHAIR STUTES commented that she was just curious about the
state's involvement.
11:37:35 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:37
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House_Fisheries-DNR-2-15-18-final.pdf |
HFSH 2/15/2018 11:00:00 AM |
HB 199 |