Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/01/2012 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB148 | |
| SB204 | |
| SB152 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 148 | ||
| = | SB 152 | ||
SB 152-LEG. APPROVAL OF BRISTOL BAY SULFIDE MINE
4:23:03 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced the consideration of SB 152 and asked Ms.
Peterson to remind the committee about the bill.
4:23:44 PM
KRISTEN PETERSON, Staff, Senator Hollis French, Alaska State
Legislature, read the first paragraph of the sponsor statement
for SB 152 as follows:
Senate Bill 152 is designed to engage the legislature
in development issues in the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve. The bill would require the legislature to
enact a law that includes a finding that any proposed
large-scale metallic sulfide mine operation
constitutes no danger to the fishery within the
reserve. This would have to be completed before the
issuance of an authorization, license, permit, or
approval of a plan of operation that could affect
water in or flowing into or over the reserve.
CHAIR OLSON opened public testimony.
4:24:38 PM
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC) for Alaska, Inc., said RDC was strongly opposed to SB 152.
He relayed that RDC was a nonprofit organization whose purpose
was to link its diverse membership interests to encourage a
strong, diversified, private sector in Alaska, and expand the
state's economic base through responsible resource development.
He said that one of RDC's top legislative priorities was to
encourage the state to promote and defend the integrity of
Alaska's permitting process and to advocate for predictable,
timely, and efficient permitting processes that are based on
sound science and economic feasibility. RDC's perspective was
that SB 152 did the opposite. The bill was not about just the
Pebble mine; it was a legislative referendum on the state's
permitting process for projects across all industries. It
effectively usurps the permitting authority of the executive
branch and creates uncertainty for companies that are investing
or contemplating investment in Alaska. He urged the committee to
hold the bill.
CHAIR OLSON asked how to protect the fisheries and maintain the
maximum sustainable yield.
MR. ROGERS answered that there are processes and systems in
place to do that. Any suggested improvements should be vetted,
but the legislature should not adjudicate whether a project
should get permits. Many people will review a project the
magnitude of Pebble before it gets a permit; that process has
worked for Alaska for years. It's been possible to develop
large-scale projects responsibly while maintaining a robust
fishery.
4:29:08 PM
CHAIR OLSON commented that what the Murkowski administration did
to the coastal zone management program was devastating to the
people of Alaska, particularly those on the coast who no longer
have a seat at the table to voice concerns. That's why there is
grave reservation about this particular mine, he said.
MR. ROGERS said he recognized the concern about the magnitude of
the project, its location, and the other resources in the
Bristol Bay region, but he did not believe that SB 152 was an
appropriate approach for dealing with those issues.
4:30:23 PM
ANDERS GUSTAFSON, Executive Director, Renewable Resources
Coalition (RRC), said he was speaking on behalf of the more than
6,000 Alaskan members in support of SB 152. The membership
consists of individuals, businesses, and organizations that
historically have fought over allocation of the Bristol Bay
fishery resource, but have since joined forces to protect the
habitat and water that is the building block of this resource.
In the early 1970s when Alaska was first developing its oil and
gas resources, the legislature recognized the incredible,
renewable resource that is the Bristol Bay fishery and realized
it was appropriate to designate a boundary for this watershed.
The legislature also realized there should be a process for
Alaskans to have a say in whether massive industrial
developments should be allowed. By supporting SB 152, the
coalition is asking the legislature to give that same level of
oversight to a large-scale mining development in the same
region. The bill does not affect mining development across the
state; it is about protecting the Bristol Bay fishery. The
members of RRC also believe that SB 152 will create a level of
certainty in the marketplace that this fishery will continue to
be strong. This will create a friendlier environment for those
dependent on the fishery to reinvest in their businesses.
MR. GUSTAFSON reiterated that SB 152 does not prohibit mining.
It ensures a process by which the people of Alaska, through
their representatives, can protect the incredibly significant
Bristol Bay fisheries resource.
4:33:29 PM
JIMMY R. HURLEY, representing himself, said he had lived in
Ekwok for the past 50 years and he strongly opposed SB 152. He
said that the people who live in this area don't want to live on
food stamps; they want jobs.
4:35:52 PM
SUE ANELON, Member, Iliamna Village Council, Iliamna Natives
Limited (INL), stated that the council and corporation were
strongly opposed to SB 152, because a rigorous science-based
permitting system was already in place. The legislature should
instead be dealing with the more important issues of oil taxes,
helping companies create jobs, and economic development in rural
communities. She also stated that the bill could affect other
landowners and development projects within the state.
CHAIR OLSON said he should have pointed out earlier that Senator
French had visited Southwest Alaska a number of times to survey
the situation.
4:37:59 PM
VERNER WILSON III, Member, Curyung Tribal Council and
shareholder, Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), testified in
support of SB 152. He said he was a Bristol Bay commercial
fisherman who also did subsistence fishing. He stated that the
legislation gives a voice to Alaskans on the very important
issue of a large-scale mine in the Bristol Bay region.
Proponents say the development could create 2,000 jobs, but they
don't say how many jobs may be impacted. He said his father paid
thousands of dollars for a permit to fish in Bristol Bay and the
family depends on the fishery. This issue is important to this
and future generations. The Bristol Bay fishery has been there
for thousands of years and it can continue for thousands more if
it is managed sustainably and the habitat is protected. He
reiterated that the legislation gives voice to Alaskans on an
issue about which they really care.
CHAIR OLSON asked why he was interested in protecting a fishery
that he didn't depend on any longer.
MR. WILSON clarified that he did depend on the Bristol Bay
fishery; his parents still live in the area and he returns to
fish every summer. He imagined that he would move back
permanently after he finished graduate school. He began fishing
when he was about age four and looked forward eventually to
getting his own boat and permit. If fishing and mining are to
coexist, it's necessary to ask the tough questions, he said.
CHAIR OLSON asked if after he finished graduate school he can
imagine putting on boots and rain gear and working in the fish
slime.
MR. WILSON answered yes. He added that he looked forward to
being a part of further developing the seafood industry and a
sustainable economy.
4:44:23 PM
FRED T. ANGASAN, Chair, Land Committee, Alaska Peninsula
Corporation (APC), stated that as one of the largest private
landowners within the Bristol Bay Salmon Reserve, APC was
opposed to SB 152. Matters currently committed to the sound
discretion of executive agencies based on science and the
concept of due process would instead be considered in the
political arena. He said APC was convinced that the legislation
violated state law. APC's primary mission is to manage its land
for the benefit of the villages and Congress has charged the
corporation with economic development of those lands. SB 152
directly interferes with that by creating uncertainty about the
effect of a metallic sulfide deposit on their land, which has
tremendous potential for mineral development. It would place at
risk the surface exploration agreements that APC has entered
into. APC has confidence in the current process, he stated.
4:51:29 PM
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), said CAP was a nonprofit trade association representing
the producing large metal mines and large mine development
projects in the state. He said he was testifying to voice
opposition to SB 152. The bill uses existing statutory language
that places limitations on surface entry permits to develop oil
and gas leases or exploration licenses within the Bristol Bay
Fisheries Reserve, but it goes much farther. SB 152 attempts to
restrict mining throughout the region regardless of land status
or whether the activities are in the fisheries reserve. It could
strip the rights of individuals who already hold valid mineral
claims and exploration permits in the area. This could possibly
constitute a taking, which would violate both the Alaska and
U.S. constitutions. The existing statute for oil and gas does
not assume that the development will adversely affect water; it
only requires a finding that the development will not harm the
fishery. SB 152 assumes that mining activity will adversely
affect water quality and the proponents have stated their belief
that it will potentially stop one project. This, too, raises
constitutional issues, he said.
MR. SATRE said CAP strongly supports the existing large mine
permitting processes in the state and all efforts to fully fund,
strengthen, and improve the permitting functions of the resource
agencies. If SB 152 were to pass, state permitting agencies
would be forced to follow the directives of the legislature,
rather than basing decisions on the existing science-based,
transparent, and predictable permitting processes.
4:54:11 PM
ED FOGLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department Natural Resources,
said he was not taking a position on the bill. He wanted to
discuss the state's regulatory process and present issues for
the committee to consider. He opined that the state's mine
permitting process was solid. The seven operating mines in the
state were all operating within environmental compliance, with
no significant impact to the downstream fisheries.
He emphasized that the permitting process for a large mine was
complex. It involves a number of agencies and dozens of experts
with advanced degrees in addition to the federal environmental
impact statement (EIS). He cautioned that the legislature would
have to figure out how to parse through that in order to make a
decision, but it wouldn't be an easy task.
SENATOR MENARD asked how many people would be dedicated to a
project like the Pebble Mine.
MR. FOGLES said that approximately 20 agency experts would be
involved, although the number would vary throughout the life of
the mine.
SENATOR MENARD observed that a tremendous number of people were
already dedicated to the process, which was why she was
uncomfortable.
4:58:35 PM
MR. FOGLES said that DNR's reading of the bill is that it would
cover any hard rock metal mine on both state and private lands.
Thus, any significant hard rock mining project within the
Bristol Bay area would have to come before the legislature.
Because each mine project has dozens and dozens of state and
federal permits that come out at different times, DNR is not
clear on how that would work for the legislature. Time lags will
also be an issue to evaluate because the legislature isn't in
session all the time.
5:00:33 PM
CHAIR OLSON commented that he anticipates more bills like this
because there was no coastal zone program where people from the
local area have a seat at the table to voice their concerns.
MR. FOGLES said he had been involved in permitting a number of
mines, three of which were not in the coastal zone, and
community concerns were always taken into account. Regardless of
what is in place, DNR will always address community concerns, he
said.
CHAIR OLSON said public testimony would continue at the next
meeting. He asked the sponsor to provide closing comments.
5:02:13 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, sponsor of SB 152, said the bill was
based on the 1972 law that was passed to protect the Bristol Bay
Fisheries Reserve from oil and gas development. The legislature
at the time considered including mining but oil and gas was the
immediate threat to the fisheries and that became the topic of
the bill. SB 152 is designed to put large-scale mining on the
same footing as oil and gas. If it can be done safely and with
no threat to the fishery, then go ahead. If it can't be done
safely, then it should stop. The legislature deserves input
given the far-reaching nature of the impact on fishermen across
all of Alaska.
CHAIR OLSON asked the sponsor before the bill moved from
committee to address the constitutional questions that the bill
potentially raised.
CHAIR OLSON held SB 152 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|