M ODERNIZING A LASKA ’ S
P ERMITTING S YSTEM : HB 77
Southwest Alaska
Salmon Science
Workshop
December 5, 2013
Anchorage, AK
Ed Fogels
Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
S TATEWIDE P ERMITTING R EFORM
- S TRATEGY -
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.
Timely, predictable, and
efficient permitting is critical
to other statewide strategies
DNR has been working with a team from DEC,
ADF&G, and LAW to develop and advance
strategies that aim to:
I.
Improve agencies’ internal permitting structure to
create a more efficient, timely, and certain process
II.
Enhance coordination within different state
departments and with different entities and
stakeholders throughout the state
III. Seek input from the public about the permitting
process including input from municipalities, industry
and non-governmental organizations
IV. Improve coordination between the state and the
federal government—federal permitting issues have a
strong influence on state projects
V.
Anticipate and plan for permitting the next phases of
resource development, e.g. the Shale Oil Task Force
2
S TATEWIDE P ERMITTING R EFORM
- S IGNIFICANT P ROGRESS M ADE -
• In FY12, the Legislature provided
approximately $2.7 million in operating funds
for the Division of Mining, Land & Water to
create efficiency, timeliness and certainty in the
permitting process
• We reclassified and updated over 50 position
descriptions
• We utilized capital funding from FY12 ($2.5M
for the Unified Permit Project and Document
Management) to focus on business
management software and services
• We have conducted public meetings statewide
for input on state permitting processes
• Since the beginning of FY12, the backlog has
been reduced by almost 50%
• We are continually evaluating internal
processes to identify and fix inefficiencies
• In FY13, the Legislature approved the
continuation of FY12 operating funds as part
of the ongoing base for permitting and an
additional $950.0 to cover increased personnel
costs and fill vacant positions focused on
permitting
o FY13 capital budget included $3.3M to
continue work on the Unified Permit Project,
including the continuation of IT strategies and
Business Process Management
3
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- G ENERAL P ERMITS -
Fact: A general permit is an efficiency tool that allows a group of similar
activities to be authorized in advance
• Intent of HB 77 is to clarify
the authority of DNR to
issue general permits and
place restrictions, where none
previously existed
• Can be issued for any activity done in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the general
permit
• Cannot be issued for:
• If the department proposed
to issue a general permit,
such a decision would be
subject to appeal
o Activities where “significant and irreparable”
harm would be caused
• Commonly used by both
state and federal agencies
o Coal mining (federally delegated program)
o Activities occurring inside state forests, parks, and
game refuges
4
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- G ENERAL P ERMITS -
Fact: A general permit is an efficiency tool that allows a group of similar
activities to be authorized in advance
Examples of current general permits:
Potential future general permits
• Kasilof River Mooring Buoys
• Equipment Storage
• River crossing locations for heavy
equipment
• Commercial Recreation permits (for
commercial guiding activities that would
otherwise violate generally allowed uses)
• Boat storage for commercial guides
on specific rivers
• Personal Use Cabin Permit Renewals
• Temporary barge storage related to
certain timber operations in SE
Alaska
5
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- W ATER A UTHORIZATIONS -
Fact: Nothing in HB 77 would prevent a person, an Alaska Native Corporation, or
tribe from applying for or acquiring an authorization to use water
DNR has THREE
principal tools to manage
the State’s water
resources:
1. Water Rights
2. Temporary Water Use
Authorizations
(TWUAs, a.k.a. TWUPs)
3. Water Reservations –
preserve a specific
quantity of water to
remain in a water body,
for public purposes
• Ice-bridge crossings
Allow the
public to
remove water
from water
bodies
• Ice roads
• Ski resort snowmaking
• Village landfills, sewer and water
projects
• Hydroelectric projects
6
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- W ATER A UTHORIZATIONS -
Fact: Nothing in HB 77 would prevent a person, an Alaska Native Corporation, or tribe
from applying for or acquiring an authorization to use water
• Provision ensures that water
reservations—which must be made in the
public interest for the public good—are
held by public agencies accountable to
the public
• Our intent is to prevent an individual or
organization from trying to use water
reservations as a tool to stop any
development by “locking up” water
o HB 77 does not prevent private
organizations, individuals, or tribes
from pursuing water reservations but
would require them to work with a
public entity
7
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- W ATER A UTHORIZATIONS -
Fact: HB 77 does not change any statutes or regulations administered by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) that protect fish habitat
• ADF&G has the statutory responsibility for
protecting freshwater anadromous fish
habitat under AS 46.15
• ADF&G will continue the proper
protection of fish habitat by requiring fish
habitat permits for:
• DNR will continue to coordinate
with ADF&G before issuing any
water authorizations to put
appropriate conditions and
restrictions on water
authorizations for the proper
protection of fish habitat
o Any proposed activity located within a
designated anadromous waterbodies
o When needed to ensure free fish passage
• ADF&G will continue to be able to apply
for water reservations where it deems them
necessary and appropriate
8
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- A PPEALS -
Fact: HB 77 would require appellants to demonstrate that they have a vested
interest or will be harmed by a decision in order to appeal
• HB 77 seeks to change the standard
from “aggrieved” to “substantially
and adversely affected” so that
appellants are required to provide some
amount of information that clearly
explains how they or their interests are
directly, negatively affected by the
decision
• Prevents parties from using the appeal
process as a method to block permitting
with groundless claims or casual
objection
• “Substantially and adversely affected” is
defined in HB 77 as:
o General (AS 44.37): “a final decision
made by the department must create or
impose an adverse and direct effect or
detriment on the person or the
interests of that person”
o Water Use Act (AS 46.15): “a person
must be directly affected by a decision
made by the department either by a
physical or financial detriment to the
person’s interest resulting from the
decision”
9
HB 77/SB 26 F ACTS
- A PPEALS -
Fact: HB 77 would increase meaningful participation in the public review
process
• HB 77 does not reduce public notice
for DNR decisions:
o Current law does not provide the
Director of DMLW with the authority
to issue preliminary decisions and
provide public notice
• HB 77 would allow the department to
require a person’s participation in the
public review process before appealing
or requesting reconsideration
10
K EY T HINGS TO R EMEMBER
A BOUT HB 77
• HB 77 allows DNR to issue general
permits, which are an efficiency tool
that allows a group of similar
activities to be authorized in advance
• Nothing in HB 77 would prevent a
person, private enterprise, an Alaska
Native Corporation, or tribe from
applying for or acquiring an
authorization to use water
• HB 77 seeks to increase
meaningful participation in the
public review process
• HB 77 would require
appellants to demonstrate that
they have a vested interest or
will be harmed by a decision in
order to appeal
• Water Reservations are not the only
tool to protect fish habitat and HB 77
does not change any statutes or
regulations administered by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G)
11