A specific project permit will be more time-consuming than a general permit, and because of that more ex- pensive. Reducing costs is important be- cause the Clean Water Act, like the Clean Air Act, requires applicants will pay at least part of the permit cost. Clean air permits must be paid for to- tally by applicants but there may be more flexibility under the Clean Wa - ter Act so that the state can assume at least some of the costs. A critical advantage, however, may be that the state will likely be able to design a wetlands-impact mitigation program where project impacts that can’t be avoided or minimized can be mitigated through more tailored and flexible regional conditions. The miti - gation requirements and costs are ba- sically negotiated with the Corps cur- rently under the Corps’ interpretation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This is a major problem for com- panies planning projects because of the uncertainty of what the Corps may approve. DEC expects that cer- tain types of mitigation like cleanup of contaminated sites in wetlands that are often disallowed by the Corps will be part of the state program.
Photo Courtesy Kinross Alaska Alaska already has some of the strictest water quality standards in the U.S. and giving primary authority to the state would maintain that while allowing more efficient permitting.
Developing Alaska's
Next Gold Mines
FAIRBANKS, AK
NYSE-A: CTGO
info@contangoore.com www.contangoore.com
39
Spring 2023
The Alaska Miner
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online