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.