Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/02/1994 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Briefing on Alaska Wetlands Policy by Alvin Ewing of United
States Environmental Protection Agency, and Paul Rusanowski
of Governor's Office, Division of Governmental Coordination
WITNESS REGISTER
ALVIN EWING
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 537, Federal Building
222 W. 7th Avenue, #19
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588
Phone: 271-5083
Position Statement: Gave current status of federal activity
regarding the Alaska Wetlands
Initiative and answered questions
(via teleconference)
PAUL RUSANOWSKI, Director
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of Management and Budget
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
Phone: 465-3562
Position Statement: Gave an overview of the state
Administration's perspective and
activities regarding the Alaska
Wetlands Initiative
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-7, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Vice
Chairman Bill Hudson at 8:12 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Carney, Davies,
Finkelstein, and Green. Members absent were Representatives
Bunde, James, Mulder, and Williams.
VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON announced the meeting is an
educational briefing on the wetlands issue and the purpose
of the meeting is to learn about ongoing activities
regarding the wetlands and where the issues are heading. He
stated no public testimony will be taken.
Number 030
ALVIN EWING, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) thanked the committee
for the opportunity to brief members on the process
currently underway to consider environmentally appropriate
means to assure regulatory flexibility and the feasibility
of alternative permitting procedures for the Clean Water Act
Section 404 wetlands regulatory program in Alaska.
MR. EWING advised the Clinton Administration's August 24,
1993 Wetlands Plan stated the intent to withdraw the
proposed "Alaska 1% rule". He said the plan further directs
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to meet
with interest groups in Alaska to identify and address
concerns with the Clean Water Act Section 404 program in
Alaska. Specifically, the plan states that the agencies
will initiate meetings with Federal resource agencies, state
and local government agencies, representatives of Native
villages, industry groups including oil and fishing
interests, and environmental groups, to consider other
environmentally appropriate means to assure regulatory
flexibility and the feasibility of alternative permitting
procedures in Alaska.
MR. EWING continued that on October 12, 1993, the agencies
in Alaska (EPA and the Corps) invited a diverse and
comprehensive group of stakeholders to participate in a
series of independently facilitated meetings in Juneau,
Bethel, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. He advised those meetings
took place in late October and early November. He said the
two day meetings provided the opportunity for stakeholders
to present oral testimony, as well as discuss concerns in a
roundtable format.
MR. EWING stressed the public was invited to attend the
meetings, to submit written comments, and to participate in
a statewide teleconference linking twenty locations
throughout Alaska. Approximately 75 Alaskans took advantage
of the public comment opportunities. He said approximately
1,500 letters were mailed to Alaskans who, over the last
five years, had applied for Section 404 permits, to survey
their opinion regarding experience with the regulatory
program.
Number 065
MR. EWING explained at the conclusion of the first round of
meetings, EPA and the Corps, with assistance from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and with oversight by the White
House Interagency Wetlands Working Group, developed a set of
eleven issue papers. He said the Alaska Wetlands Initiative
Issue Papers have been available for pubic comment since
December 17, 1993. He stated that in response to the House
and Senate Resources Committee's request, the closing date
for comments on the issue papers was extended from January
21, 1994 to February 4, 1994.
MR. EWING remarked that during the month of January, a
second round of stakeholder meetings were held in Juneau,
Bethel, Fairbanks, and Anchorage, specifically to garner
feedback on the issue papers. He said the meetings were
managed by an independent facilitator and resulted in a
summary report, prepared by the facilitator, which will be
used during the refinement of the issue papers and
preparation of an action plan. He added that all meetings
were recorded, and written transcripts are available.
Number 080
MR. EWING stated upon the conclusion of the public comment
period, EPA will summarize and analyze public comments. The
public comments, in conjunction with results of the
roundtable meetings, and public meetings will serve as
guidance as the issue papers are revised and an action plan
for implementation of recommendations is developed. He said
EPA and the Corps will have the lead in the refinement
process, assisted by FWS and NMFS with oversight from the
White House Interagency Wetlands Working Group.
MR. EWING expected the process to be concluded in March
1994. He informed the committee that implementation of the
action plan is expected to begin immediately thereafter, and
depending on the nature of the actions, could take up to
several years to complete.
Number 095
MR. EWING referring to copies of the December 17, 1993,
public review draft of the issue papers, said topics covered
by the issue papers include: No Overall Net Loss of
Wetlands Goal; Alaska Legal Issues; Alaska Physical
Environment; State, Local, and Native Roles; Individual
Permit Process; Alternative Permit Processing Procedures;
Mitigation Sequence; Compensatory Mitigation; Advanced
Planning and Watershed Management; Wetlands Inventory,
Classification, and Categorization; and Outreach and
Education.
MR. EWING stated each issue paper contains background
information, a summary of stakeholder and public comments
and analysis, and proposed recommendations. He noted that
proposed recommendations are in two categories: those
applicable actions contained in the Clinton Administration's
August 24, 1993, Wetlands Plan and Alaska specific actions.
He said in the interest of time, he would not recapitulate
what is contained in the issue papers.
Number 108
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether or not the
recommendations fit within the present policies of wetland
regulations.
MR. EWING replied one of the concerns heard around the state
is that the Clinton Administration's Wetlands Plan will
tighten up the regulation of wetlands in Alaska. He said
EPA intends to continue to be reasonable, as EPA understands
the realities of Alaska--that a big percentage of the state
is wetlands, and it is not the intent to make it impossible
for important development to go forward.
MR. EWING stated in regard to the recommendations, EPA is
clarifying the path the agency intends to follow in the
future in regard to regulation. He noted that the path will
be similar to what it has been in the past, with the
exception of EPA trying to cut red tape where possible. He
said EPA's charge is to be environmentally responsible while
removing red tape.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON recalled that the Corps had been
invited but chose not to attend the meeting. He inquired if
the Corps and EPA are working together on the statewide
hearing process to develop an action plan that everyone will
understand.
MR. EWING replied the action plan will be very closely
coordinated between EPA, the Corps, FWS, and NMFS.
Number 150
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON questioned if there will be additional
funding and staffing available in order to implement the
action plan.
MR. EWING responded committee members must be aware of the
federal budget situation and felt EPA cannot count on
significant increases in either budget or staffing. He said
even within those constraints, many things can be done which
are set forward in the recommendations contained in the
draft issue papers.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted the state and Native corporate
landowners are very interested and concerned about the
wetlands issue and how it relates to the development of
infrastructure in rural Alaska. He assumed there has been
consideration for input and for user-friendly regulations.
MR. EWING replied EPA has received that message loud and
clear. He said one of the biggest challenges at hand is
communicating with rural Alaska and helping people
understand what they can do and what the limitations are.
He explained under the existing program there are many
general permits applicable to villages in rural Alaska, but
in most cases the rural villages are not aware the permits
exist. He said where villages are aware, they feel positive
about the way the program is working.
Number 195
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Ewing to give the committee
more information on the President's "No Net Loss" policy on
the use of Alaska's wetlands.
MR. EWING stated that President Clinton is proposing to
formalize a policy which has been in place for several years
and intends to put the policy in the form of an Executive
Order. He said there has already been four years of
experience with the "No Net Loss" policy and what it means
to Alaska. He noted that EPA has tried to administer the
policy in a practical way, recognizing in many instances no
net loss is not achievable. He stressed as the Alaska plan
is finalized, what is practical and what is not practical
needs to be clear.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked when the plan would be final and
available for public review.
MR. EWING replied the action plan will be available
mid-March 1994.
(VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted for the record that
REPRESENTATIVES BUNDE AND MULDER joined the committee at
8:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.)
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN remarked the Corps has a broad
definition of wetlands which has a much more profound effect
on Alaska than it would on comparable areas of other states.
He said the Corps considers permafrost areas as wetlands and
wondered if EPA in Alaska is being proactive in trying to
get an understanding of the effect across to Washington.
MR. EWING answered he would not expect, as a result of
current efforts, that the definition of wetlands will change
but he expects it will put forward a reasonable expectation
of what kind of regulation is appropriate, depending on the
functions and values associated with wetlands. He felt that
EPA has been reasonable and flexible regarding the
regulation and the way it has been applied on the North
Slope.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about the reasonable
amount of growth in the rural areas as well as the
metropolitan areas, and was concerned that when Mr. Ewing
went through the list of organizations which are part of the
committee reviewing the action plan, he did not hear any
proactive groups who might have input on long range
development plans affecting the state.
Number 257
MR. EWING responded the stakeholders included twelve
different interest groups involving the Resource Development
Council, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Native interests,
tourism, energy, municipalities, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked what percentage of permits
applied for are granted under the current program.
MR. EWING replied approximately 98 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned how many require action on
the part of the applicant such as mitigation, or a plat
denied.
MR. EWING said there is a three step process involved which
is called mitigation sequencing (indiscernible). He
stressed in every case the applicant is expected to look for
alternatives if it is not possible to avoid, and about one-
half of one percent of permits result in compensatory
mitigation.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recalled that a survey of Section 404
permit applicants had been completed and asked if one of the
reasons for the survey was to assess the applicants'
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the process. He also
inquired if the survey results were available.
MR. EWING replied the survey and results were available. He
said the Corps conducted the survey and could provide the
results and an analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested the survey and accompanying
results and analysis.
Number 310
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN noted one of the concerns
is where categorically exemptions are going to occur and
asked if the standard in federal law is where either the
avoidance or compensation for damage is not practical.
MR. EWING stated it is in the 404.B.l guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered if 98 percent of permits
are issued and there are so many other alternatives
available, are there areas in the state where EPA has found
avoidance or compensation are not practical.
MR. EWING responded there are areas where avoidance is not
practical. He said many regions in the state are 100
percent wetlands and if a person is going to develop within
one of those areas in the state, avoidance is not possible
and minimization is considered. He stated compensatory
mitigation involves going back and creating or enhancing
wetland. In an area that is 100 percent wetland, that is
generally not practical either, unless there are previous
disturbances that are no longer required for some purpose
and could be removed. He stated for example, if on the
North Slope there is an old pad or old road that could be
rehabilitated, a possible compensatory type action could be
required.
Number 350
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered if the situation on the
North Slope involves general permits.
MR. EWING said he did not believe there were any general
permits on the North Slope for oil and gas type activities,
but there are general permits operable on the North Slope
for housing. He noted that does not mean there could not be
general permits for oil and gas activities in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said much of the basis for the
furor over wetlands is lack of flexibility and he felt
between mitigation measures available and opportunities for
exemption, etc., the Corps and EPA has a lot of flexibility.
He asked how the 98 percent approval rate compares
nationally.
MR. EWING responded the 98 percent permit approval rate is
much higher than the national average.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN remarked there was not time
today, but he would like to hear about the problem cases at
some point. He said he has never been able to understand
why it is perceived there is such a problem with permits.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the state has been working on
developing plans to make the state's regulations more useful
to the general public, such as one stop permitting processes
and finding ways to instruct people who have regulatory
problems. He asked if EPA understands the unique combined
Alaska concerns and whether or not there will be plans to
provide for expedited permitting, reducing costs and the
long time frame required.
MR. EWING responded both sides of the issue have been heard
and stressed what is being balanced is the opportunity for
the public to get involved against the person who has an
action he wants to go forward as expeditiously as possible.
He believed within existing regulations, there are general
permits which greatly expedite the process and accelerated
permitting procedures, which are now being finalized and
cover sewage and sanitation type facilities for rural
Alaska. He said EPA is trying to find the best mix, from a
public interest point of view.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON mentioned he listened carefully as to
who attended the round tables and noted the fishing industry
was not mentioned.
MR. EWING said he did not mention the fishing community but
in fact, there were representatives from both the commercial
and sport fishing industry.
Number 466
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Ewing to comment on the
connection between Section 404 wetlands management and the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan.
MR. EWING responded there are overlaps in relation to the
resources managed by the two programs. He said the
Department of Commerce has lead responsibility for the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Plan and has commenting
responsibilities for Section 404 permits. He added that the
statutory basis for the two programs are different.
(VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted for the record that
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES joined the committee at 8:45 a.m.)
Number 510
PAUL RUSANOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION, announced he would review the role the state
has played in the process thus far and discuss a few of the
issues involved. He emphasized the driving force for the
entire process has been that Alaska is climatological,
physiographically, and demographically different than the
other 49 states. That fact was recognized by President Bush
in his approach of establishing the one percent exemption
and has been recognized by President Clinton in developing
his wetlands strategy on August 24, when he initiated the
Alaska Wetlands Initiative, to be followed by the action
plan.
MR. RUSANOWSKI told members there are 175 million acres of
wetlands with minimal losses in the state. He said the
federal government owns 115 million acres or 65 percent; the
state owns 40 million acres; Native organizations own 20
million acres. Therefore, of the 175 million acres of
wetlands, there are less than 200,000 acres in private, non-
Native ownership in the state. He said wetlands ownership
in Alaska is unique since in most other states, the majority
of wetlands are currently in private ownership.
MR. RUSANOWSKI stated that within the federal ownership of
115 million acres, much of it has been protected in various
ways. Over 18 million acres have been set aside in
wilderness areas; another 40 million acres are in national
parks and refuges; and only 56 million acres are in federal
multiple use management. He said the state has also set
aside some of its wetlands in special preservation or
management categories. Therefore, the total number of acres
in a restricted status is over 63 million acres or 36
percent of all wetlands in Alaska.
Number 577
MR. RUSANOWSKI advised that the state is dominated by Arctic
and subarctic conditions. He said another element that
everyone needs to be cognizant of is the characteristics of
the demographics in the state. Most communities are small
and rural; of the approximately 350 communities in the
state, most have populations of less than 2,500 and the
majority have less than 1,000; 75 percent of the state's
population is in 38 communities; 50 percent of the state's
population is in one community. He emphasized the state has
a very unusual distribution of population. In reviewing the
wetlands issues, one must remember that the majority of the
state is rural and involves small communities who lack basic
infrastructure services, which are routine and expected
elsewhere in the country. He noted that 60 percent of rural
communities do not have in home sewer and water services.
MR. RUSANOWSKI continued that most of the rural communities
are not served by a road system and the few that are, are
not connected in a network allowing roads to be used for
transportation outside the local area. Most of the
communities are served primarily by water and air, which
puts limitations on the types of development and economics
which can occur. He said this type of isolation makes any
type of activity expensive and requisite to a long lead time
in planning within state and federal governments to
implement any type of capital improvement project.
Number 621
MR. RUSANOWSKI explained the process initiated by President
Clinton involving the round table meetings began
approximately six months ago. The state feels the process
is moving rapidly. He said the state has repeatedly been
outspoken on the need to involve the public and various
interest groups throughout the process. He stressed the
state has participated in the process, but solely as a
stakeholder not as a partner with the Corps and EPA in
developing the process.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the state feels there has been very
limited opportunity for public participation, primarily due
to the time frame the state has been constrained to. He
recognized that both the Corps and EPA have responded to the
state's concerns and as the process has moved forward, there
has been increasing opportunities for public participation
and a broadening of those participating as stakeholders.
MR. RUSANOWSKI told members that the issues developed were
released December 17, 1993, and noted there were eleven
issue papers and a series of recommendations. There are
recommendations within each of the issue papers at both a
general level and an Alaska specific level, as well as a
separate document suggesting recommendations specifically
for Alaska.
TAPE 94-7, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the state is encouraged that the federal
government recognizes there must be a flexible
implementation of the "No Net Loss" goal, and noted that the
current policy is being articulated as a goal rather than a
rigid, inflexible policy. He stated comments to date have
emphasized that in Alaska, avoidance and minimization are
appropriate mechanisms to address "No Net Loss" policy or
goals.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the state is concerned that only federal
agencies are now specified as developing guidance to
implement the "No Net Loss" goal. Reflecting back on the
ownership status mentioned earlier, 99 plus percent of the
state ownership exists within three entities: the federal
government, the state, and Native corporations. He stressed
the state feels the guidance and policy should incorporate
those interest groups if it is going to be successful.
MR. RUSANOWSKI remarked the state likes the recognition that
experience in Alaska shows that minimization is a primary
tool in mitigation sequencing. Compensation should be
limited to those truly remarkable wetlands where impacts
cannot be avoided through minimization and where the action
does not adequately address the concerns. He said where
there truly is a loss to the public, the state feels that
compensatory mitigation may be required but is the rare
exception, not routine.
Number 021
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the state appreciates the Corps and EPA
stating they will recommend that the President's Executive
Order on Wetlands articulate flexibility in implementing the
Administration's goal of "No Net Loss." He stated with some
reservations, the state feels minimization as the primary
tool in mitigation sequencing is appropriate. He recalled
one of the questions addressing the Coastal Zone Management
program and the Section 404 program overlaps. Mr.
Rusanowski pointed out that within the Coastal Zone
Management program, all districts have incorporated
mitigation sequencing as defined in Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act within their district programs. He said it is a
duplication of effort, but a different perspective.
MR. RUSANOWSKI remarked that the state expects to be
involved in developing and implementing policies specifying
when and where compensatory mitigation will be required. He
said the state supports the emphasis on alternative
permitting procedures, general permits and the proposed
circle permits. These measures recognize the unique
circumstances that exist in the state and where appropriate,
it is felt that their use should be maximized. He said in
considering the programs, there is a significant paperwork
burden associated with both obtaining them and administering
such programs, and goes beyond the capabilities of the
communities in which they are intended to provide relief.
He stressed the state feels it is critical that the federal
action plan address some sort of assistance to those
communities where it is appropriate the relief will work and
provide some technical and financial assistance enabling
communities to achieve their goals.
Number 058
MR. RUSANOWSKI stated that wetlands management plans may be
appropriate in some areas, but may not be practical or
within reach of all communities. There are several
communities who have initiated wetlands planning efforts
which tend to be expensive and lengthy processes. He said
the state feels planning efforts should focus on protecting
wetlands of critical value and their functions, rather than
all wetlands regardless of function and value.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the state believes the practicality and
expense of complex and sophisticated planning efforts may
not be commensurate with the level of wetlands development
or conservation activities that will occur in the near
future. He felt, again while it may look good on paper,
some communities have only one or two projects that will
occur in the next five to ten years. He noted the planning
efforts may be overkill for the necessary development
activities that will occur.
MR. RUSANOWSKI told members that the state thinks the
recognition of the need for a regionalized wetlands
delineation manual is critical. He felt the wetlands
delineation manual must be comprehensive and must be linked
directly to the wetlands permitting process, and must be
applicable on a program basis, thus avoiding case by case
delineation of wetlands.
Number 085
MR. RUSANOWSKI gave an example of a costly federal program
not working for the wetland permitting program; that being
the National Wetlands Inventory being conducted by FWS. It
is a method of classifying wetlands and is an expensive
program. He said the program has errors in inventory, is
not state of the art, uses less than the best available
information and is not used for any jurisdictional or
delineation determinations. He emphasized that the state
feels unless the problems are corrected, the National
Wetlands Inventory cannot be used to support a wetlands
regulatory program.
MR. RUSANOWSKI commented that one of the five principles
that President Clinton had discussed in his program on
August 24 was that of partnerships. He noted that it was
stated, "The federal government should expand partnerships
with State, Tribal, and local governments, the private
sector and individual citizens..." He said the state feels
to date there has been a good start in recognizing and
discussing important wetland issues in the state, but an
essential component which must be fully realized in the
action plan is the development of an effective partnership
between federal and Alaskan permitting authorities as well
as the Native community. Mr. Rusanowski noted the state
feels the partnership is a critical element to any type of
future success.
Number 112
MR. RUSANOWSKI stressed the success of the wetlands
initiative and current recommendations are critically
dependent on full participation by both state and Native
interests. The state embraces the partnership concept, but
believes thus far the state has been limited to a
participant stakeholder role rather than a full partner. He
said the state has continually asked they be allowed to
participate as a full partner, particularly in developing
the action plan and sharing responsibilities for its
success.
MR. RUSANOWSKI commented that partnerships do work and cited
a successful partner agreement now in place between the
Corps and Division of Governmental Coordination. He said
more use of this type of flexibility would go a long way to
solving problems of Alaskans.
MR. RUSANOWSKI stated the commitment to propose additional
general permits statewide and circle general permits to
communities will improve the regulatory process. However,
it is critically dependent on the state being a partner in
developing any regulatory scheme for Alaskan communities.
Programs such as advanced identification of wetlands, circle
general permits, and watershed planning must incorporate
local and regional values, and accommodate community needs
to be successful. He felt there must be a balancing of
community needs, resource values, and environmental
management that is supported by consideration of multiple
issues, rather than a single issue, no matter how compelling
the issue might be.
MR. RUSANOWSKI stressed the balancing and consideration of
all relevant issues and points of view in this process will
foster cooperation and public support for requisite
regulatory programs and overall success of the Alaska
Wetlands Initiative.
Number 154
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the state has prepared a
comprehensive formal position in response to the Wetland
Initiative.
MR. RUSANOWSKI responded a formal position is still in the
process. The state has worked with identification of the
issues and responding to the recommendations made by the
Corps and EPA.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the one percent exemption is
no longer a strategy being considered.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said that was correct but it needs to be
recognized that the one percent exemption strategy was
developed as a platform to provide relief to communities and
to the state in developing wetlands. He stressed the
program currently being considered is trying to accomplish
the same thing within the structures of the existing
regulatory framework. He said the approaches being
presented are truly realizing the flexibility which has
existed but has not been implemented to date.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON inquired if the state is making
specific recommendations on how to correct the problems with
the National Wetlands Inventory.
MR. RUSANOWSKI responded that the National Wetlands
Inventory is extremely controversial as a tool to be used.
He said currently, the state is working on developing a
classification system for the state which may or may not
incorporate the inventory mechanism. The state is trying to
determine what best fits Alaska's needs and communities in
the regulatory structure and noted the biggest problem with
the National Wetlands Inventory system is that it does not
relate to the jurisdictional wetlands delineations that are
done with the manual and it does not relate to issuing
permits. He added it is a very expensive program, $25
million, and felt that money would be better spent on
something that will help the permit process, the applicants
and facilitate wetlands management in the state rather than
provide a dual classification system which is of no use.
Number 208
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what the effect of state
assumption of wetlands will be and how will it affect
management of Native lands.
MR. RUSANOWSKI replied state assumption of wetlands has been
an issue for six to eight years and has been reviewed
formally three times and informally many times. He said the
issue revolves around the decision process. If the program
is assumed and managed within the state, the decisions will
be more locally oriented than perhaps present decisions.
The program might be more sensitive to community needs and
to the different values which may be attached to wetlands
but still maintain overall national goals. He stressed the
program is currently within the federal government so it is
federally administered. In looking at assumption, the state
has not found an appropriate handle to move forward, that
would provide appropriate state participation without
costing a lot of money to the state and providing no better
opportunity, other than the decision process, than the
current program.
MR. RUSANOWSKI remarked the state's efforts currently are
focusing on the Clean Water Act and whether or not
assumption can be made friendlier, so it does not have the
financial burden and has stronger linkages to make the state
and federal partnership work more efficiently. He felt if
that is accomplished within the Clean Water Act, then it
makes sense to adopt the program within the state and move
forward, but in the present arrangement, however, it is a
costly program that will not result in better management of
wetlands due to the structure and internal structure of
government.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Rusanowski to expand on his
comments regarding the impacts and problems relating to
small communities in rural Alaska.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the problems are difficult to articulate
because they do not relate directly to the issuance of
permits. In fact, when permits in rural Alaska are applied
for, they are granted. He stressed the problem incurred is
a time and cost issue; interacting with agencies, preparing
the materials, etc. It takes an effort and often does not
occur in rural Alaska. Because of their remoteness, they
often do not even know a permit is required.
MR. RUSANOWSKI stated the processing time for a permit
through the Corps is usually between 90-120 days. In regard
to planning in rural Alaska, where there is a short time
frame to complete a project quickly, a 90-120 day process
can cost a construction season. These type of situations
have ripple effects in rural Alaska. He said sewer and
water projects, for example, are delayed three to six months
due to the duplicate permitting process required. He added
that the purpose of the alternative permitting procedure is
to eliminate the duplicating of permitting.
Number 295
MR. EWING clarified the 90-120 days processing time
mentioned is for individual permits and most activities
occurring in the villages of Alaska fall under the category
of general permits. He said for projects not covered by
general permits, there is the accelerated permitting
procedure which will be operational soon.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the time frame is for
general permits.
MR. EWING responded for general permits there is no
application.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired what the process is for
getting a general permit in place.
MR. EWING replied that is where public involvement comes
into play. There is a full public review procedure for
looking at a proposed general permit. It may take three to
six months to draft and issue a general permit but once it
is in place, it is good for a fixed period of time and no
application is required.
MR. RUSANOWSKI mentioned a sewer and water project which
began under a general permit and went almost two years
before the general permit concept was dropped and an
alternative permitting procedure proposed. The alternative
permitting procedure has moved rapidly, but it will still be
eight to ten months before it is in place.
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for an explanation on the
duplicate process mentioned.
MR. RUSANOWSKI said the duplicate process referred to,
involves rural sanitation projects where because of federal
funding involved, they go through a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process and added there is already full
participation of all federal and state agencies in the
review of the project through the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) process. He stated this is followed by a
Coastal Zone Management review which does exactly the same
thing. He noted the Coastal Zone Management review does not
start until the other one is finished costing a lot of time
and money without serving a purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked if she understood
correctly that when going through the community process to
get a general permit, there are definite things in that
permit which can or cannot be done, and if there is a desire
to do something in the future not falling within the general
permit, it will then require an individual permit or a
variance on the general permit.
MR. EWING responded that was correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there are any federal funds
available to help communities to get involved in the
regulation development process.
MR. EWING responded there are limited funds available for
assisting communities. There is a current grant with the
state of Alaska and the same source of those funds could be
made available to local communities. He guessed the funds
totaled approximately $250,000.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the funds require a state
match.
MR. RUSANOWSKI replied the funds do not, but the funds which
go through the Coastal Zone Management program all require a
50 percent state match.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON questioned how much money was involved
in the Coastal Zone Management program.
MR. RUSANOWSKI stated the Coastal Zone Management program
has approximately $2 1/2 million which requires $2 million
of state match.
MR. EWING clarified the state grant does have a state match
of 25 percent and currently it is an in-kind match.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what is driving the expedited
time frame in establishing the action plan.
MR. EWING responded the issue has been dealt with for many
years and there is a lot of impatience to get it resolved as
expeditiously as possible. He added the Clean Water Act is
up for reauthorization and some of the same issues can be
resolved with the Clean Water Act, and it would be
preferable to deal with them as a part of the wetlands
initiative if possible.
Number 453
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked everyone for participating.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the committee will meet
Friday, February 4 at 8:15 a.m. to hear Senate Bill 132.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Vice Chairman Hudson adjourned the
meeting at 9:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|