Performance Details

Department of Natural Resources - Office of Project Management and Permitting

• Return to Departments
• Department of Natural Resources website

Mission

The Office of Project Management and Permitting coordinates state 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.

Core Services

• Permit coordination for large and complex natural resource development projects.
• Review proposed federal actions; facilitate federal and state coordination and consultation; coordinate an efficient and reliable multi-agency review process; and prepare consolidated state comments.
• Engage in outreach and educational opportunities to inform the public, industry, legislature, and federal agencies of state interests and positions on large projects, federal actions, and grants.

Mission Results	Core Services
A: Advance permitting efficiencies.  Details >	A1: Permit coordination for large and complex natural resource development projects.  Details > TARGET #1: Coordinate the review, permitting, and monitoring of natural and renewable resource development, transportation, and other specialized projects consistent with the missions of the department and participating state agencies. TARGET #2: Recover state expenditures by generating revenue, per signed agreements with project proponents, resulting from the statewide coordinated review of projects during pre-planning, permitting, and project compliance. TARGET #3: Establish and maintain Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with state agencies to ensure they have the necessary fiscal resources to participate effectively in the coordinated review of projects.
Mission Results	Core Services
B: Protect the State's economic and social interests.  Details >	B1: Review proposed federal actions; facilitate federal and state coordination and consultation; coordinate an efficient and reliable multi-agency review process; and prepare consolidated state comments.  Details > TARGET #1: Coordinate multi-agency reviews of federal actions and compile consolidated state comments.
Mission Results	Core Services
C: Public involvement, community outreach, and policy development.  Details >	C1: Engage in outreach and educational opportunities to inform the public, industry, legislature, and federal agencies of state interests and positions on large projects, federal actions, and grants.  Details > TARGET #1: Present and provide subject matter expertise at trainings, workshops, conferences, legislative hearings and local public meetings that address or affect specific state and federal actions or proposed development projects.

Performance Detail

Target #1: Coordinate the review, permitting, and monitoring of natural and renewable resource development, transportation, and other specialized projects consistent with the missions of the department and participating state agencies. Methodology: Graph illustrates the number and types of projects OPMP Coordinators manage. OPMP Coordinated Projects Fiscal Year Mining Oil and Gas Transportation Renewable YTD Total FY 2019 12 5 1 0 18 FY 2018 11 6 1 0 18 FY 2017 12 6 1 1 20 FY 2016 14 7 1 1 23 FY 2015 18 14 4 2 38 Analysis of results and challenges: OPMP’s large project coordination core service is a networked program that builds on the combined regulatory authorities and expertise of state, federal, and local government agencies. OPMP’s coordination service provides a consistent and predictable permitting process for large, complex natural resource development projects while reducing potential conflicts and redundancies for regulatory agencies. The number and types of projects coordinated by OPMP annually indicates relative demand for the program; it also provides OPMP insight into industry and market trends in Alaska. For example, the decrease in coordinated oil and gas projects from FY2015 to FY2016 represents completion of several focused coordinated permitting requests from oil and gas proponents. The decrease in coordinated mining projects from FY2015 to FY2018, however, represents a slowdown in mineral exploration activities statewide, as well as OPMP’s completion of coordinated reviews for two proposed mines in the Transboundary Region of British Columbia. OPMP anticipates a slight upward trend in the number of coordinated mining projects in the near-term (3-5 years) due to positive economic trends within the industry. The number of coordinated oil and gas projects are expected to remain flat in the near-term due to the industry focusing on completing coordinated permitting efforts for key projects. OPMP’s principle challenge for providing permit coordination is maintaining sufficient organizational capacity (i.e. staffing, budget resources, etc.) to adjust to fluctuations in coordinated project workloads. Such fluctuations are often driven by factors outside OPMP’s control (i.e. economic conditions, regulatory changes, commodity process, investment trends, etc.), but are an important metric used to gauge relative demand for large project coordination services. Related links:    • See DNR Office of Project Management and Permitting

Target #2: Recover state expenditures by generating revenue, per signed agreements with project proponents, resulting from the statewide coordinated review of projects during pre-planning, permitting, and project compliance. Methodology: Total amount of revenue (in budget dollars) received from project proponents. Total Revenue Generated Fiscal Year FY 2019 $1,284.1 FY 2018 $1,659.8 FY 2017 $1,241.1 FY 2016 $2,309.3 FY 2015 $2,274.5 Analysis of results and challenges: OPMP functions as a revenue-generating source to the state by providing operating funds to state regulatory agencies that would otherwise not be available through general fund appropriations. OPMP establishes with project proponents benefits the state in the following tangible ways: (1) supplementing agency budgets, (2) managing permit review schedules, (3) eliminating redundant efforts, (4) facilitating collaboration between agencies, and (5) contributing to efficient, transparent lines of communication between the state, federal agencies, citizens and project proponents. Measuring the total amount of revenue (i.e. receipts) collected by OPMP through its project funding agreements provides a broad indicator of the fiscal resources generated by OPMP’s large project coordination program. Revenue reported under this metric is affected by the number of projects coordinated by OPMP and the associated workloads, which result in agency expenditures that are recovered from the project proponent. Although workloads and expenditures were relatively stable prior to FY2016, OPMP observed a noticeable decrease in expenditures from FY2016 to FY2017 due, in part, to the completion of several environmental and socio-economic studies associated with the Donlin Gold Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. A portion of the decrease in revenues was also attributable to fewer agency expenses overall, due to fewer coordinated projects. However, OPMP observed a modest increase in coordinated project workloads from FY2017 to FY2018 due to Donlin Gold entering the permitting phase of review and the Pebble project entering the EIS stage. FY2019 revenues were similar to FY2017 figures, and OPMP anticipates maintaining similar revenues in FY2020.

Target #3: Establish and maintain Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with state agencies to ensure they have the necessary fiscal resources to participate effectively in the coordinated review of projects. Methodology: Total amount of funding (in budget dollars) available to other state agencies via reimbursable services agreements provided by OPMP. RSA Amounts by Departments Fiscal Year DNR DEC ADFG Other YTD Total FY 2019 $564.4 $713.0 $524.2 $160.6 1962.2 FY 2018 $688.8 $796.8 $679.1 $164.1 2328.8 FY 2017 $619.3 $662.5 $588.5 $220.5 2090.8 FY 2016 $746.2 $752.3 $928.8 $168.5 2595.8 FY 2015 $877.0 $868.6 $915.1 $170.6 2,831.3 Analysis of results and challenges: Establishing and maintaining RSAs with state agencies provides a mechanism by which those agencies may recover expenditures resulting from the greater demands that large projects and intergovernmental coordination place on the regulatory agencies. OPMP tracks RSA totals at the department-level as a measure of funding made available to state agencies that participate in OPMP’s large project coordination program. This metric also indicates the networked characteristic of the program. However, cost recovery is limited to actual expenditures, which OPMP reports under Target #2 as revenue. OPMP’s principle challenge related to RSAs is maintaining continuity during program implementation despite staff turn-over within participating agencies. New staff may be unaware of available funding through OPMP’s project related RSAs, or they may not understand the networked characteristic of the coordinated permitting program administered by OPMP. OPMP addresses this challenge through internal and external training and outreach efforts. Since FY2015, OPMP has observed a general downward trend in total agency RSA amounts. However, this trend is driven, in part, by OPMP working with participating state agencies to ensure their cost estimates, which provide the basis for the issued RSAs, are reasonable and responsive to the project-specific scopes of work.

Target #1: Coordinate multi-agency reviews of federal actions and compile consolidated state comments. Methodology: The graph displays number of all federal reviews OPMP coordinated, including but not limited to arctic resource development, OCS, federal planning, development and policy actions. Federal Actions Reviewed Fiscal Year FY 2019 74 FY 2018 62 FY 2017 65 FY 2016 60 FY 2015 58 Analysis of results and challenges: State coordination while reviewing proposed federal actions is necessary to protect and advance state interests. Presenting a consolidated response also ensures a strong administrative record and better preserves the State's standing to pursue legal actions, when necessary. Without coordination, individual state agencies may selectively produce multiple, more narrowly focused comments, increasing potential for conflicting positions or information gaps. The number of federal actions where OPMP has coordinated a multi-agency state response or has otherwise facilitated consultation between state and federal agencies, provides a measure of potential impacts on state interests from national and regional federal land management or federal policy decisions. Trends in this metric are driven by the number of policies, management plans and actions proposed by federal agencies. The level of federal activity remained relatively consistent from FY2015 to FY2018. In FY2019, OPMP observed decreased planning and project-related workloads related to the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Bureau of Land Management, however, continued planning efforts at a strong pace. These large, complex plans, which can have significant economic impact on the state, are more time intensive and involve multiple planning phases, spanning several years. Therefore, even though the number of federal actions reviewed declined from FY2018 to FY2019, OPMP’s workload for this core service remained steady. OPMP’s principle challenge is maintaining sufficient organizational capacity (i.e. staffing, training, expertise, budget resources, etc.) to adjust to fluctuations in the number of policies, management plans and actions proposed by federal agencies that may affect Alaska.

Target #1: Present and provide subject matter expertise at trainings, workshops, conferences, legislative hearings and local public meetings that address or affect specific state and federal actions or proposed development projects. Methodology: Number of outreach events by fiscal year. Number of Outreach Activities Fiscal Year FY 2019 176 FY 2018 72 FY 2017 160 FY 2016 153 FY 2015 182 Analysis of results and challenges: OPMP staff engages in public outreach as a means of communicating state interests on a variety of natural resource issues with a diverse group of stakeholders. Examples of outreach activities include: • Participation in public meetings, hearings, open houses, or other similar activities during project reviews; • Responses to inquiries (e.g. citizens, media, etc.) related to natural resource development projects and federal actions; • Presentations to organizations such as the National Petroleum Council, Alaska Miners Association, Resource Development Council, and other organizations representing Alaska industries; • Presentations at various workshops providing an overview of the state’s interest and participation in the implementation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA); • Presentations and participation in meetings of the Citizen’s Advisory Commission on Federal Areas in FY2015 & FY2016; and • Presentations and participation at legislative hearings, energy conferences, and resource management conferences, describing unique challenges for wetlands compensatory mitigation under existing federal rule while sharing OPMP’s efforts to establish an In-Lieu Fee mitigation program to help provide additional mitigation opportunities for potential developers and project applicants.

Current as of December 24, 2019