03/02/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 2, 2007
8:43 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Requesting the Federal Subsistence Board to reconsider its
decision regarding the subsistence fishery priority given to
Ninilchik residents.
- MOVED CSHJR 4(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to conservation and protection of wild salmon
production in drainages affecting the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: KENAI/KASILOF SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) OLSON
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/23/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/23/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/26/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
02/26/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
02/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CONRAD JACKSON, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHJR 4, on behalf of
Representative Kurt Olson, sponsor.
RICKY GEASE
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 4, Version M,
and provided comments on a statewide survey, conducted in
conjunction with HB 134.
RON RAINEY
Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 4, Version M.
MARC HELLENTHAL
Hellenthal and Associates
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reported on a statewide survey, conducted
in conjunction with HB 134.
MICHELLE POPE RAVENMOON
Fort Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
STEVE TUTT
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RON BOWERS
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
ROGER BURGGRAF
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
BRIAN KRAFT
Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
VERNER WILSON, III
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
DICK MYLIUS, Acting Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
BILLY MAINES
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
LISA KREBS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
NANCI MORRIS LYON, Vice Chair
Bristol Bay Regional Subsistence Advisory Council
Board Member, Bristol Bay Chamber of Commerce
Board Member, South West Alaska Conservation Coalition
Owner, Katmai Fishing Adventures
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
GARVAN BUCARIA
Retired Biologist
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
LUCY WEEDMAN
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SHARON ANDERSON
Member, Truth About Pebble
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
RICHARD KING
Ekwok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
GINA MARIE POPE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
PATRICK FLATLEY
Outreach Coordinator
Bristol Bay Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
reservation.
ROBIN SAMUELSEN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
reservation.
NORMAN VAN VACTOR
Peter Pan Seafoods
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
TOM PEBLER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
PAMELA BRODIE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MICHAEL MCCARTHY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JIMMY HURLEY
Ekwok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
reservation.
RHONDA WAYNER
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
[Due to technical difficulties, the initial recording was
stopped and restarted. No loss of testimony resulted.]
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:43:26 AM. Representatives
Edgmon, Johnson, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 4-KENAI/KASILOF SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY
8:43:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Requesting the Federal Subsistence
Board to reconsider its decision regarding the subsistence
fishery priority given to Ninilchik residents.
CONRAD JACKSON, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, sponsor,
explained the changes contained in CSHJR 4: distinguishing the
communities of Hope and Cooper Landing, and providing that
electronic copies, as well as posted hard copies, be transmitted
to Alaska's congressional delegates. He also directed attention
to the map available in the committee packet to detail the area
addressed in CSHJR 4.
8:45:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt CSHJR 4, Version 25-
LS0201\M, Kane, 2/28/07. There being no objection, Version M
was before the committee.
8:46:05 AM
RICKY GEASE, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc., having
previously testified on HJR 4, he stated continued support for
the Version M, and urged passage of the bill.
8:46:23 AM
RON RAINEY, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, Inc., having
previously testified on HJR 4, related his continued support for
Version M, and urged passage of the bill.
8:46:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:46:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report, CSHJR 4, Version 25-
LS0201\M, Kane, 2/28/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, CSHJR 4(FSH) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
further public testimony on HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating
to conservation and protection of wild salmon production in
drainages affecting the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve; and
providing for an effective date."
[The motion to adopt CSHB 134, Version M, was left pending at
the 2/28/07 meeting.]
8:48:48 AM
MARC HELLENTHAL, Hellenthal and Associates, provided testimony
on HB 134, to report on a statewide public opinion research
survey, which the Renewable Resources Coalition (RRC) sponsored.
thth
Between February 12 and February 20, 2007, Hellenthal and
Associates interviewed 402 respondents; with a 4.9 percent
margin of error. The survey used a random digit dial method,
which restricted contact to residents with land line telephone
service. He explained how posing questions in a particular
sequence serves to establish a valid base for response. The
survey began with positive/negative recognition questions of
organizations and individuals in the state, prior to awareness
questions specifically about the Pebble Mine project. He
continued, reading the results of each question leading up to
question 4, directed specifically at HB 134. It read:
The Bristol Bay watershed is the source of the world's
greatest wild salmon fishery .... A bill is now before
the state legislature to protect this valuable natural
resource, and to prohibit the draining and destruction
of salmon spawning streams for industrial purposes.
Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat
oppose, or strongly oppose protecting Bristol Bay
salmon spawning areas in this manner?
MR. HELLENTHAL reported that 83.2 percent favored the
legislation and 11.2 percent were opposed to the action. A
similar question, number 5, addressed the bill before the
legislature, which seeks to establish a game refuge in the
headwaters of Bristol Bay, to be named after the late Governor
Jay Hammond [SB 67]. The summarized results indicated that 66.9
percent favored, and 22.9 percent opposed this action.
Subsequent questions addressed: a ballot initiative to require
large mines to pay a percentage of their gross profits to the
state; a percentage of mining gross profits to be paid directly
into the Permanent Fund; whether a large scale mine should be
cited at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed; and a
ballot initiative to strengthen Alaska's clean water laws and
enhance the safety of its earthen dams.
MR. HELLENTHAL provided that question number 14 asked
specifically for the respondent to make a preference between the
developments of renewable resources vs. non-renewable resources.
Every respondent was decisive, with a result of 87.9 percent
favoring fish, wildlife, and native habitat, and 12.1 percent
choosing gold and copper.
8:55:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if any of the questions were posed
in a manner to illicit a particular answer.
MR. HELLENTHAL responded that cautions were taken to minimize
interview bias. This is accomplished primarily by considering
the sequence of the question. He provided examples of how the
outcome of a survey can be changed by the order in which the
questions are asked. Additionally, in this poll, the question
of opposition to the Pebble Mine was asked twice. In the mid
section of the survey, the response was that 49 percent opposed
the mine, but when asked again, as a final question, the
response was 63 percent opposed. This illustrates the
importance of sequencing questions, and the effect on the over
all results.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked who paid for the poll.
8:57:31 AM
MR. HELLENTHAL reiterated that it was commissioned by the RRC.
8:57:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired if there was any attempt to
define reserve versus refuge.
MR. HELLENTHAL stated that the responders were expected to apply
their own understanding to the terms.
8:58:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON queried about the area covered by this
statewide poll, and asked if boundaries were drawn between rural
and urban regions.
MR. HELLENTHAL disclosed the locations of the 402 respondents
interviewed: Southeast 52; Valdez, Kenai, Matanuska-Susitna 76
interviews; Anchorage 164; greater Fairbanks area 52; and the
remaining rural area 58.
8:59:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there was a significant
difference in the regional responses.
MR. HELLENTHAL answered that the Pebble Mine was opposed more in
the coastal regions, than in the interior. Responding to a
committee member, he agreed to provide a regional breakdown of
the survey results.
9:00:07 AM
MICHELLE POPE RAVENMOON paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Salmon have sustained my people for thousands of
years. And I support HB 134 because salmon is our
most precious resource. I come from one of the
richest areas in the world, because of our renewable
resource. We have not damaged our lands like the rest
of the world. Why not protect our food source, our
way of life, and our land. We as a people, and as a
region, have a potential for economic development that
doesn't include molesting our lands beyond
recognition. As [an] Alaska Native, I am tired and
ashamed of being looked at as a victim who comes from
a place with no economic hope. Alaska Native's have
been portrayed as victims for hundreds of years, and
it is not OK. I have worked hard, I went to college,
and I'm employed by my home region, which, with
initiative and entrepreneurship, my people can do this
to. We do not need giant corporations coming into our
homelands and risking what we, as Native people, have
left. The Wild Salmon Protection Act will safeguard
against destroying our salmon and ensure our clean
water. This is the only home I have - if it is
destroyed, I don't have anywhere else to go.
9:02:40 AM
STEVE TUTT, as a generational commercial fisherman with a long-
term interest in the renewable resource, stated support for HB
134. He stated that he and his family have a long-term, vested
interest in the protection of the Bristol Bay fisheries.
9:03:48 AM
RON BOWERS paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I have been an Alaskan resident since 1979 and have
lived in Bristol Bay or on the Alaska Peninsula since
1983. My wife and daughter are lifelong residents of
this region. My wife set netted commercially for
Salmon many years in Ekuk and South Naknek. My
daughter spent many summers in fish camp and has
worked on fisheries research projects both along the
Nushagak [River] and around Lake Clark. While I no
longer consider myself a commercial fisherman, I have
fished for Halibut and Salmon in Port Graham, Chignik
and Dillingham quite a few years ago.
As a family we participate almost year round in
subsistence activities and benefit from what God has
blessed our Bristol Bay region with. From hunting
Moose/Caribou/Ducks to berry picking, to catching our
share of Salmon/smelts and Halibut. We fully support
efforts to protect our region's natural resources.
But, we are not in favor of HB# 134. We realize that
many of our region's residents are being forced to
leave the land they love for less costly urban areas
in our state such as Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley.
While these communities offer much, they are a long
way from the subsistence resources and rural lifestyle
we so dearly cherish. The main reason residents are
being forced to leave our region, is for an honest
job. House Bill #134 will only serve to decrease
economic opportunities for our residents and cause
more to have to move out.
While most testimony on HB #134 centers around The
Pebble Mine and the impacts of mining. If passed this
bill would also eliminate almost any chance of onshore
Oil & Gas exploration to occur on most of the Alaska
Peninsula. While offshore Oil & Gas has been a
divisive issue throughout Bristol Bay, onshore
exploration has gained broad support. Bristol Bay
residents are in great need of new and diversified
economic opportunities such as the employment and
energy resource the Oil & Gas industry may bring.
This past month my family has to pay over $700 dollars
for basic services including electricity/telephone and
internet. This does not include the almost $5 dollar
per gallon gasoline to drive our small pickup Truck or
the oil we use to heat our home. HB #134 will only
add another very thick layer of bureaucracy towards
creating economic benefit for our region. HB#134 will
chase off businesses and investors who may want to
help develop oil & gas or other very doable resources
in Bristol Bay.
Few things are more near to our region's hearts than
subsistence. For many Commercial fishing is forever
in their veins. But if more economic development is
not soon brought to Bristol Bay, fishing permits are
going to continue to out-migrate, young people are
going to continue to leave and not come back, and many
will unfortunately enjoy subsistence activities for a
few weeks only in the summer when they return from
Anchorage.
9:07:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred to the importance of work
availability, and asked how many job listings are in the current
Dillingham paper.
MR. BOWERS answered that there are usually about 65 listed every
day. However, Dillingham is the hub and for most of the smaller
communities, he said, "It's very slim."
9:08:14 AM
ROGER BURGGRAF paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I have lived and worked in Alaska since 1953. I
majored in Wildlife Management and Conservation in
college and worked for the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for 3 seasons in Alaska as a stream guard and
Fisheries aide. I was working for the USFWS the last
year fish traps were allowed to operate and monitored
their activities. I saw how Alaskans interests were
being exploited by outside interests.
I am opposed to HB 134. Putting another layer of
bureaucratic red tape on management of the land would
serve as another disincentive for the mining and
mineral exploration industry. The State of Alaska
will not be allowed to promote the responsible
development of other high value resources on its land.
The land encompassed by the so-called proposed Bristol
Bay Fisheries Reserve was originally selected by the
State for its high mineral potential.
The Pebble project has the possibility of becoming a
World Class mining operation, if permitted, and would
provide millions of dollars in revenues to the State
of Alaska. It would provide for thousands of high
paying jobs for Alaskans (especially local people who
live in an economically depressed area). Spin off
benefits to local communities would flourish. There
is no base for that now.
Under the constitution of Alaska you as Legislators
have an obligation to see to it that Alaskans get the
maximum benefit from the lands it selected from the
Federal Government. The passage of this bill would
send a strong negative message to the mining industry
and other resource development industries doing
business in Alaska, thereby discouraging many
potential investors.
I see HB 134, as nothing more than an effort to
subvert the existing permitting process. The
permitting process is thorough and time-tested to be
state-of-the-art in determining whether a mine can be
developed and operated in an environmentally sound
manner. However, lodges in the area would be allowed
to continue operations in their exclusive playground
for the rich and influential and be undisturbed. This
is very discriminatory.
The future of Alaska is dependent on the responsible
development of our natural resources-petroleum, gas,
minerals, lumber, and fisheries. All effort should be
made to facilitate that development for the betterment
of Alaskans in accordance with our Constitutional
mandate "It is the policy of the State to encourage
the settlement of its land and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use
consistent with the public interest." A balanced
approach is imperative for the benefit of all, not
just a few influential special interest persons and
groups at the expense of the general population.
9:13:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that when the Bristol Bay
fisheries reserve concept came forward in 1972, oil and gas and
mineral exploration were listed in the language. However, when
the Alaska Native Interest Lands Claim Act (ANILCA) was passed,
mineral exploration was omitted. Additionally, he offered that
he has had the opportunity to tour the Fort Knox Mine. The Fort
Knox Mine, as well as the Pogo Mine, are located in sensitive
ecological areas, but not to the degree that surround where the
Pebble Mine would be sited; in terms of salmon bearing streams
that support the richest sockeye fishery in the world.
MR. BURGGRAF opined that the permitting process will insure that
the fishery reserve is protected; it may disturb a large area of
land but it can be done in a responsible manner.
9:15:37 AM
BRIAN KRAFT, Trout Unlimited paraphrased from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
TU [Trout Unlimited] and I support HB 134 and for that
matter any bill that would promote the protection and
conservation of our rivers and the habitat that
supports our fisheries. The proposed protection of
the area that [HB] 134 addresses , is and has always
been, needed. We are just fortunate that until
recently our rivers and fish habitat have not been
threatened. HB134 addresses the need to ensure that
these critical areas remain intact and able to provide
the nutrient rich environment that allows our Bristol
Bay salmon stocks to continue to return in massive
numbers each summer. It also ensures that resident
fish populations, which are used for subsistence
choice of lifestyle and support a $100M a year sport
fish industry, will also remain healthy. A bill such
as [HB] 134 would be needed no matter if the industry
to come into the area were going to be Oil, gas,
logging, mining, or a bunch of fishing lodges or
tourism based businesses. Since spawning and rearing
grounds are of vital importance in the life cycle of
ours salmon, a law should be in place that ensures the
compatibility with this habitat of any industry that
wishes to operate in these critical areas. The
industry should not be allowed if it is going to
destroy rivers, lakes and groundwater. Therefore, it
should be a law, such as HB134, that makes it illegal
to do so. It just so happens that our luck has run
out in regards to the status quo for the headwaters of
some of these critical rivers in the Bay area. We are
no longer able to just rely on Mother Nature combined
with conservative fish and game management to ensure
us of healthy fish stocks. We must now take action to
protect these waters and habitat. The threat that has
expedited the need for this bill to the forefront just
happens to be large scale chemical metallic sulfide
mining. The reason that threat to these rivers is
very real in respect to this industry is simply
because of the location of the minerals and the
process in which it takes to extract them in regards
to vital habitat. The very nature of the large scale
mining industry is that it crushes up earth on a
missive scale - or as is the case in this area -
spawning grounds. The recent track record [that]
chemical mining has had in the Western US is dismal.
Montana has outlawed the process that would be used at
Pebble. We are having water quality problems in the
Nevada desert. But as bad as the mining industry has
been in sensitive areas like Montana that have some
similar environmental characteristics as the Bristol
Bay area, this bill is not an anti-mining bill. As I
stated, the protection of clean rivers and healthy
fish habitat is paramount. All other uses should be
consistent and compatible with operating [while] not
destroying rivers and fish. This bill does not
scrutinize the permitting process or DEC requirements
or EPA regulations. This bill is simply a pro clean
water and pro healthy habitat bill. It is a bill that
does not prohibit any industry from operating in
Bristol Bay. Since DNR and ultimately the Governor
have the authority, and as I learned 2 weeks ago, the
discretion, to determine if it is ok to destroy
habitat because of a perceived benefit, a law is
needed that eliminates any political agenda and in
plain language states that we, the people of Alaska,
will not allow the spawning grounds of our salmon to
be ruined. This bill would make it the law that an
industry can operate in the region, but it just can
not destroy rivers and healthy fish habitat to do so.
What is wrong with that? Do the project, just don't
take the water from our streams and destroy vital
habitat to do so. How can you not support a bill that
promotes that? I would like to know exactly how this
bill would make it so that Pebble or any other mine
would not be able to operate in the Bristol Bay area.
Maybe that question needs to be asked here today by
this committee. The answer might open all of our eyes
as to what really is planned for the region and to
further justify the need for the passage of HB 134.
MR. KRAFT stated uncertainty whether this bill would prohibit
other mining activity.
9:21:56 AM
RICKY GEASE referred to the previously mentioned survey, and
opined that the questions may have been leading. He explained
the way in which an "either/or" vs. "both/and" questions
influence the outcome of any survey. Additionally, water
reservation systems are already in place, and he suggested that
a discussion should address what the minimum water amounts are
for salmon. On the Kenai Peninsula water reservations are made
for that purpose. Reading from the bill he commented that it
appears as though a de facto, 100 percent water allocation is
being made to support fish and wildlife, and he suggested that
the minimum water requirements be identified instead. Further,
he opined that if this bill were being applied to the Kenai
Peninsula, it would have devastating effects on the diverse
economy that exists in that area.
9:24:17 AM
VERNER WILSON, III, as a generational commercial fisherman,
stated support for HB 134. He related his family's history as
fishermen, and emphasized the benefits of eating the
uncontaminated fish produced in the region. By expanding the
fisheries marketing techniques, he predicted that the demand for
untainted sockeye will continue to grow, replacing standards
such as tuna. Fresh, clean fish will always be sought after, he
opined.
9:28:14 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Acting Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water
(DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), paraphrased from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The Department of Natural Resources does not have a
position on this bill but would like to explain how it
impacts DNR's water management program and how it
could impact state lands.
First, I would like to briefly explain the Division of
Mining, Land and Water's role in water management.
DMLW is responsible for allocations of the state's
water resources under Alaska Statutes 46.15, the
Alaska Water Use Act. Our authority deals with water
quantity. We approve water rights for long term uses
of water, issue permits for temporary water use, and
are responsible for the state's instream flow program.
We do not deal with water quality, that is a DEC
issue.
DMLW also manages the state owned land, including land
under navigable waters and tidelands and submerged
lands out to three mile. DMLW issues permits for uses
of these lands.
House Bill 134 has a significant impact on these DMLW
programs. The bill would limit where we can approve
water rights or permits for water use.
HB 134 requires that no water can be taken from
surface or subsurface waters of this area except for
uses that area already approved, drinking water and
domestic use, municipal uses, traditional, cultural
and residential uses, energy projects, seafood
processing, and transportation.
This would impact DNR's water management authority
over approximately 19 million acres of land and waters
within the watersheds of the Nushagak, Kvichak,
Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik Rivers. Because all of
the state's water resources are reserved to the people
of Alaska, any restrictions apply to all water users,
whether on state, municipal, federal, or private
lands.
There are no resources in Alaska that can be developed
without the use of water.
If this legislation passes, DNR would not be allowed
to issue water rights or water use permits for many
activities that may occur within these watersheds, or
even for many existing uses that do not yet have water
rights.
The state owned portion of these lands (approximately
9 to 10 million acres) contain numerous, significant
mineral deposits and is considered to have high
mineral potential. The area also has potential for
oil or gas development, DNR has held lease sales
within this area and portions of the reserve are on
the state's areawide leasing schedule. These uses
need water for exploration and development.
In addition to mining and oil gas potential, these
lands are suitable for other commercial uses,
including commercial recreation. Most new commercial
and industrial uses, including commercial recreational
activities, within this area could not get approval to
use water and could not be developed under this
legislation.
In addition, DMLW permits in water uses such as
erosion control structures, fish weirs and under the
bill these uses would generally not be allowed.
The Department has three general concerns about the
legislation as proposed - first it raises
constitutional issues; second the location of the
proposed statute raises questions about what
department and third, the exceptions in part b, on
page 2, lines 17-21, are not defined.
Briefly on each of these:
Constitutionality: The water rights program that DNR
administers is based on specific guidelines
established in Article VIII of the Constitution.
There are serious questions of whether the proposed
action to out rightly prohibit most appropriation, use
or management of water resources by legislation
violates Article VIII of the Constitution,
particularly Section 13. It is suggested that the
Attorney General's office review this bill for any
constitutional conflicts.
Whose Authority. The bill creates ambiguity with
regard to which agency determines whether a proposed
water used is prohibited under AS 16.10.015(a) or
allowed under (b). Currently the appropriation of
water resources is managed by DNR under AS 46.15,
however the bill places the prohibition/allowance
language under DEC's authority under Title 16, Chapter
10, Article 1. This conflict in statute and authority
for determination of water use needs to be addressed.
Terms: Several of the terms used in the bill such as
"ordinary existing and future municipal uses",
"traditional uses", "cultural uses", "residential
uses", "energy projects" are not defined either in
this proposed legislation or in the body of state law
dealing with water use and management. These terms
need to be defined in order that the proper
legislative intent is made known.
9:33:20 AM
BILLY MAINES stated support for the intent of HB 134. He said:
When you look around the state you see [that]
different regions bring different things to the table.
You think of the North Slope, you think of oil and
gas; Southeast - timber, tourism; Bristol Bay - it's
always been fish. The state and residents of Bristol
Bay have benefited and utilized this rich renewable
resource for centuries. Those benefits and that
utilization [are] at threat currently in many
fashions. The state has invested millions of dollars
in promoting, and advertising, our wild, clean,
pristine salmon. Consumers, whether you know it or
not, are really fickle. The hint of anything wrong
with something drives them away. I don't need to
mention the Mad Cow disease, what it did to the beef
industry; Bird Flu for poultry; farm fish, for awhile
they were the answer and that drove our wild salmon
down. But guess what, they found out there was
something wrong with farmed fish. Well, our wild
salmon's coming back up. I don't understand what's
changed in 35 years. The 7th state Alaska Legislature
understood the importance of our salmon; our resource.
Lease Sale 92 was put on the shelf. Now it's back up.
I don't understand what really has changed. I don't
understand why we have to give up something for
jewelry, or for the promise of maybe getting some
lower cost of fuel. But where it's at, has no chance
of making it to Bristol Bay. Dillingham is at the
bottom of the watershed. I've been studying this
issue now for four years; I'm trying to become a miner
in my mind. The mining industry doesn't have a good
record. In the state of Alaska, Pebble [Mine] that is
being proposed right now, for the possibility of being
permitted, or submitting an application for
permitting, is something that the state has never seen
before. Other states in the country, as well as
around the world, have seen something close to Pebble,
and they've had to pay the adverse effects of that
happening in their backyard.
9:36:58 AM
LISA KREBS, speaking as a long time fishermen, stated support
for HB 134. Although she does not live in the immediate area,
she opined that [the ethos] lives strongly in the Homer area,
through the various local fishermen and crew members who hold
permits to harvest Bristol Bay. Citing the importance of
Bristol Bay to many regions, she stated surprise at having to
come before the legislature to request protection of these
waters. Considering putting this area in danger is
unconscionable, she said.
9:38:37 AM
NANCI MORRIS LYON, Vice Chair, Bristol Bay Regional Subsistence
Advisory Council; Board Member, Bristol Bay Chamber of Commerce;
Board Member, South West Alaska Conservation Coalition; Owner,
Katmai Fishing Adventures, King Salmon, stated support for HB
134, paraphrasing from a statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The Wild Salmon Protection Act would protect Alaska's
greatest fishery resources by prohibiting the
withdrawal, obstruction, pumping, or pollution of
surface water in any Bristol Bay drainages that
support our numerous, pristine, trophy fisheries.
These fisheries have become known world wide for the
legendary sport fish opportunities they offer to
residents and visitors alike. The recent study funded
by Trout Unlimited showed that our recreational and
commercial fisheries have a multimillion dollar value.
That value is a sustainable resource value, something
that I like to call the gift that keeps on giving.
The information it contained even surprised most of us
locals. Quite frankly I'm not sure we were giving
enough value to our fishery before this study was
published.
This legislation also prohibits the destruction of
salmon habitat, creates a fining schedule for
violating these protections, and protects existing
water uses including the historic uses we have enjoyed
for more years then we can count. I think that it
will be a positive step in the right direction to
insure that anybody coming into our back yard to
remove a non-sustainable resource, be held
accountable. Most of the resource development I have
heard about plans to leave very little in the area to
support us financially after they leave or with
promises of the ability to feed our families in future
years. Because of that I find it extremely important
that we offer protection to the resources that have
been our past, present and I hope will be our future,
the out standing fisheries and clean environment.
I would like to add that it is not my purpose nor do I
believe that it is this Bill's purpose to preclude
development in Bristol Bay. We need economic
development and help for our villages on the Alaska
Peninsula. I firmly believe that the purpose of this
bill is to create standards of protection for the
fisheries and environment in Bristol Bay! Something
that has been recognized in the past and I feel that
it is again warranted the highest priority to ensure
future use of our precious resources.
There is currently tremendous growth in the Bristol
Bay commercial sport fishery. We are seeing more
Native Corporations and area Villages taking advantage
of the opportunities available from owning and
operating lodges to offering support services for
visitors to our area. Our local Southwest Alaska
Vocational and Educational Center here in King Salmon
in conjunction with UAF just completed freshwater and
saltwater Coast Guard Licensing Classes. They had 10
students in the Freshwater class of which 7 were
Alaskan Natives. They have held these courses
successfully for the past several years. In addition,
last year they offered a class on sport fish guiding,
graduating a total of 10 students of which over half
were Alaskan natives. These classes were all fully
funded from BBEDC, a TRIO grant and UAF itself, so the
cost was not a factor. My operation hired one of last
year's graduates and we were looking for 2 others, but
none of the students were available, they all had
commitments. The class is scheduled to be held again
this year and we will again be looking for graduates.
I know this isn't the forum for job search, but I
listened on Wednesday and heard about several locals
who couldn't find work in the sport fish industry, I
encourage them to send us a resume, we love hiring
local and are always looking for more Alaskans to add
to our staff.
The sport fish and commercial fish industries have
worked hard, for decades on bringing a message about
Bristol Bay, a message that not only states that we
have the largest abundance and size of fresh water
fish and salmon available on earth, we also have the
most pristine, crystal clear, clean water and
environment available. Users of our precious resource
all across the globe, give our markets sustainability
because of the pure environment we can and do
guarantee. Once again testimony to the gift that
keeps on giving.
In closing, I feel the Wild Salmon Protection Act,
along with the Jay Hammond State Game Refuge bill will
offer immeasurable help to the fisheries by enhancing
the pure, pristine, contaminant free image of Wild
Bristol Bay and will help to protect our renewable
resources far into the future by ensuring that habitat
protection standards are carefully designed and
implemented.
9:43:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if she holds perfected water rights for the
lodge.
MS. MORRIS LYON responded, "Yes."
9:43:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred to previous testimony regarding
the minimal economic benefit of the sport fishing industry to
the area, and asked if her business hires local residents.
MS. MORRIS LYON responded that locals are her first choice for
hiring. If a local is not hired, housing becomes an issue.
However, many of the local residents are commercial fishermen,
and are absent during the openings. This is an ongoing
conflict, she said, but they are still the priority hire. She
suggested that Natives hoping to work in this field, expand
their job search.
9:44:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many Natives she employed last
year.
MS. MORRIS LYON responded that out of her total staff of ten, 2
were Native and 9 were Alaskans.
9:45:03 AM
GARVAN BUCARIA, Retired Biologist, stated support for HB 134 and
the establishment of the Jay Hammond Refuge area. He discussed
the importance and action due to lake temperature, which causes
a semi-annual turnover in every lake including a dead lake; that
being a lake created for, or used as, a depository for mine
tailings. These tailings will contain chemical, and mineral,
residue that will leach into the water. He explained how the
adaptability of insect larvae will manage to live in the adverse
conditions and eventually emerge, during the seasonal turnover
of the water. These aquatic insects will incorporate the
harmful residues into their own hemoglobin's, and serve to carry
it into the various trophic levels of the food web. The result
will be that these materials will eventually penetrate the
entire ecosystem. With the occurrence of biomagnifications,
even a "dead" lake can have effects on salmon resources, he
opined. It is hard to know how many years it will take, but at
some point in the future the build up of these heavy metals, and
other materials, will render the fish contaminated and inedible.
The Kensington mine [north of Juneau] has won approval for this
type of an approach to mining [settling pond, repository lake].
He cited his master's thesis, available at the Auke Bay
Laboratory, University of Alaska Southeast, Auke Bay, Alaska,
for further information.
9:50:13 AM
TERRY HOEFFERLE, stated support for HB 13[4], opining that it
will build on the future of the ecosystem of Bristol Bay. Steps
have been taken in the past to protect the Bristol Bay area, by
those who worked to frame the Alaska Constitution, as well as
th
the 7 Alaska Legislature. Governor Jay Hammond worked to
preserve this area through the land settlement agreements. The
protection provided by this bill will lay a foundation for
responsible development. It is incumbent to step up to the
plate, and continue to recognize and protect the unique aspects
of Bristol Bay. Mining laws in the state of Alaska are not up
to date, nor do they provide adequate protection. He stated,
"This area is not just Southwest Alaska, it's a blessing to the
whole state." He called attention to the residents as well as
the wildlife that inhabit the area. The burden of
accountability, he suggested should be placed on the developers.
They should be required to "come-up to our standards, to respect
the way that we feel about Bristol Bay."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that this bill would eliminate all
the development in the area.
MR. HOEFFERLE responded that he does not believe that this bill
will stop all development of the area, and cited the exception
clauses in provided in Section 2.
9:56:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the testimony received from DNR stating
that, under the current draft of the bill, water use permits
could not be issued for any development, including fishing
lodges and weirs.
9:56:43 AM
LUCY WEEDMAN, speaking as a generational subsistence user,
stated support for HB 134. She stated concern for the danger of
pollution, with the mining industry in the "back yard." The
fresh water fish, as well as the salmon require protection. Not
only do the salmon use the watershed but so do the people, as
well as the game, she pointed out. She said, everyone here is
dependent on the fish and game out, due to the ever rising cost
of living. She continued:
Bristol Bay specifically has the most pristine water,
and it is getting polluted by mining industries doing
exploration studies. ... We do have some states that
have outlawed mining ... due to the devastating
destruction of salmon, fish and game, and their
habitat. Until the mining industries can prove by
example and not by technological analysis, that a mine
can operate safely, without environmental damage. To
date the mining industry cannot prove that they can
operate safely without any damage.
MS. WEEDMAN stated that she has taken courses on mining provided
by the mining association. One question that stood out, she
noted, is that the mining industry has stated their interest in
mitigating every subsistence user, should a mishap occur. This
is a fallacy, it would be impossible, she opined, and people may
end up depending on the state welfare system. HB 134 should be
passed to insure the livelihood of the people for generations to
come. Last year Northern Dynasty applied for water rights for
two water systems. The amount of water that was requested would
dry up the rivers, streams, and creek beds. It equated to 2 or
3 times the amount of water that the city of Anchorage uses.
This would eliminate the salmon runs.
10:01:56 AM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, stated support for HB 134, and stressed the
need to prevent development that creates pollution. She opined
that harmful, watershed pollution should not be tolerated, from
any industry or municipality. There are many developments that
can be done cleanly. She said, "The humans and the wildlife
deserve to have the clean water."
CHAIR SEATON established that this bill is not on pollution, but
rather on water use, and asked if she wished to voice a concern
on the aspect of water usage.
MS. HIGHLAND clarified that her statement addresses the use of
the water, and anything that would destroy salmon habitat.
10:04:14 AM
SHARON ANDERSON, Member, Truth About Pebble, paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I believe it is a priority for Alaska to have a
balance of economic development and environmental
concerns. I am opposed to the passage of HB 134.
Alaska has laws and regulations to protect our fish
and game resources and they are important, but HB 134,
which is to take effect immediately, inappropriately
brings to a halt future development in an area that
was specifically selected for its significant mineral
potential, without allowing Alaska's permitting
processes to be completed. More importantly, HB 134
restricts those that live in the Lake and Peninsula
Borough the opportunity for alternative additional
economic development; i.e. new skills and trades, and
improved medical care. This area of Bristol Bay has
some of the highest unemployment rates in the State.
HB 134 will make a blanket moratorium on nearly all
future mining development, including the proposed
Pebble Mine project that has an estimated value of
over $200 billion. Mining and fisheries can co-exist.
In British Columbia's Frasier River area, the world's
2nd largest salmon producing system, none of the 64
historic mines or eight active mines has had a
negative impact on the fishery. One of Northern
Dynasty's sister companies has operated the Gibraltar
Mine since the 1970's - this mine is six times closer
to the Frasier River than Pebble would be to the
Kvichak River and ten times closer what it would be to
the Nushagak River. What HB 134 does achieve is
legislation based on emotional outbreak, assumptions
and a lot of "what-ifs", instead of those based on
sound research and data from the rigor of Alaska's
permitting processes. We do not need to lock up any
more land and limit Alaska's future opportunities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that the Truth About Pebble
organization was recently formed, and is comprised primarily of
people who do not reside in the region. He pointed out that the
chairman of Northern Dynasty has made a statement to the effect
that any efforts to stop the permitting process, for the Pebble
Mine, will fail miserably. This contrasts with the Truth About
Pebble stance that the permitting process will be taken up with
confidence. He asked for her comments on this disparity.
MS. ANDERSON stated that the Truth About Pebble has over 200
members from across the state, whose primary concern is to
insure that any developer in the state be allowed the
opportunity of the permitting process. She opined that it is a
stringent process.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON concluded that Truth About Pebble believes
that "the permitting process still has yet to occur and that it
is a fair process, and when it's completed it will basically
make the decision."
MS. ANDERSON responded affirmatively and said that the project
is still 2 years away from completing the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
10:09:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX observed that several comments have cited
Alaska's rigorous permitting process. Referring to the issue of
having the Office of Habitat Management and Protection (OHM&P)
located within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) vs. the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), she asked if Ms.
Anderson wished to comment.
MS. ANDERSON offered no opinion, but she reiterated her personal
confidence in the process.
10:10:27 AM
RICHARD KING, stated support for HB 134. He said:
The developer for the Pebble [Mine] project said that
there would be no net loss to salmon. Then why isn't
he standing in this room saying "I support [HB] 134
...? I'll tell you why, he knows the truth. You
can't put a mine and its mixing zones in the watershed
and still have no net loss. He himself stated that if
[HB] 134 goes through, it will shut the project down;
because he knows the truth, it must pollute. Northern
Dynasty came to our village, which is Ekwok. His
representatives told us about the Pebble Mine. ...
Every time [that] we look at the Pebble project the
representatives of the company change the subject:
"Look at the jobs!" If they can keep us looking at
the jobs, who will protect the fish and the real
Alaskans, ... who live here? If his technology is so
good he should be here saying, "I support you
Alaskans." This isn't a job search, this is Alaska
wild and pure.
10:12:45 AM
GINA MARIE POPE, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I've grownup in the Iliamna/Lake Clark area,
specifically Pope-Vannoy Landing in the Intricate Bay
area between Pedro Bay and Kokhanok Bay. Pope-Vannoy
Landing borders Alaska Peninsula Corporation Land and
sits a mile and a half away from Copper River, a world
class trophy rainbow river prized by fishermen. My
mother owns a Native Allotment of 160 acres between
Copper River and Pope-Vannoy Landing.
The last census counted about 7,520 people in the
Bristol Bay region (according to a report by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game). If you count the
people who visit as fishing/hunting clients or as
summer visitors, my guess is that the population may
rise to approximately 10,000-15,000 over the months of
June, July, and August. I would guess it does not
rise cumulatively much above that.
In addition to the current scant population I have
listened to the radio news and determined that if a
community rises in residency to over 6,000 people,
that community may lose subsistence priority. Right
now our communities are much below that figure, but
large-scale development in the future looms (Think of
what 60,000 people injected into the region would do
to the social structure).
By supporting this bill, people are asking that some
assurance be made that changes will not wipe our
region of the salmon that it has taken eons to
establish. Social changes of population increase are
one thing, but we all seem to have agreed to sustain
the salmon.
I am surprised that the public support for HB 134 is
not unanimous. What will our region look like 60
years from now if we protect the river systems? What
if we don't allow obstructions and pollution to the
lakes and drainages? Will we suffer economically
because we kept our renewable resource in a natural,
wild state?
Besides eating salmon for subsistence, I have gained
meaningful employment because of the valuable sport
fishing area we have right next to the water bodies.
My first job at age 16 was at a lodge near my home.
My six older brothers and sisters, all of Alaska
Native descent, worked there before me. I earned
enough tips and wages at the lodge to buy lumber and
build a house by the age of 17. I did not feel like I
was living in poverty, nor do I today.
The label of poverty is put on us not by ourselves but
is a label designed to further ideas of those who
overlook cultural richness and understand not the
value put on an untainted food source. Even berries
benefit from the nutrients which are present because
of salmon returns.
I really truly thank each of you for your hard work
and endurance and hope you each have a good day today.
10:15:38 AM
PATRICK FLATLEY, Outreach Coordinator, Bristol Bay Alliance,
stated support for HB 134, with reservation. He offered a
recount of a hunting trip in Wisconsin, which resulted in a
personal lesson of how to relate to elected officials: When
important issues arise stand-up and let your legislator know
what you want. He requested that the committee become familiar
with modern day mining practices, particularly the sulfide
extraction process, and counseled them to dissect the permitting
process. Further, he recommended that an answer be sought, as
to why major mining states have outlawed this type of open pit
sulfide mining.
10:19:49 AM
ROBIN SAMUELSEN, stated support for HB 134, with reservation to
allow for on-shore oil and gas development. He emphasized that
the entire mining district should be scrutinized, and the water
demands closely evaluated. Northern Dynasty is only the first
phase, as there are mining claims throughout the region that
will require water use permits; each needing to utilize
voluminous quantities of water - diverting entire river systems.
This would effect fresh and salt water fish stocks. As a past
board member of the Alaska Board of Fish (BOF), the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and as an advisor to
the North American Anadromous Fish Commission (NAAFC), he
offered three guiding principals that he learned:
First [there is] no giving up on habitat and eco
system protections. Number 2, was conservation of the
resource. And my third guiding principal was Alaskans
first. ... Every time I left [a] board I always felt
it was in better shape than when I entered it. Those
three guiding principles guided me and helped the
resource. We are very nervous out here. Our former
governor did away with mixing zones, talked about fast
track permitting processes, and moved Habitat Division
out of Fish and Game into DNR. ... We are scared out
here. We don't want something that's going to be
developed out here that's going to be polluting us
longer than the pyramids of Egypt [have] been around.
... We need the added protection. We've got foreign
companies, this is all foreign, ... coming into our
backyard, ... wanting to turn over our soil. Yes it's
going to give us 50 years of jobs. But we need the
added protection because water is life, and without
water we're not going to have anything.
MR. SAMUELSEN continued, stating that the ground price of salmon
is making a rebound, due to the global marketing strategies and
increasing demand. As a son of a miner, he stressed the
importance of not trading a non-renewable resource for one that
is renewable.
10:24:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the bill has two aspects:
preventing water use and monitoring pollution. He asked which
of these aspects the witnesses' testimony supports.
MR. SAMUELSEN responded that water needs to be available for
use. However, he pointed out, that the water requirements of a
large scale development cannot be compared to smaller
developments. Water must be available on a reasonable level.
10:26:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether he would be more comfortable
allowing the permitting process to take its course if: 1) OHM&P
were located in ADF&G vs. DNR, and 2) the stringent mixing zone
requirements were re-established.
MR. SAMUELSEN responded, "Yes." He also suggested that the
process include a complete, isolated, peer review.
10:27:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked the witness to share his opinion on
the market perspective, and the role which clean water habitat
has played in the rebounding of the salmon prices.
MR. SAMUELSEN offered that the primary focus points behind the
rise in the marketability of Alaska salmon are the clean
pristine rearing/harvest waters, and the stories of the people
who harvest the salmon. Although Japan is still an important
customer in Alaska, the demand for Alaska wild salmon has gone
global. The consumer wants to hear that the fish are coming
from pristine waters, the cultural story of the Native Alaskan
who has harvested the fish, and that it is a sustainable,
renewable resource.
10:29:23 AM
NORMAN VAN VACTOR, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
My sincere thanks to the bipartisan sponsors of this
bill. Your bipartisanship support on this issue in
Juneau is only magnified by the bipartisan support for
this issue and the protection of our resources and
habitat by those of us who work and live in Bristol
Bay. The manner in which the Subsistence, Sport,
Recreation, and Commercial business interests in
Bristol Bay have galvanized and come together around
the subject of Habitat and Resource protection is
truly incredible and gratifying.
Each year, millions of fish pour into the bay and its
drainages, putting food on the tables, and paychecks
in the pockets, of thousands of local Alaskans, not to
mention pumping an estimated $400 million into
Alaska's economy annually to say nothing of sustaining
a cultural way of life to which no dollar value can be
attributed. This bill's purpose is not to preclude
development in Bristol Bay, but to instead provide
standards, and a level of protection, that our
incredible natural resource deserves and demands.
Fishing prices are rebounding, Salmon run returns in
the Nushagak River hit an all-time record last year.
The King salmon season was exceptional, and the
Kvichak River salmon run is making a big comeback.
Why gamble a thriving wild salmon fishery, local
economy, and a healthy subsistence lifestyle.
Two years ago the statement was made to me and my
staff by a scientific consultant for one of the
companies interested in developing mining interests,
that "we probably couldn't have picked a more
difficult place in all of Alaska to site this
project". When queried as to why, the response was
"its all about the water and the hydrology of the
area". I couldn't agree more, and as important as the
water is, it's about the incredible variety of natural
resources that call this area home and are given life
supporting birth and growth by that very water and
natural habitat of the region.
Not only are the state's greatest wild salmon runs
found in the watershed, so too are the world's biggest
rainbow trout and brown bears, and one of the state's
largest caribou herds. Bristol Bay is truly one of
Alaska's outstanding natural treasures and its long-
term health is crucial for the bay's growing economy
and the prosperity of those who live there.
Desperate to silence its critics, opponents to house
bill 134 talk about jobs and resource development.
The reality and comparative history of the risks speak
for themselves. We are wise to ask the questions now
and put protections like HB 134 in place that protect
what we have, which is truly one of [the] wonders of
the world.
Before he died former Alaska Governor Jay Hammond told
the Kodiak Daily Mirror: "I could think of no place
in Alaska where I'd less rather see the largest open
pit mine in the world than at the headwaters of the
Koktuli and Talarik Creek, two world-class fishing
streams and wild salmon spawning areas." While I
could not agree more, HB 134 does not preclude major
development. What it does do is raise the bar and
standards for Habitat protection. Our Natural
resource deserves nothing less.
10:32:56 AM
TOM PEBLER, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
It is not unreasonable that Alaska would take measures
to protect its world class fisheries and renowned
water quality.
It is most reasonable that those who would develop
Alaska's mineral wealth afford the effort to maintain
these standards for the sake of mutual prosperity.
We have heard the claims that mining operations and
world class fisheries can functionally coexist. There
should be no hesitation, but only encouragement, at
the suggestion that we take serious precaution.
10:34:04 AM
PAMELA BRODIE, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am a partner in a small family construction company.
I am not a commercial fishermen, and my livelihood
does not directly depend on the health of the Bristol
Bay drainage, although I do eat a lot of salmon.
Nonetheless, I am here to support House Bill 134
because protection of Bristol Bay drainage is
essential to the well being of so many other Alaskans
and, I think, to the rest of the country and the
world, as the source of the world's largest remaining
wild salmon run.
This area now faces unprecedented levels of industrial
development, offering short term gain and long term
pain. Meanwhile, Alaska's regulatory protection of
salmon streams has been weakened. Alaskans need the
Legislature to act to safeguard the health of our
salmon streams, especially those that feed Bristol
Bay.
Earlier this morning someone testified that gold and
copper are to be found in almost everything we use.
This is very, very far from being accurate. Over the
course of history, vast numbers of people have died
because of the pursuit of gold, most of them
indigenous people of the American continents. Yet
there is actually very little practical need for gold.
Most of what has already been dug out of the ground is
kept in vaults, and it is more than adequate to fill
any real needs for this resource. Copper is another
matter. Copper is necessary to modern life (although
certainly not in everything we use). We do use copper
when we build houses, but I am happy to say that we
use much less per house than we used to, thanks to the
development of such synthetic products as PEX [high
density polyethylene], ABS [acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene], and PVC [polyvinyl chloride]. Substitutes,
technological advances, conservation, and recycling
can make up for much of the demand. The demand for
copper is not nearly a sufficient reason to endanger
Bristol Bay salmon runs by allowing pollution or
excessive withdrawal of the pure waters of its salmon
streams.
CHAIR SEATON asked if she is concerned about any type of
development in the Bristol Bay drainage.
MS. BRODIE responded:
I do not oppose all development in the Bristol Bay
drainage. I support strong protection of salmon
habitat, and habitat for other fish and wildlife in
the area. I do not ask or expect that HB 134 be
passed without any changes whatsoever. In fact, I
particularly support the approach taken in Senate Bill
67 by Senator Gary Stevens.
10:38:38 AM
MICHAEL MCCARTHY, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am in support of the intent of HB 134, providing
some modifications be made to allow for limited
development under more stringent standards than are
presently in place.
I reside in Homer and have been an Alaskan resident
since 1987. My background includes being a retired
Registered Geologist, (Oregon #611), with experience
in exploration hard rock mining of gold, silver,
copper, lead, zinc, and barite deposits as well as
environmental geology. I have done geologic work in
Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.
It is gratifying that HB 134 is a bipartisan effort
because it will take the best efforts of all minds,
not just those of Democrats or Republicans to resolve
this issue in a manner that best protects Alaska's
future. My focus is a pragmatic one. The passage of
this good idea made into law would save much calamity,
litigation, and money. HB 134 can be likened to an
insurance policy. We don't plan on a fire or a car
accident but just in case we buy insurance protection.
It is there in case something happens.
What could happen in the Bristol Bay watershed without
the safe guards of HB 134? Perhaps another Butte,
Montana Berkeley Pit one of America's largest
Superfund clean-up sites. Originally a series of
underground mines that began in the 1870's and ran
until 1972 when underground mining was no longer
economically feasible, the working included 42 miles
of vertical shafts and 2,700 miles of other
passageways. The pit first operated in 1955 and
closed in 1982 after approximately 1 billion tons of
material was mined. The pit measures 1.5 miles east
to west, 1 mile north to south and is approximately
1,780 feet deep. The pit is presently flooded to a
depth of 900 feet and contains 30 billion gallons of
water with a pH of 2.5. There is an inflow into the
pit of both surface and ground water that measures
approximately 5,000 gallons per minute or 7.2 million
gallons per day.
This 30 billion gallons of highly acidic water
contains high concentrations of arsenic, copper,
cadmium, cobalt, iron, manganese, zinc, and sulfate.
In 1995 a large flock of migrating snow geese landed
on the Berkeley Pit and were killed, most likely by
the high concentration of acid. There were 542
carcasses recovered. Their livers and kidneys had
bloated and many had an eroded esophagus. These
contaminated mine waters require constant costly
mitigation efforts to protect the areas' surface and
ground water supplies.
I have personal knowledge of two additional
contaminated mine areas that merit consideration. The
first is Cobalt, Idaho, which I last visited in 2005.
The mine waters flowing out of the abandoned mine
adits are thick with brown ooze which coats everything
it contacts including the ground and rocks adjacent to
the stream bed of Black Bird Creek. Approximately
three miles down stream from the nearest adit is a
warning sign posted next to the creek. The sign
reads, "BLACKBIRD CREEK IS UNSAFE FOR DRINKING WATER".
It should be noted that the water in the creek here is
no longer the ugly brown ooze but yet is still unsafe.
I have attached photos of this because they have
reference value for the next area, the South Fork of
the Coeur d'Alene River by Kellogg, Idaho.
It was 1955 when I first saw this river which is
approximately the same width as the Kasilof River
where the Sterling Highway crosses it, or about 150
feet wide. The South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River
was very nearly the same color and clarity as
Blackbird Creek only it was 15 times wider. More than
fifty years later this river, and the Coeur d'Alene
mining district, are another Superfund clean-up site.
The same potential for contaminated mine water run off
exists for the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve unless
the safeguards of HB 134 are enacted.
The 1872 mining law, as it currently exists, contains
no protections from mining pollution; it gives
preferential treatment to mining over other uses; it
grants special tax breaks to the mining industry, and
it allows the sale of public lands for less than $5.00
per acre. Perhaps, HB 134 could be modified to
incorporate some features of the Federal Mineral
Development Act of 2005. This Act was not passed into
law but it was designed to help protect water
resources. Please contact Montana Environmental
Information Center for details, phone (406)443-2520 or
mcic@meic.org.
I am faxing a 2006 report titled: Predicting Water
Quality Problems At Hard Rock Mines by Ann Maest, PhD
and Jim Knipers, P.E. This report shows that a review
of 104 Environmental Impact Statements, for 71 major
hard rock mines in the United States, produced a
startling finding. The reports for these mines were
evaluated for predictions related to surface water,
ground water, and mine drainage quality, during and
after mining. These predictions were then compared
with actual water quality conditions, during and after
mining. A shocking 76% of mines polluted groundwater,
or surface water, severely enough to exceed water
quality standards. Of the sites that did develop acid
drainage, 89% predicted that they would not. In short
there is a universal discrepancy between predictions
and reality. The Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve is too
critical a resource to risk on the imperfect science
of mine water quality predictions.
10:42:56 AM
JIMMY HURLEY, stated support for HB 134, with reservation. He
stated that a water use aspect be introduced to discriminate
between the various development needs. The areas job shortage
could be met, he opined, by enhancing the salmon industry,
monitoring the selling points, and continuing to add a quality
value to the salmon. Also, he reported that he worked on the
water quality test team, evaluating the King Salmon River for
micro invertebrate health, and other salmon sustaining benthos.
The results rated the river as a first class salmon rearing
watershed. He said:
The salmon on this river [are] number one, there's
nothing else. If we don't have salmon here, if king
salmon don't come back up, what's the use of living
here. We live on the salmon, we do everything with
the salmon. ... When [Northern] Dynasty came to Ekwok,
I told them it might be one day that we open up our
freezer [the wild salmon run], and it might be empty.
MR. HURLEY concluded, that to have to tell his grandchildren
that one day there may not be any salmon, is difficult.
10:47:22 AM
RHONDA WAYNER, stated support for HB 134, paraphrased from a
written statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am currently a resident of Unalaska, but was raised
in Naknek and lived there for 28 years. I am also a
small business owner, a member of the Naknek Native
Village, a commercial set-net fisherman of Bristol Bay
that fishes traditionally for subsistence purposes,
and a proud family member of the budding Naknek Family
Fisheries. My family has successfully fished the
waters of Bristol Bay for centuries and they continue
to do so.
HB 134 is a positive step in the right direction to
ensure that our livelihoods, investments, and local
industry are sustained. It also leaves a legacy for
much loved former Gov. Jay Hammond. The key component
of this heated issue is sustainability which is
defined as: a collection of methods to create
economic growth which protects the environment,
relieves poverty, and does not destroy natural capital
in the short term at the expense of the long term ...
meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
We need to protect our salmon fisheries from the
threat of this and future mines, and HB 134 does just
that. It will ensure Bristol Bay's prominent position
throughout the world as a source of pure, natural wild
Alaskan salmon. Additionally, our people depend on
the subsistence resources that our pure waters afford.
Families, local government, and small businesses all
rely on this resource for food, taxable income and for
goods and services sold. Mining of this magnitude and
type have been scientifically proven to greatly harm
not only the fish stock but surrounding land based
habitat. HB 134 ensures that whether development
progresses there is at least a standard to hold high
not just for the well being of the fish and habitat
but for the people who thrive off of them.
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony, and invited further
written comments be sent to the sponsors office or to the
attention of the committee.
10:52:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked when HB 134 would be heard again in
committee, and the possible continuation of public testimony.
CHAIR SEATON responded that it would be taken up on Monday,
[March 5, 2007] under previously heard bills.
10:54:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:54:27
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|