Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/24/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Geothermal Development & Generation | |
| Overview(s): Department of Natural Resources - Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 24, 2011
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT & GENERATION
- HEARD
OVERVIEW(S): DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - DIVISION OF
PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION, DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN
MANAGEMENT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL THOMSEN, Director
Policy and Business Development
Ormat Technologies, Inc.
Reno, Nevada
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
regarding Ormat's Mount Spurr Geothermal Project.
BEN ELLIS, Director
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions following Mr. Ellis's
presentation.
CLAIRE LECLAIR, Division Operations Manager
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During overview of the Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation, answered questions.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM)
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided and overview of the Division of
Coastal and Ocean Management.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:35 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Feige,
Seaton, Kawasaki, Dick, Herron, P. Wilson, Foster, and Gardner
were present at the call to order. Representative Munoz arrived
as the meeting was in progress. Senator Giessel was also in
attendance.
^PRESENTATION(S): Geothermal Development & Generation
PRESENTATION(S): Geothermal Development & Generation
1:05:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business is a
presentation on Mount Spurr Geothermal Project.
PAUL THOMSEN, Director, Policy and Business Development, Ormat
Technologies, Inc., first noted that Ormat is a publicly traded
company that is on the New York Stock Exchange. He said Ormat
is the leader in geothermal equipment and development in the
U.S. The company owns and operates about 538 megawatts (MW) of
power worldwide, has equipment in about 71 countries, and has
supplied over a gigawatt of geothermal equipment around the
world [slide 4]. The company is unique because it designs and
manufactures its own equipment, builds and develops its
geothermal projects, and can own and operate the projects or
sell them to third parties. Ormat employs about 470 people in
the U.S. and about 1,000 people worldwide, with corporate
headquarters in Reno, Nevada.
1:07:40 PM
MR. THOMSEN displayed a map depicting Ormat's projects around
the world [slide 5]. He said these projects include geothermal
power plants as well as recovered energy generation units (REG).
An REG uses heat from exhaust stacks to heat a working fluid and
again produce electricity with no new emissions; such units are
being utilized primarily in North America to turn natural gas
infrastructure into a source of clean energy.
MR. THOMSEN stated that another type of project is remote power
units [slide 6]. Ormat got its start in the U.S. in 1975 when
it supplied remote power units to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS); the units open and close the remote gate valves
on the pipeline and are still in place today. He noted that
Ormat tested one of its first geothermal units in Alaska in 1979
with the University of Alaska Fairbanks at Manley Hot Springs.
Today, Ormat has invested about $5 million into the development
of the Mount Spurr Geothermal Project.
1:09:27 PM
MR. THOMSEN explained that geothermal reservoirs are found by
drilling into the earth to find places that have heat, water,
and good permeability [slide 7]. All three of these are needed
to transfer the heat to produce electricity. The Mount Spurr
reservoir is a volcanic reservoir and Ormat has conducted
preliminary drilling to verify the presence of all three
critical criteria. Ormat's expertise lies in binary geothermal
power plants which use heat from hot water, as opposed to steam,
to make electricity [slide 8]. The hot water comes up through a
production well and then goes through a heat exchanger where a
secondary working fluid is heated. This working fluid -
isopentane - vaporizes under a lower temperature, which builds
pressure that is relieved across a turbine blade, causing the
blade to spin and produce electricity. A benefit of this type
of process is that 100 percent of the water is re-injected into
the well for re-use; no water is lost from evaporation into the
atmosphere. Cooling can be done with either water or air, he
continued, and the hope is to air cool the Mount Spurr facility,
which also has zero water consumption. This adds longevity to
the life of the geothermal reservoir because there is no water
depletion of the geothermal brine.
1:11:08 PM
MR. THOMSEN highlighted the key attributes of geothermal power
[slide 19]. He said utilities like the geothermal power that
has been deployed in the western U.S. because it is base-load
generation. Once the Mount Spurr Project is developed it should
produce power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.
Another attribute is that geothermal power is cost competitive.
In the Lower 48, Ormat is able to develop projects at about
$3,000-$5,000 per kilowatt hour; in Alaska, due to the terrain
and shorter construction period, the development cost is $5,000-
$6,000 per kilowatt hour. Geothermal is highly reliable. Once
a project is up and operating, Ormat has achieved greater than
95 percent availability, which means that these projects only
come off-line for regularly-scheduled maintenance. Low entropy
is part of Ormat's equipment design; because the turbine design
has low pressure there is no need for a boiler license. Ormat
has lots of this equipment deployed throughout the world,
indicating there is no risk in the technology. Once the project
is developed, there will be a lifetime supply of free fuel
because the cost of fuel is amortized over the lifetime of the
project. Geothermal is sustainable and environmentally friendly
because the closed loop system has no water consumption, has
near zero emissions, and has minimal surface and visual impact.
Long-term, high-quality jobs are created because the project
must run for the next 20 years.
MR. THOMSEN related that development inhibitors are typically
resources because it is hard to find good geothermal resources
such as those at Mount Spurr [slide 10]. Another development
inhibitor is the high upfront capital expenditure and risk that
is required to develop geothermal resources.
1:13:08 PM
MR. THOMSEN noted that getting utilities to move out of their
comfort zone and engage in geothermal projects has been tough.
Countries and states that have been successful have looked at
integrated resource plans, renewable portfolio standards, or
other incentives to jumpstart this discussion [slide 11].
Things move forward once the utilities subsequently see that
this technology is reliable and cost effective. He said Ormat
is before the committee today to ask what ways there might be to
get the Mount Spurr development moving forward.
MR. THOMSEN said Mount Spurr is located 75 miles west of
Anchorage near the "Tyonek Reservation" and Chugach Electric
Association's Beluga power plant substation [slide 13].
Addressing the estimated timeline of development [slide 14], he
said Ormat acquired 36,000 acres of state land in October 2008.
Non-intrusive exploration and exploration drilling have been
conducted. Results were good on the two 1,000-foot-deep slim
holes that were drilled and Ormat hopes to continue that work
with the help of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Ormat has
put its own capital into this project and is looking to engage
in a power purchase agreement so it is secure in being able to
sell that power in the long term.
MR. THOMSEN invited committee members to join Ormat during its
2011 core drilling activities [slides 15-17]. Results from the
past core drilling have been encouraging - the shallow water
shows a mixing of geothermal fluids and the geochemistry
indicates a very high temperature resource. Ormat wants to
continue slim hole drilling and hopes to drill a full-size
production well in 2012, which will delineate whether this is a
commercially viable reservoir.
1:15:35 PM
MR. THOMSEN outlined Ormat's infrastructure needs [slide 18],
noting that Ormat is missing about 40 miles of transmission line
to the Chugach Electric Association's Beluga plant. Also
missing is about 25 miles of permanent road access; potential
costs for this are estimated at $70-$80 million. He said Ormat
looks forward to working with either Chugach Electric
Association or the state in evaluating whether infrastructure is
a state issue or a project-specific issue.
MR. THOMSEN estimated that the project would produce about 50-
100 megawatts of power to the Railbelt at 95 percent
availability [slide 19]. Regarding the likelihood of
completion, he said the project is very good technology-wise;
Ormat has no doubts in its technology and neither do most
financing folks. Resource-wise, he continued, the preliminary
geological analysis is very encouraging and Ormat hopes to do
additional exploration to prove the reservoir and the size of
the resource. Business-wise, he advised that Ormat has run into
a unique business climate in Alaska. Ormat needs to somehow
secure a power purchase agreement with either one or all of the
Railbelt utilities to guarantee this power should Ormat be able
to bring it to the line. As a company, Ormat is reaching the
very tough decision of how much capital it can outlay without
having a guaranteed contract to take that power and at what
price.
1:17:21 PM
MR. THOMSEN reported that the Mount Spurr Geothermal Project has
had no permitting roadblocks [slide 21]. The 2010 exploration
and drilling programs were permitted by state and federal
agencies with no major issues.
MR. THOMSEN related that Ormat representatives have met with all
of the Railbelt utilities' chief executive officers (CEOs) and
the CEOs like the project and see it as a near-term solution to
concerns about natural gas depletion [slide 22]. The
communities of Tyonek and Anchorage, communities on the Kenai
Peninsula, and the environmental and renewable energy
communities are all very supportive, he continued.
MR. THOMSEN pointed out that expenditures are a big issue, even
though Ormat is in the unique position of being able to self-
finance the project [slide 23]. His company is working with
AEA, he said, because Ormat likes the commitment that Alaska has
shown this project and the idea of partnering to build this
project. Ormat was awarded $2 million in Round III of AEA grant
funding, which Ormat matched with $2.1 million of its own money.
Ormat has been recommended for an additional $2 million in Round
IV, which will require a match of $3.7 million from Ormat. [The
grants] are helping Ormat to continue the exploration while it
deals with the business problem of locking in a long-term
contract at a fixed price. He added that Ormat typically self-
finances its projects and then re-finances a project using term
debt after the project is operating as that provides a much
better interest rate.
1:19:08 PM
MR. THOMSEN stated that the cost of power [to the utilities]
would be 12-13 cents per kilowatt hour, with a 1.5 percent
yearly escalation [slide 24]. Typically in a power purchase
agreement, Ormat conveys all of the green attributes to the off-
taker/utility. Because it is base-load there are no additional
integration costs. Further, the price is guaranteed for the
life of the contract, which in this case would be 20-25 years.
MR. THOMSEN touched on Ormat's legislative needs [slide 25]. He
said Senate Bill 243, passed by the last legislature, reduced
geothermal royalties paid on state lands. Consequently, Ormat's
needed power rate in a power purchase agreement was reduced from
14 cents to 13 cents [per kilowatt hour]. Ormat is now looking
at other potential incentives that would reduce the rate to 10
cents. For example, he suggested, a 30 percent refundable tax
credit lasting for the life of the project would bring the price
down by 2.5 cents. Ormat would be happy to have "sunshine"
provisions through the RCA so legislators could see the rate of
return and the financial model to ensure that the monies are
bringing down the price to rate payers and not going to Ormat's
bottom line. Ormat is open to other ideas from the committee
for how to get to a price that will help develop this project.
Other legislative needs would include [an appropriation for the
cost] of transmission and additional funding to cost-share the
project going into 2012 [slide 26].
1:21:29 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said Ormat
acquired the project land through a competitive lease sale from
the state. Ormat paid a bonus bid on the lease as well, but he
said he did not remember the amount of that bid and would get
that information to members.
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative Foster, reiterated
that 12-13 cents per kilowatt hour is the cost of power that
Ormat needs today. He related that the Railbelt utilities have
indicated that their average cost today is about 8-10 cents.
However, he pointed out, the 13 cents is a guaranteed price over
a 20-year period. Because the cost of gas over that time period
is unknown, Ormat thinks 13 cents is a fantastic price that will
be greatly appreciated in the future. He allowed that Ormat is
about 2-3 cents away from where it needs to be to have
competitive discussions with the utilities.
1:23:40 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in further response to Representative Foster, said
a refundable tax credit would reduce the cost of power about 2.5
cents, which is in the ballpark for competitiveness. This tax
credit is through time, he continued, and there are other
mechanisms that could get the cost down to 10 cents. He added
that Ormat is open to working with members on ideas for locking
in a slightly higher price today that will pay huge dividends
for constituents in the future.
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative Dick, stated that
Ormat thinks the Mount Spurr reservoir can probably produce 100
megawatts. However, the project design is to first operate at
50 megawatts so that engineers can monitor the subsurface
reservoirs to ensure they are not being over-exploited. If too
much water is moved through the system, he explained, there will
be a cooling effect because the water will not have enough time
to fully heat up. He said he is unfamiliar with "Donlin Creek"
and therefore does not know whether an additional 50 megawatts
would handle the [prospective gold mine's] energy needs.
1:25:56 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative Herron, said Ormat
hopes that, if managed well, the Mount Spurr project will last
into perpetuity. Ormat has projects in the Lower 48 and around
the world that have exceeded a 30-year lifespan. A well managed
reservoir can be sustained indefinitely when 100 percent of the
fluid is re-injected and when care is taken to not move too much
water or lose water to evaporation. Ormat's experience has been
that of running into technical obsolescence long before any
changes to the reservoir. In further response, Mr. Thomsen
explained Ormat uses a 20-year lifespan for financial modeling
and it has many projects for which it has re-negotiated the
contract after the 20-year period.
1:27:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why Ormat needs state money if this
project is such a good deal.
MR. THOMSEN replied that it is an issue of cost allocation. For
example, California has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
that incentivizes utilities to obtain renewable resources.
California's avoided cost is similar to Alaska's because the
natural gas used there is in the 4-5 cent range and the
utilities are willing to sign contracts for 10 cents for
renewable technologies that meet the RPS criteria. However, he
pointed out, Alaska does not have that, so the question here is
who tries to bear that difference between 10 and 13 cents today.
If Ormat could sign a power purchase agreement today for 15 or
16 cents, it would be able to prove and develop the project on
its own dime with no assistance for transmission or drilling.
Ormat is trying to get the power purchase agreement price down
for the rate payers and to do that there is a gap for which
Ormat is asking for state help. If the state cannot help, Ormat
must offer the rate payers a higher price and that could or
could not make the project viable. Because Ormat has taken AEA
money it must show, and is willing to show, its rate of return.
1:30:19 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in response to another question from Representative
Herron, confirmed there is significant geothermal potential
elsewhere in Alaska that Ormat has looked at, including Mount
Makushin. He pointed out that when looking at a resource, the
economic load and viability in each potential project's market
must also be considered.
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, related that in
Ormat's experience in the Lower 48, a state typically sets the
renewable portfolio standards that it wants utilities to receive
from renewable resources. The utilities are obligated, either
because they want to do the right thing or because they would
incur a penalty, to get those resources into their portfolio and
must weigh what the price of punishment is versus complying with
what may be more expensive resources. That has created a market
that has allowed the addition of a couple cents to these
projects to put them on a playing field with typical fossil fuel
development.
1:32:26 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in further response to Co-Chair Seaton, said he
thinks the avoided cost number of 10 cents is an AEA number, so
he does not know if firm and nonfirm resources are combined in
that calculation. However, he continued, Ormat offers a firm
source of power and tends to bundle everything - the electrons,
the guaranteed capacity, and all the environmental attributes -
when marketing a power portfolio. Mr. Thomsen confirmed that it
would help Ormat if Alaska's renewable portfolio standards had
clearer goals and achievements. However, he cautioned,
implementing only an RPS might not solve the Railbelt's unique
problem of multiple municipal utilities in a very small area,
coupled with a single plant needing to send one amount of power
here and another amount of power there. When developing a
project in the Lower 48, Ormat typically has one target utility
that services an area, and in cases where there are two
utilities they are not interconnected outside of procuring
projects.
1:35:32 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative Gardner, allowed that
a big volcanic eruption is a risk to both the project and other
places such as Anchorage. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes
tend not to be related, he continued. Ormat tends to look at
geologically active places because places where earthquakes and
volcanoes are prevalent means the geology is good for bringing
the needed heat and permeability closer to the surface.
Iceland, for example, has many earthquakes and an earthquake can
increase the permeability so that geothermal wells start
performing better than they had in the past, and so far there
has been no instance of an earthquake splitting a geothermal
plant in half. Ormat has been able to get bonding and insurance
on its plants around the world, he continued. On the island of
Hawaii where there is active volcano flow, Ormat has evacuation
plans in place for its geothermal plant. Additionally, a Global
Positioning System (GPS) has been placed on the head of each of
the wells so each could be re-drilled if covered by a lava flow
and the plant re-developed.
1:37:11 PM
MR. THOMSEN, in response to Representative P. Wilson, noted that
a unique feature about selling power is that it is usually being
sold to a confined market because electricity cannot be bottled
up and shopped to the highest bidder in North America. In this
particular instance, Ormat is caught between two competitive
utilities and driving up the price for rate payers may not be
accepted by those utilities. Ormat needs to receive a rate of
return that makes a project a good investment. In this case the
rate of return is very modest; for example, oil companies look
at a 20-year rate of return that may be double-digits. Market
forces require Ormat to keep its projects incredibly
competitively priced.
1:40:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.
^OVERVIEW(S): Department of Natural Resources - Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Division of Coastal and Ocean
Management
OVERVIEW(S): Department of Natural Resources - Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Division of Coastal and Ocean
Management
1:42:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is an
overview of the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation and the Division of Coastal and Ocean
Management.
BEN ELLIS, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, noted that his division manages
123 park units, the largest state park system in the nation.
Alaska's parks had more than 5 million visitors in 2010, he
reported, with most of those visits from Alaskans. The
division's mission is "to provide recreational opportunities and
to conserve and interpret natural, cultural, and historic
resources for the use, enjoyment, and welfare of our people."
The division's vision is one of "an affordable and accessible
system of parks that provide diverse, safe, year-round, high
quality, family-oriented outdoor recreational experiences." The
division is comprised of six statewide programs: parks and
outdoor recreation management, design and construction, history
and archeology, boating safety, trails, and administration and
grants. There are 99 full-time and 38 seasonal employees, as
well as about 700 park volunteers. Headquarters are located in
Anchorage and offices are located in Fairbanks, Delta Junction,
Wasilla, Soldotna, Seward, Homer, Haines, Sitka, Ketchikan,
Kodiak, and Dillingham.
1:45:41 PM
MR. ELLIS said Alaska's state park system covers 3.3 million
acres. The Parks and Outdoor Recreation Management Program
focuses on resource management and protection, public safety,
facility maintenance, commercial use permits, fees, and contract
management of the parks. There are 2,500 campsites, 37 boat
launches, 128 trailheads and 700 miles of trail, 73 public use
cabins, 43 scenic overlooks, and 400 restrooms. The division's
management budget of $9.2 million is comprised of about $5.7
million or 62 percent of state general fund dollars, $2.5
million or 27 percent of user fees paid directly to the
division, and 11 percent from other funding sources such as
federal grants and payments from other agencies requesting the
division's assistance in managing resources. He added that 80
percent of the 5 million visits were from Alaskans. Regardless
of political persuasion or economic or social status, Alaskans
are passionate about experiencing their state's outdoor
recreational opportunities. The division has the largest
volunteer program in the state - for every paid hour of work in
the division, three hours of volunteer time are provided.
MR. ELLIS related that the division's professionals in Design &
Construction provide department-wide services for project
design, engineering, and construction management, including
roads, rest areas, visitor centers, trails, subdivisions, mining
reclamation, bridges, boardwalks, boats, and restrooms. This
section is the only section outside of the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities with unlimited contract
authority on construction projects. Additionally, this section
supports the interpretive programs, education, displays,
brochures, publication, and maps.
1:48:12 PM
MR. ELLIS explained that the Office of History & Archeology
administers the state's federally funded historic preservation
program. This section maintains historical site records,
conducts research, provides training and educational materials,
protects cultural resources through project review and technical
services, and provides grants to local government and others.
MR. ELLIS highlighted the success of the primarily federally
funded Office of Boating Safety, reporting that the "Kids Don't
Float Lifejacket Loaner Program" is a keystone project of this
office. Under a collaborative partnership with the Department
of Health and Social Services, U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska Safe
Kids, and local sponsors, 565 loaner board jacket stations have
been provided in 202 communities. The division has provided
almost 31,000 of the lifejackets that have been supplied to
date. The "Kids Don't Float School Program" has provided
education to more than 78,000 Alaskan students and 19 Alaskan
children have survived a water emergency as a result of wearing
a lifejacket provided by the loaner program.
1:50:03 PM
MR. ELLIS reported that the "Alaska Trails Office" oversees the
recreational trails program, the Alaska Trails Initiative, grant
programs with combined federal funding of $2.5 million, and the
more than 90 projects that were completed in the last 4 years.
This section manages about $250,000 in snow machine receipts
through the SnowTRAC program, and provides maps and expertise on
trails throughout the state. Some 700 miles of trails have been
recorded in Alaska's state parks and through the "Snowmobile
Trail Grant Program" the department funds the grooming of
approximately 1,000 miles of snow machine trails covering
multiple land ownerships.
MR. ELLIS reported that the "Administration and Grants Section"
oversees grants for outdoor activities throughout the state.
"The Recreational Trails and the Alaska Trails Initiative grants
are federal funds for the development and maintenance of
recreational trails," he continued, "and the Land and Water
Conservation funds are used by local governments to improve
access to outdoor activities throughout Alaska."
MR. ELLIS said "Forest Legacy and Coastal Wetlands grants are
used to protect and preserve working forests and secure public
lands and access to public lands while protecting riparian
habitat. Other grants include the Historic Preservation Fund,
and SnowTRAC." Grant projects under this section include Nugget
Falls in Juneau, a [$198,200] Alaska Trails Initiative project;
Sitka Cross Trail, a $1.1 million Alaska Trails Initiative;
Girdwood Nordic Ski Trails, a $50,000 project; and Ester Dome
Singletrack, a $100,000 project in Fairbanks.
1:52:37 PM
MR. ELLIS outlined areas of excellence. The long-envisioned
South Denali Visitor Center is becoming a reality, he reported.
The center is a cooperative endeavor between the division, the
U.S. National Park Service, the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and local
businesses, that will provide year-round activities, including
interpretation, hiking, camping, non-motorized summer trails,
and motorized and non-motorized winter trails. An analysis by
the Institute of Social and Economic Research estimates the
center will provide Parks Highway communities with $7.6-$18.6
million per year in related employment income and $17.8-$44.8
million in tourism expenditures. The division's design and
construction section, he continued, completes an average of $5-
$7 million in projects per year, and completes 95 percent of the
projects within three years. This efficiency, accountability,
and professional integrity gets funding on the ground to the
private sector for consultants and contractors.
1:54:42 PM
MR. ELLIS pointed out that Alaska's recreational boating
fatalities have dropped since 1998 when the Office of Boating
Safety was established, with a decrease of 27.6 percent over the
last 10 years. "While any fatality is one too many, Alaska
experienced 11 recreational boating deaths in 2010, the fewest
... in 40 years," he said. Last year the office received the
Meritorious Public Service Award from the U.S. Coast Guard. It
also received the Compass Award from the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators for its work in cold water
immersion education programs.
1:55:43 PM
MR. ELLIS related that the "Alaska Trails Office" is organizing
the first biennial "Trail Rondy" this coming April, a three-day
event that will include training, discussions, hands-on
demonstrations, and vendors focused on the needs of Alaska's
trail community. "It will be an opportunity for trail
enthusiasts, planners, and builders to learn new skills, test
the latest equipment, and share ideas about how to make Alaska
trails the best in the nation." Turning to the Office of
History & Archaeology, Mr. Ellis noted that the services of this
office enabled the state to produce comprehensive historic
reports last year on 13 rivers in the Kuskokwim region. These
reports will be used by the state to apply for Recordable
Disclaimer of Interest with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
which will clear the way for state title to these navigable
waters and remove any challenges to state ownership.
Additionally, in 2010 this office awarded 16 historic
preservation grants covering 13 communities throughout Alaska.
1:57:14 PM
MR. ELLIS turned to the area of issues and challenges. He
paraphrased from the following written remarks:
Issues and Challenges
· We have to do a better job in keeping our parks safe,
accessible and open to all visitors. To do so will
require a strategy (both short- and long-term) to
address the $65.8 million we have in deferred
maintenance.
· Our Office of History and Archaeology continues to be
challenged by the volume, size and complexity of state
and federal projects to be reviewed for impacts to
cultural resources. In 2010, more than 3,000 projects
were reviewed, and since FY2000, there has been a 50%
increase in project reviews.
· A significant challenge to the Alaska Trails Office is
the possible removal of the Recreational Trails
Program from the Federal Highway Transportation Bill,
now up for reauthorization in Congress. If the
program is not re-authorized it is likely that our
division will see a significant increase in deferred
maintenance of state park trails that traditionally
were met by the federally-funded program.
· Despite progress, Alaska still has one of the highest
boating fatality rates in the nation.
1:58:48 PM
MR. ELLIS continued:
And finally, I sense we have an issue of image. We
have hard working, dedicated professionals throughout
the division - rangers, engineers, historians, trail
crew, maintenance workers, administrative staff and
hundreds of volunteers. They are committed to our
organization's goal and mission. They put their heart
and soul into their work and are passionate about
providing the best outdoor recreational experience for
Alaskans and our visitors. But that is not enough. We
need to do a better job at being open, fair and
balanced in our decisions. We need to be more
consistent with our message. We need to be more
responsive to the public and to this body. And, we
must be creative in finding the solutions to our
deferred maintenance crisis and improving our image
throughout the state. We have in our stewardship the
most vast and breathtaking state park system in the
nation. We must not fail in this responsibility. With
your guidance and support, I am confident we can
improve on an already great state park system, one
Alaskans are proud to say "This is MY Alaska!"
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. I
encourage you and your colleagues to visit our state
park system with me as your time allows. As today is
my two-week anniversary as director, I have asked
Deputy Commissioner Ed Fogels who is here today, as
well as some of my leadership staff in Anchorage to be
online to assist in answering any questions you may
have regarding the Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation.
2:00:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the department is considering an
additional position, such as an assistant park ranger, for the
Kachemak Bay State Park as it has long been constrained to only
one person. He also remarked that there is a lot of deferred
maintenance at the Kachemak Bay State Park. He also asked if
Alaska Trails works in conjunction with the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), specifically in
relation to Cooper Landing. The entire area of Cooper Landing
and a quarter-mile section of the road going toward the Russian
River are very dangerous, there is no shoulder.
MR. ELLIS offered to obtain that information for the committee.
2:04:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding the Regional Advisory
Committees (RAC) at the federal level, asked if any of that
spills out to the state forests.
2:04:57 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), said that the trails and parks staff do work with other
jurisdictions. Although he couldn't say whether they have
worked specifically with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
RAC, he said he didn't see any reason why they couldn't.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested a synopsis of the facts and
figures that were presented with the photographs.
MR. ELLIS said that he would provide committee members with the
information.
2:06:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) has a policy of taking out cabins that have fallen into
disrepair, although those cabins serve as an emergency shelter
or as a marker. She asked if the [Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation] has a similar policy.
MR. FOGELS answered that he didn't believe there have been any
such situations on state park land. He opined that the only
reason he would imagine a cabin that's in disrepair would be
removed is if it's a hazard to the public or a public safety
issue. He clarified that there's no formal policy regarding the
removal of cabins that are in disrepair. In further response to
Representative Munoz, Mr. Fogels related that DNR has been in
discussions with the Lieutenant Governor's Office regarding the
possibility of using the House of Wickersham as a potential
residence for the Lieutenant Governor. In even further response
to Representative Munoz, Mr. Fogels specified that part of the
$250,000 budget item last year was expended for renovations
within the house and some funds may be scheduled for use to
landscape the exterior. He offered to get further information
to the committee.
2:08:46 PM
MR. ELLIS mentioned that he visited the House of Wickersham last
week. He related his understanding that the $250,000 was
appropriated for rehabilitation work, some of which has begun
while other work is yet to come. He, too, mentioned that there
are some funds to landscape the property. The notion currently
is to move forward with the rehabilitation work with the
assumption that the house will continue to be used in the same
fashion it currently is. In further response to Representative
Munoz, Mr. Ellis agreed to provide information regarding the
status of the new state cabins at the Eagle Beach area in
Juneau.
2:10:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested an update on the remote yurt program.
2:10:39 PM
CLAIRE LECLAIR, Division Operations Manager, Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, stated
that the remote yurt program in Kachemak Bay State Park has been
very popular. She explained that it's a five-year contract
through a request for proposals (RFP) process. The initial
business owner went through five years and now the division has
an RFP out for potential bidders. She recalled that the
deadline for it is nearing.
2:11:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
2:16:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the committee would now hear from
the Division of Coastal and Ocean Management.
2:16:38 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
(DCOM), Department of Natural Resources, began by introducing
various staff from DCOM who were in attendance. He then
informed the committee that DCOM is the lead agency for the
Coastal Impact Assistance Program and the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. The division also has the function of
tracking federal initiatives that impact Alaska's coasts and
oceans.
2:18:30 PM
MR. BATES directed attention to the slide entitled "Alaska
Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP)". He explained that
CIAP is a one-time federal funding opportunity for oil and gas
producing states. The federal funds were to mitigate the
impacts of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities.
During the course of the program, Alaska is allocated to receive
$79.4 million. Further, Alaska is one of six states receiving
this funding. The DCOM is working with the sister agencies of
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED) and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) to
implement the CIAP and its various projects, some of which are
projects that were solicited from the public - the Western
Alaska Salmon Coalition and those legislatively named
municipalities and coastal resource service areas to implement
their projects. This program employs two full-time staff
through DCOM and utilizes three full-time employees within the
division. Mr. Bates remarked that the division is managing a
large amount of money very well. He characterized the program
as an incredibly valuable program with great benefits. He said
he is pleased with the opportunities this program provides and
the projects completed, in progress, or planned for the future.
2:20:02 PM
MR. BATES, referring to the slide entitled "Alaska Coastal
Impact Assistance Program (CIAP)", pointed out that the smaller
pie chart illustrates the entire CIAP distribution that totals
$79.4 million. By federal law, the smaller portion of the small
pie chart, which totals $27,792,606, is the amount that's
directly allocated to the coastal political subdivisions. Those
are the coastal political subdivisions that are located near a
producing lease or well. The remainder of the smaller pie,
which totals $51,617,839, is the amount that's directly
allocated to the state. Two years ago, the legislature
allocated the funds to the following portions of the larger pie
chart: the Western Alaska Salmon Coalition, State Agency
Initiated Projects, named municipalities and service areas, and
for publicly solicited projects.
2:21:15 PM
MR. BATES then turned to the map entitled "Coastal Zone
Boundaries of Alaska Index Map." The map illustrates the reach
of the coastal zone program per the federal definition. He
informed the committee that the Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP) is a federally authorized, voluntary program
whereby the state has an opportunity to oversee the responsible
development of coastal uses and resources, including federal
activities within the coastal zone and those federal activities
on the Outer Continental Shelf and on federal lands that might
impact the state's uses and resources. The primary tool used by
the division to implement this program is the consistency review
process. Proposed resource development projects such as an oil
exploration project, a mine project, and a river or lake project
would all go through the consistency review process and be
reviewed for compliance with the statewide standards and
district enforceable policies. The statewide standards and
district enforceable policies are supplemental authorities the
state has to ensure compliance and protection of the state's
resources while promoting an economic project. Mr. Bates
explained that the state chose a network structure for the ACMP
whereby the state departments participate in the review of
projects as well as the implementation of programs. The other
valuable component to the structure of the program is the local
component in which several coastal municipalities and service
areas voluntarily participate in the implementation of the
consistency review process. Therefore, local knowledge,
perspective, and input are provided on the projects.
2:23:47 PM
MR. BATES moved on to the pie chart entitled "ACMP Funding,"
which relates from where the ACMP funding comes. The ACMP is
primarily funded with federal funds. In fact, ACMP receives
about $2 million in direct federal funds for implementation of
the program and $536,000 is dedicated toward program
improvements. The ACMP also receives a general fund (GF) match
of about $4.5 million to implement the entire program. Mr.
Bates then moved on to the pie chart entitled "ACMP Funding
Allocation," which illustrates how the $4.5 million is
distributed. The coastal districts and the state agencies
implementation funds together total about $1 million, which
includes the required match. The division implements the ACMP,
which amounts to a little over $2 million.
2:25:34 PM
MR. BATES informed the committee that DCOM has 31 full-time
employees of which 16 perform project reviews for resource
development projects, 4 provide planning services, 3 provide
publications and overall communication, and 8 administrative and
other program staff. The division has a total of 33 employees.
He characterized DCOM as small but effective. The funding
translates into about 28 coastal district coordinators in the
regions throughout the state. The division provides funding to
each community that provides a coastal coordinator for
implementing the program at the local level. He noted that
various state agency staff implement the coastal program through
their agencies.
2:26:36 PM
MR. BATES turned to the issues related to ACMP that will come
before the legislature. There is a sunset provision within an
uncodified portion of Senate Bill 102, which was passed in 2005.
That uncodified section terminates the ACMP on July 1, 2011,
unless legislative action is taken. Mr. Bates emphasized that
this is different than a typical sunset clause; there is no
grace period. If no legislation extending the ACMP is passed
this session, the ACMP will terminate July 1, 2011. As part of
the sunset action, the Division of Legislative Audit has
performed a special audit on the ACMP. The audit was intensive
and sets the stage for an overall understanding of the program
and will facilitate good discussion. In response to the audit
and the ACMP sunset provision, the governor has introduced HB
106 and SB 45, which would extend the termination date of the
ACMP by six years until 2017. If such legislation is passed,
the effectiveness of the ACMP would move forward with the
implementation of the program with an opportunity in 2017 to re-
evaluate the effectiveness of the ACMP. He then pointed out the
following valuable improvements to the ACMP. The ACMP is
working toward regulation revisions to the consistency review
process, which once implemented should facilitate streamlined
increased effectiveness of the aforementioned process. The "ABC
List" is an expedited list of consistency reviews, which would
be a tool to alleviate some of the burden on the smaller
operators. Expedited reviews for certain projects, such as
those that are de minimis or routine in nature, would remove
them from the full review process and streamline the actions and
allow the division to focus more on the complex, non routine
projects. The last improvement is the unified permit, which is
an ongoing, long-term capital improvement project (CIP) that has
been in the budget the last couple of years. The DNR unified
permit is managed through the Division of Mining, Land and Water
technical services and is meant to integrate and automate
division business processes and help DCOM, the Division of
Mining, Land and Water, and other participants to be more
effective and efficient in regard to how the permitting process
is managed. The goal is to be public, transparent, and share
information quickly.
2:31:08 PM
MR. BATES, returning to the topic of audits, told the committee
that the Division of Legislative Audit began the audit of the
ACMP this summer and should be finished in mid-February 2011.
The Division of Legislative Audit staff did and continues to put
in a great deal of time and effort to understand ACMP and
provide an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the
program. The DCOM also put in a lot of time as it provided the
Division of Legislative Audit staff all the resources it needed,
including complete access to [DCOM] computers for information.
Mr. Bates said, "The interrelationships of laws, the agencies,
the participants, and the issues that are associated with the
ACMP present significant challenges for anyone wishing to
develop a deep understanding of the ACMP. Its varied
connections and nuances increase that challenge exponentially."
Therefore, Mr. Bates opined that the audit report is a critical
aspect of the discussion this session in terms of informing
members of the issues and the basics of the ACMP as well as
sharing the audit's findings regarding how the ACMP is operating
and what improvements can or cannot be made. The audit is being
released in two parts, the first of which is already available
and the second should be finalized in mid-February 2011.
2:33:47 PM
MR. BATES then turned to the findings in the first part of the
audit. He highlighted the following findings:
The requirements for establishing coastal district
enforceable policies are consistent with the statutes
and intent of the legislature that the enforceable
policies be clear, concise, non duplicative, and
related to matters of local concern.
For the approved coastal district plans, 80 percent of
the subsistence use area designations were approved.
DCOM offers grants to coastal districts to help defray
the cost of developing the information for the
establishment of these subsistence use designations as
well as the habitat designations.
2:34:44 PM
MR. BATES noted that one of the questions asked in the special
audit was regarding whether the changes in 2003 limited the
state's rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(CZMA). The audit report found that the ACMP changes haven't
diminished the state's rights under the CZMA. He then turned to
an area in which [DCOM] has significant concern in the first
part of the audit, which is in regard to the evaluation of
whether the ACMP is meeting its objectives or not. The audit
doesn't consider the entirety of the ACMP authorities and how
those collective authorities contribute to the overall robust
and comprehensive approach to management and resource protection
under the ACMP, particularly related to habitat. The other
authorities included or considered under the ACMP, such as the
DEC water quality authorities, the ADF&G fish passage
authorities, the various DNR authorities for managing wildlife
transit or other impacts, and ACMPs statewide standards and
district enforceable policies. All those authorities, he
emphasized, must be considered when evaluating whether the ACMP
is meeting its objectives. The aforementioned wasn't performed
as part of the audit, rather the audit merely reviewed the
habitat standard and evaluated whether ACMP is meeting its
objectives. Therefore, he opined that the audit erroneously
drew a poor conclusion.
2:36:46 PM
MR. BATES concluded by reiterating that the ACMP is a valuable
program that should be continued. The ACMP is an opportunity
for the state to apply its enforceable policies, state
standards, and state laws to activities on federal lands as well
as the Outer Continental Shelf. Furthermore, the ACMP considers
and takes into account local knowledge as well as solicits local
input. The aforementioned, he emphasized, is critical for the
state to make reasoned designs on such significant issues as
resource development and protection.
2:37:30 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the result if the legislature
fails to act in extending the ACMP.
MR. BATES answered that the ACMP would be terminated.
Therefore, the state would not be operating with an approved
coastal management program at the federal level. The [ACMP]
statutes would be repealed and the regulations removed.
Therefore, the state would no longer have a program whereby the
state can comment and have a true role in decision-making on
federal agency activities, such as in a former BLM oil and gas
lease sale on the Outer Continental Shelf, a Tongass timber
sale, or a BLM petroleum leasing. The state, he stressed, would
not have formal standing to comment and influence decisions.
Furthermore, the ACMP is one of the major tools the local
coastal districts use to have influence and input on state and
federal permitting.
2:39:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how many municipalities, after
the ACMP was rewritten and some said participation by local
districts was severely limited, incorporated their enforceable
policies into local ordinances such that the developer would
have to go through the consistency review process with the state
as well as the municipal permitting process for the exact same
items.
MR. BATES explained that municipalities with Title 29
authorities require permits for any resource development project
that has been identified within their local code. To his
knowledge, there are two or three municipalities that have taken
the former district enforceable policies and simply incorporated
them into their municipal code. However, it does not change the
permitting scheme an applicant would have to go through. An
applicant would still have to receive its consistency
determination on any state permits and, as would have been the
case prior to the rewrite in 2003, the applicant would also have
to obtain the local borough permits for things such as
conditional use. Although some of the standards [the two or
three communities] now include are former enforceable policies,
there is no different permitting scheme than prior to 2003. Mr.
Bates clarified that is from his perspective, and thus suggested
that it may be appropriate to obtain the perspective of the
local representatives who conduct these permit reviews.
2:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the ACMP had any role with
regard to the CD5 lease and the bridge that was denied.
MR. BATES responded that although he is familiar with the
details of that project, he didn't know whether it went through
consistency review. Therefore, he offered to provide that
information to the committee upon a bit of research. However,
he remarked that if the project was located in the coastal zone,
it was reviewed for consistency. Further, if the project was
found consistent it moved forward with the other agencies that
might be permitting.
2:43:12 PM
MR. BATES, in response to Representative Herron, confirmed that
he attended the DNR directors planning retreat last week. In
further response to Representative Herron, Mr. Bates also
confirmed that the ACMP was discussed in various forums amongst
the directors and those it affects. There were also discussions
regarding how the departments and states will move forward [on
the ACMP]. However, the ACMP wasn't discussed in great detail
in terms of strategy or content.
2:44:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON informed the committee that the RSA in his
region has been vacant for seven months. He asked if there's a
reason why that position wasn't filled and why there wasn't a
short-term contract to provide support.
MR. BATES related his understanding that Representative Herron
represents a city within a coastal resource service area (CRSA).
There have been two relatively long-term vacancies for the two
program directors/executive directors who serve those areas.
The DCOM has been working with the Bering Straits CRSA to get
their books and process in order so the division can continue to
fund them. The DCOM is also working with the Cenaliulriit CRSA
to ensure it can hire a program director. He offered his
understanding that both of the aforementioned CRSAs are close to
hiring directors.
2:45:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if there was funding available for
any coastal district the first quarter of 2011.
MR. BATES explained that the funding is usually provided
beginning with the fiscal year in July. Unfortunately, this
year DNR, the lead agency, and DCCED, the granting agency, were
negotiating the RSA and how to service and provide funds to the
coastal districts. The discussion and resolution of those
issues took until September. Although the coastal districts
didn't have specific funding in place to implement coastal
management, that funding has been provided in full so that the
districts have not been penalized due to DNR's internal issues.
2:47:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled that Mr. Bates testified that 80
percent of all subsistence proposals were approved. He inquired
as to when that occurred.
MR. BATES explained that was one of the findings within the ACMP
audit part 1. The finding was that of the approved coastal
district plans, of which there are 25, 80 percent of the
designated areas that were proposed by those plans were
approved. He stated that the finding is supported by DCOM's
records. In further response to Representative Herron, Mr.
Bates further explained that it's the transitional plans that
were required as a result of House Bill 191 of 2003, which
mandated all existing coastal districts rewrite their district
plans to comply with the new laws. There were 33 district plans
in place, of which 5 districts chose not to participate in the
program. Twenty-eight of the thirty-three coastal districts
revised their plans, of which twenty-five were approved and
three are pending. The conclusions drawn in the ACMP audit part
1 are related to the transitional plan amendment process.
Therefore, the numbers are being drawn from the 25 plans, the
number of approved designated areas during the plan revision
time.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that he would like to address a
subsistence question to the department and have the answer
provided to all members. In response to Co-Chair Seaton, Mr.
Bates directed members to page 22 of the ACMP audit part 1,
which read: "Further analysis shows that approximately 80
percent of the subsistence use areas were approved." That's the
statement of the Legislative Audit Division, and thus it may be
appropriate to have that division answer questions with regard
to process and conclusions.
2:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON commented that he held the impression that
the governor was going to ask for a one-year extension;
therefore he inquired as to why six years was proposed.
MR. BATES confirmed that HB 106 and SB 45 specify six-year
extensions. From his perspective of managing the program and
undergoing an intensive audit, Mr. Bates opined that a one-year
extension is not productive or effective. A one-year extension
merely delays the discussion of the program. He informed the
committee that the initial discussions included terminating the
sunset date completely or extending the program. The governor
has chosen to introduce legislation with a six-year sunset
provision, which is what the division supports. In the Senate
there is legislation that only grants a one-year extension.
Again, he opined that there isn't much to gain from a one-year
extension of a valuable program for which the staff needs some
stability in terms of their jobs and their effectiveness. He
emphasized his desire to provide the state and DCOM stability
for which a six-year extension seems reasonable. If, in 2017,
the ACMP can't justify its existence and the value of the
program, the legislature should debate it.
2:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled the governor's "State of the
State" address related his challenge to take on the federal
government. Ironically, the parallel challenge is having
legitimate local input on any ACMP project.
2:54:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to when the Bering Straits
CRSA will be funded and have a director.
MR. BATES pointed out that the only outstanding issue for the
Bering Straits CRSA is the completion of its plan. In fiscal
year 2010, ACMP funds paid for the completion of the Bering
Straits CRSA plan in accordance with the commissioner's finding.
The DCOM is working with a consultant to finalize that plan. As
soon as the plan is finalized and can be shared with the federal
government, funding will flow to the district and the hiring of
the director. Mr. Bates said the he expects resolution within a
month.
2:56:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related that to his knowledge the
subsistence proposals for the Bering Strait area were denied.
He requested that Mr. Bates confirm that.
MR. BATES agreed to follow up on that matter.
2:57:25 PM
MR. BATES, in response to Representative Gardner, said that he
would be happy to provide members with a copy of the ACMP audit
part 1, and noted that it's also available on DCOM's website.
2:58:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the December 7, 2010, federal
register 76101 on the polar bear critical habitat, which
specifically cites: "the designation of critical habitat under
the act provides for the protection of critical habitat in the
absence of adequate protection of habitat under the State of
Alaska statutes ... and the CZMA." He then asked if the federal
government designated critical habitat for polar bears, in part,
because they found the ACMP to be weak and not protect habitat.
He further inquired as to the state's response to designating
the polar bear habitat as critical.
MR. BATES offered to look into that issue and get back to the
committee on it. He said that he isn't familiar enough with the
submission of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing under the
CZMA.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that he is asking because when the act
was changed, it was for streamlining, which meant reducing the
number and effectiveness of local district policies. He related
concern that now under the guise of further streamlining
consistency review regulations those regulations are being
reviewed. He expressed interest in determining whether the
attempt to further streamline is to further reduce the
effectiveness of local participation.
3:00:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE informed the committee that he attended the Meet
Alaska Conference in Anchorage, which was an opportunity for
members of the resource industry as well as smaller suppliers
that support particularly the oil and gas industry. There is a
lot of concern on the part of industry.
3:01:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DNR Division of Coastal and Ocean Management Overview.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ACMP 2011 Fact Sheet.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DNR - Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Ormat Technologies - Mt. Spurr Geothermal Project.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |