Legislature(2007 - 2008)Dillingham
09/26/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Dillingham, Alaska
September 26, 2007
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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: 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
03/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/09/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
05/09/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/24/07 (H) FSH AT 4:30 PM Newhalen
09/24/07 (H) Heard & Held
09/24/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/25/07 (H) FSH AT 2:00 PM Naknek
09/25/07 (H) Heard & Held
09/25/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/26/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM Dillingham
WITNESS REGISTER
NELS JOHNSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
HENRY STRUB
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ROBERT WASSILY
Clarks Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for the concept of HB
134.
PATTY LUCKHURST
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CHRIS KLABUNDE, Member
Dillingham City Council
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CINDY ROQUE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134, testified on the
socioeconomic conditions of rural Alaska, and responded to
questions.
JACQUELYN WILSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
EMILY OLSON, Environmental Coordinator
Village of Clarks Point
Clarks Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
LAWRENCE OLSON
Clarks Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
JOSEPH WASSILY, Member
Clarks Point Village Council
Clarks Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for the concept of HB
134.
NORMAN ANDERSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RON BOWERS
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
WASSILLIE ILUTSIK
Aleknagik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
MARK HERRMANN, Owner
Warehouse Mountain Farm
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with mixed concern on HB 134, and
responded to questions.
DAVID BOUKER
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RALPH ANDERSEN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, made
recommendations, and responded to questions.
PETER CARUSO, Representative
Bristol Bay Fisherman's Association (BBFA)
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the original HB
134, and responded to questions.
EVA NIELSEN-KING, Representative
South Naknek Village Council
South Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and made
recommendations.
JIM WALLMAN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
FRANK WOODS
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
TED ANGASAN, Representative
Naknek Tribal Council
South Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
HARRY WASSILY SR.
Clarks Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JOHN D. NELSON, JR.
Kokhanok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
BILLY MAINES, Member
Dillingham City Council
Tribal Environmental Coordinator, (indisc.) Tribal Council
Vice Chair, Nushagak Mulchatna Watershed Council
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
WILLIAM JOHNSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for the concept of HB
134.
SAM FORTIER, Representative
Alaska Peninsula Corporation
Newhalen Tribal Council
King Salmon Tribe
Twin Hills Native Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
DAN DUNAWAY
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
CHENISE NELSON, Student Representative
Dillingham High School
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
HEIDI ANDREWS Student Representative
Dillingham High School
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, made recommendations,
and responded to questions.
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director
Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (BBCRSA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134, testified on the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP), and the
regulatory/permitting process.
DEWAYNE JOHNSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JOE FAITH
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
BOBBY ANDREW, Spokesman
Nunamta Aulukestai
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
PATRICIA TREYDTE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, and made
recommendations.
ALICE RUBY, Mayor
City of Dillingham
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134, provided an
overview of the socioeconomic conditions of Dillingham,
testified in support for the concept of HB 134, and made
recommendations.
DOROTHY B. LARSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
GEORGE WILSON JR.
Levelock, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
ANNA NIELSEN, Elder
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearings on HB 134.
RUSSELL NELSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
RICK TENNYSON, Land Manager
Choggiung Limited
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
ROBERT HEYANO
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for the concept of HB
134.
HJALMAR OLSON, Chief Executive Officer
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Member, Board of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
Member, Nushagak Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134, clarified the
official position of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN).
RACHEL MUIR
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MIKE DAVIS
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
RICK HALFORD
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, made
recommendations, and responded to questions.
THOMAS TILDEN, Member
Choggiung Tribe;
Representative, Choggiung Limited;
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
ULU TILDEN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
KAREN MCCAMBLY
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
STEVE WASSILY JR.
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MARIAN SMALL
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
STAN SMALL
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
HELEN CYTHLOOK
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and made
recommendations.
PETER CHRISTOPHER SR.
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modification.
MARGIE NELSON
Koliganek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JODY SEITZ
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support for the concept of HB
134.
KEVIN JENSEN
Pedro Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:00:26 AM. Representatives
Seaton, Edgmon, Wilson, Holmes, Johnson, Johansen, and LeDoux
were present at the call to order. Representatives Neuman,
Gatto, Kawasaki, and Roses were also in attendance.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
9:01:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
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 25-LS0381\M, Kane,
2/22/07, was left pending at the 2/28/07 meeting.]
9:01:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON provided the parameters and protocol for testifying
including conflict of interest procedures, submission of written
testimony, the issues of the bill version being addressed, and
accessing copies of the bill.
9:11:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON provided that the intent of the bill is to
address the policy question concerning water usage of the five
major river drainages in the Bristol Bay area. The question, he
said, is whether these drainages should be considered a priority
habitat for salmon migration and spawning, above all other uses
for the water. Such a priority could have unintended
consequences, which is one reason that the bill is in a working
draft form, and why testimony is critical. He addressed the
bill directly, and called attention to each section, explaining
the various aspects, definitions, concepts, intents, mitigation
fines, and usage exemptions. He asked, what is more important
for the use of the Bristol Bay water: protection of the salmon,
or industrial development.
9:17:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON added that Version M does not discriminate between
the amounts of water usage. Every user is considered the same
whether they require water on a large or small scale. If a
current user does not hold water rights, securing a permit under
this bill may be prohibitive.
9:19:35 AM
NELS JOHNSON introduced himself as a life long Bristol Bay
fisherman. He stated support for the bill, and said it will be
important for future generations. Referring to a local
advertisement campaign, he said, "We need to know the real truth
about what is true." The fish will not survive without clean,
fresh water.
9:23:40 AM
HENRY STRUB opined that the most important aspect of the bill is
that fish come first. Anything that threatens the fishery will
bring a death knell to the community, he predicted. The fishery
is rebounding, after a ten year depression, based on the image
of the pure fish product marketed as wild caught salmon
harvested from pristine waters. He pointed out that flag waving
the mining jobs, as being local, is a misnomer. He defined a
local job as being an hour driving commute, and being able to
return home each night. A job that is offered two hundred miles
away is not local, he opined. These jobs will not serve the
local people who need work, especially off season fishermen. He
expressed optimism about the future of the fishery, and
reiterated that "fish come first."
9:26:07 AM
ROBERT WASSILY stated support for the concept of HB 134. He
said that he is a subsistence hunter/community provider, and
fears for the demise of the area resources, should a large scale
mine begin development.
9:28:43 AM
PATTY LUCKHURST echoed the previous witness, saying "fish come
first." She moved to Alaska from an area of southern Illinois,
where they strip mine for coal, and also lived in a copper
mining area of Arizona. She witnessed the permanent damage
created by these developments, despite promises of rejuvenation,
and reclamation. The area should be preserved for generations
to come, and the renewable resources utilized throughout the
state, she opined.
9:30:28 AM
CHRIS KLABUNDE said that although he is a member of the
Dillingham City Council, he is speaking on his own behalf. He
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Since humans arrived in this area, there has been a
single life blood that has sustained this region.
The water, running from large glacially carved lakes
down the rivers and into Bristol Bay.
This source of wealth is unlike any other left in the
world. As pure and natural now, as it ever was.
These watersheds support millions of examples of an
economic resource that has returned annually for
thousands of years. Salmon.
I come here today, to ask you to look into the future.
Consider generations of Alaskans that will inhabit
this area, but have not been born yet and for you to
protect these watersheds for the long term and their
use.
It is no secret the economy that is supported by the
fisheries here, have seen its good times and bad.
I will point out that the return of sockeye to the
Nushagak River in the last two years; have been among
the largest runs in recorded history.
This shows the resource is healthy, and with proper
management, it can be sustained indefinitely.
The problems facing the salmon resources are varied,
but these are being actively addressed.
The truth about farmed salmon has come out. It is an
inferior product and the market appears to be moving
away from it.
Processors are adding value to our wild product by
filleting more and canning less.
Fishers and processors are more concerned about
quality now more than ever and are working to improve
it.
Brailer bag limits are imposed by processors.
Refrigeration systems are more common now than ever on
boats.
The recent development of marketing associations, are
in search of better uses of, and expanding the markets
for our fish.
High operating costs and lack of infrastructure in the
region are the current real hindrance to global
prosperity for Wild Bristol Bay Salmon.
But a greater threat to it looms on the horizon.
Proposed mineral exploitation at the head waters of
the two greatest watersheds in the region will
negatively affect it.
Putting into jeopardy the health and livelihoods of
all its residents, present and future.
I ask you to listen to the testimony you have heard
throughout the region, and comply with the wishes of
the majority of us who live here and will be affected
by it.
Be responsible stewards and partners in the use of the
rivers in this region, support the locals, and protect
our water for the future.
Don't let the promise of quick money from big business
veto the ideals of those who make our lives here.
9:33:30 AM
CINDY ROQUE pointed out that the lack of facilities in the area,
is the cause for this hearing to displace the school children's
lunch room. She requested that the representatives take time,
during their stay, to tour the school facilities and apprise
themselves of the public school situation/condition. She opined
that the needy school conditions in Dillingham are echoed
throughout other rural areas of the state. Additionally, the
jail is designed to house eight inmates, but has a current
population of eleven. She continued to posture for
socioeconomic support in the rural areas, and noted the names of
legislators who have responded to her continued correspondence
requesting geographic differential, and power cost equalization
laws/regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if she had an opinion to share on
HB 134.
MS. ROQUE said, "I have very mixed emotions, sir."
9:38:06 AM
JACQUELYN WILSON said that as a public school teacher, she has
provided a neutral stance on the issue to her high school
students. However, she said, her husband is a commercial
fisherman, and she expects that the fishery will "pull through."
9:39:17 AM
EMILY OLSON, Environmental Coordinator, paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I support HB 134. I come from a family of four
generations of fisherwomen. Fishing was the only
source of income for more than a decade. Smoked and
salted salmon is part of my diet. During the hard
times all we had to do was cook a pot of rice and eat
fish. The salmon industries have provided higher
education for many of our leaders. Our Governor
fished in this river. So you see, I am very sensitive
when it comes to salmon. It built all the villages
here in Bristol Bay. What other resource can ... the
history of salmon is more than 100 years. Mining is
not a natural renewable resource. The Pebble Mine
will be short term. Salmon have sustained our people.
The Nushagak River is also a habitat for pike,
whitefish, and trout. Tourists pay big bucks to catch
their fish, whether it is salmon, pike, whitefish or
trout. Lodges provide employment and revenue to the
local communities.
Another issue that has been overlooked is Belugas.
Nushagak River is a breeding ground for Belugas. Each
spring I see them birthing right in front of my home.
Belugas tell us when the fish and smelts are in
abundance. Isn't the Belugas listed in the Endangered
Species Act?
9:41:52 AM
LAWRENCE OLSON paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I support HB 134. I am a commercial fisherman and a
subsistence hunter in this region. We rely on these
natural resources to sustain our natural lifestyle of
living as I know it. My parents, grandparents, and
ancestors relied on these resources. We cannot afford
this mistake.
Without the fishing industry Bristol Bay Economic
Development Corporation, (BBEDC) would not exist.
BBEDC provides employment for local people on the high
seas, processors, office internship, salmon camp for
youths, vessel internship, scholarships, voc-tec
training, and ABE/GED.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the bill, page 2, line [23],
which lists seafood processing as an exempted industry for water
usage, and asked if the exemption should be expanded upon for
processors building improvements such as docks.
MR. OLSON said they should be exempted.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Mr. Olson would like to have the
seafood processing exemption expanded to include the seafood
industry, including the support facilities.
MR. OLSON responded, yes.
9:44:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that stating support for the
bill, Version M, would limit economic development in the region.
Thus, building or expansion of docks, and other activities would
not be allowed.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that the bill limits water use. He
paraphrased from the bill, page 2, line 13, that a person may
not alter, destroy, displace, relocate, channel, dam, convert to
dry land, or otherwise adversely affect any portion of a river,
stream, lake, or bog. If that is applied to all commercial
activities throughout the region, it will curtail further
development of such activities as a dock expansion. The
question is to what extent do the people of this region want
restrictions of water usage to apply: commercial use throughout
the entire watershed, or exempt minimal quantities of water. He
pointed out that only eight lodges in the area hold water right
permits. If this bill passes as written, the lodges without
water rights would not be able to continue operating, and could
face difficulty obtaining a permit, as there is not a
grandfather clause in the bill. He stressed the need to hear
the opinion of what restrictions the people of the area are
interested in having imposed. Do the exemptions need to be
broadened or narrowed down. Further, he provided an example of
a municipality being allowed to build a dock, however, a barge
company would be prevented from such activity. Is this what the
people of the region want to have occur.
9:50:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that the bill is still in a
formative state, and is not intended to halt all economic
development of the region.
9:51:19 AM
JOSEPH WASSILY, Member, Clarks Point Village Council,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I support HB 134 in concept. I've been a fisherman
since I was eight years old, I hunt moose, caribou,
ducks, geese, and live off of the land, get berries
for the family, I strongly support our subsistence way
of life, because all of my life I've lived off of the
land to feed my family and elders. I also seal hunt,
subsistence fishing for smelts, pike, rainbows, trout,
and red fish, and king salmon also to put up in the
smoke house. I strongly oppose the Pebble Mine
because if it goes through it may ruin our fishing and
water ways and our subsistence way of life.
9:53:03 AM
NORMAN ANDERSON commented that construction of commercial docks
would be near the fishery vs. in the upper reaches of the
rivers. He then paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I support house bill 134, and appreciate you all
traveling away from home and family to listen to my
reasons why. I am a commercial fisherman, as are my
two sons, who together we own and operate our
commercial fishing operation, as was my father who
taught me, and as was my mother, who supported all
four of her children off the salmon we respect this
day. As I have learned from our elders, I taught my
sons how to respect the land and waters of our region.
Our regions history began because of our unique water
quality, the status of our hydrology creates the
perfect combination to enhance and support our Wild
Salmon, and quantity of fish. All five species exist
because of the mixture of fresh and salt water, both
are exceptionally clean. Grandma Nicolet of Naknek
Alaska told me once that any interruption in our clean
waters in our area will forever change our lifestyle.
I like and use the scientific phrase a bright young
lady relayed to me, without sound geology we cannot
have sound biology. This is what Grandma Nicolet was
telling me when I was about six years old beyond
Libbyville in Naknek as we hunted ducks. I do support
development in Bristol Bay, I know we need jobs, we
are experiencing an out migration of our residents,
and schools are being impacted. Villages are hurting
because of the high price of fuel. But look around
you, we are a strong people, for years we have fought
off invading industries that have sought riches that
live beneath our land and waters. The struggle is
what gives us our strength. We are not experiencing
any spiritual breakdown. We live a subsistence life
style. The meager take to sustain as Webster defines
it. We are careful not to disturb the tundra, as life
depends on it. No we do not eat the spiders and mice,
but do depend on the birds and fur bearing animals
that do. Again we do rely on our unique hydrology.
The spring run off carries down hill what ever the
upper watershed has to offer, if health threatening
chemicals are amongst the ingredients, then too we
will see the after affects in our diets. Picture
yourself down stream of a sewer lagoon. I apologize
for the graphic. For generations the native people
have used the land. Not until the western
civilizations came to stay do we see the beginning of
scars on our land, all under the auspices of progress.
Minerals and Hydro-carbons are not progress for they
only line the pockets of large scale companies.
Remember we must all do whatever we can to save this
big village we call earth. So again I support saving
our fragile waters in Bristol Bay. I support House
Bill 134.
9:57:03 AM
[Ina Bouker's Dillingham High School Yupik class provided the
traditional Reindeer Herding Dance to the committee.]
CHAIR SEATON requested that the dancers' names be scribed, for
the record.
10:01:57 AM
RON BOWERS, paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I'm Ron Bowers and have been a local resident for over
24 years. My wife is Yupik Eskimo and a lifelong
resident of this region. Subsistence, land, and water
use issues are very important to our family and most
all my in-laws and neighbors. Those who are trying to
protect our local fisheries and the subsistence
lifestyle are to be commended. We in Bristol Bay are
blessed with resources like few other places in this
world. As a former candidate for House District #37,
I heard the concerns and fears of locals about
protecting our fisheries and subsistence resources, to
the fullest extent possible.
However, as I read and reread my friend Representative
Bryce Edgmon's HB #134, I am fully persuaded that it
continues to be a very bad piece of legislation.
HB #134 is a knee jerk reaction to the coming economic
opportunities and resource development, now occurring
in our long, economically depressed region. HB #134
seems to be based more on fear and short on facts.
HB #134 will only serve to drive businesses away from
this region and cause greater economic hardships.
This is in a region where a gallon of milk cost almost
$8 dollars. Here in Dillingham gasoline is nearly $5
dollars and in some local villages, well over $5
dollars a gallon. Even in Dillingham, the flagship of
economic opportunity for our region, most citizens are
hard pressed. In just the past week I have been
informed of 4 more families that are leaving town, due
to financial reasons. Our local school population is
down, well over 100 students in the past three years.
In some of this region's communities, schools have
been closed or are on the verge of being mothballed,
due to population decline.
HB #134 will make it virtually impossible for most new
businesses or even current locally owned businesses to
function in our region, except if that company is a
fish processor. While one sentence in HB #134 seems
to allow for oil & gas exploration and production in
Bristol Bay, I question if such an endeavor can occur
if this bill becomes law. This piece of legislation
could force all local gravel pit operations to cease
washing gravel. This would eliminate any local cement
production and shut down almost all our region's
construction projects. Even the popular family run,
Saturday market in Dillingham is threatened by
HB #134. The hard working [Herrmann] family irrigates
their local vegetable farm with surface water found on
their property. Under provisions of HB #134, this
family business could be fined up to one million
dollars a day, for simply irrigating their flowers and
vegetables. Dillingham residents would lose one more
business and a great source of healthy and less
expensive produce.
HB #134 is so ridiculous that a Bristol Bay resident
could even be fined up to $100,000 dollars per day for
diverting floodwaters from their home during Spring
break-up.
Finally almost all that HB #134 seems to address is
already covered by current regulations and/or
agencies. Even the controversial proposed Pebble Mine
must hurdle at least 65 permits to ever begin
production.
Yes Representatives Edgmon and Ramras, I have read
HB #134 and I cannot believe its narrow sightedness
and the damage it could wreak on Bristol Bay.
I respectfully ask that the Honorable House Fisheries
committee put this bill to rest.
10:05:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reiterated that the intent of the bill is
to present a policy question to the legislature, and the
residents of Bristol Bay, in terms of the current use of the
water, and to protect the water as essential habitat for salmon
production. He asked if heard correctly, that this concept is
not supported by the witness.
MR. BOWERS responded that he supports clean water, subsistence,
and the fisheries. He would not support anything that would
jeopardize those activities, or the natural resources. He does
not support adding another layer of regulation above what exists
in current statute.
10:07:04 AM
WASSILLIE ILUTSIK noted that he has been a commercial fisherman
for 55 years. said that the bill is very restrictive, and cited
the desperate need for economic development in Bristol Bay. It
is difficult to make a living by commercial fishing. The lodges
on Lake Aleknagik do not hire Natives to work; neither do other
lodges in the region. This bill would shut down future economic
development, and foreclose on some existing establishments, he
opined.
10:09:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how many children and grandchildren
he can count.
MR. ILUTSIK replied that he has four grandchildren; all boys.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired if it is possible that they will
all find work in commercial fishing.
MR. ILUTSIK said that the only income they expect to receive
this year is the permanent fund check. These are young men in
their 20s and 30s.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the speaker's statement that
the lodges do not hire local Natives, and asked why that might
be.
MR. ILUTSIK responded that it is discriminatory. He related
that his boys, and some others from the village, acquired their
six pack licenses and approached the lodges for employment.
However, guides were brought in from the Lower 48 states, rather
than hiring the Native guides; as they do all of their employees
and food supplies.
10:12:43 AM
MARK HERRMANN, Owner, Warehouse Mountain Farm, paraphrased from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
In regard to HB 134 protection of salmon spawning, I
am adamantly opposed to the bill as it is currently
proposed, for the following reasons.
Our family has operated a small farm near Warehouse
Mountain for the past 20 years. We try to operate in
a responsible manor with minimal soil inputs and
conservative growing practices. We use water to wash,
process, and irrigate crops. We are several miles
from the nearest salmon streams, but as the bill is
currently written we would be in violation.
This bill would effectively put us out of business.
We support the concept of this bill for protection of
the fisheries, but this bill in its current from will
not encourage economic diversity and development in
Bristol Bay.
10:13:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if he supports the concept of the
bill, to protect the water as salmon habitat.
MR. HERRMANN responded, absolutely. That is what runs the
economy of the bay, but it is important to not shut down other
economic possibilities.
10:14:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired if he supports the bill as it
relates to mining activities.
MR. HERRMANN said that in terms of a mine the scale of the
proposed Pebble, he supports the restrictions included in the
bill. However, for mining on a smaller scale, it should be
revisited. He said that a gravel pit is considered a mining
activity, and requires a large amount of water to operate.
These are details that need to be worked out.
10:15:40 AM
DAVID BOUKER stated support for HB 134, as a work in progress.
He said, "I think [Representative Edgmon's] on the right track."
He related two examples of mining operations, which he has
observed that have negatively impacted the areas where they are
sited: Good News Bay Mine in Platinum, Alaska, and Anaconda
Mine in Butte, Montana. The Good News Bay Mine runoff was
evident at the mouth of Icicle Creek, discoloring a half mile of
the waters in the Kuskokwim Bay. The Anaconda Mine created a
desert environment and a super-fund clean up site around the
mammoth tailing holes.
10:17:53 AM
RALPH ANDERSEN began by stating that although his is a member of
the Bristol Bay Native Association, he speaking on his own
behalf. He then noted that what he is about to propose hasn't
been considered by any organizations. He drew attention to page
2, Section 2, where the propose insertion would be made, and
read:
Within the new AS 16.10.015, add a new subsection ...
(b) (5) to read: ... otherwise permitted uses
occurring on lands owned by a corporation organized
pursuant to Sec. 43, USC 16.01 et seq ... (Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act) or on restricted Native
allotment or restricted Native townsite land.
10:21:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated appreciation for the proposed
amendment, as an effort to address what is desired at the local
level.
MR. ANDERSEN said that the subsistence life style is what grew
into the first economy for the area. The fisheries became a
cash economy. The commercial fishery has become an important
aspect of the community, and there is a fear of loss. He
suggested that focus be brought to bear on what could be gained,
rather than what might be lost.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that every bill can have unintended
consequences, which the committee hopes to avoid.
10:24:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged that there are many Native
allotments "out there" and asked, "What if Pebble II is
discovered on Native land ...." He asked should anyone, Native
or private corporation be exempted from this act.
MR. ANDERSEN replied that the committee might ask if they are
acting as good and prudent stewards of the land. He is
proposing a starting point, and said he is not aware of what
kinds of activities could result from development on Native
allotments. There could be restrictions if someone wants to
build a lodge. Native lands are privately owned, and it is not
right to disallow someone to develop their land.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that it is a matter of who
should be exempt.
MR. ANDERSEN said that he would expect his amendment to be
appropriately vetted.
10:28:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON read "restrictive based allotments," from the
proposed amendment, and asked if all Native allotments are
restricted.
MR. ANDERSEN replied, no.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the intent of the amendment is to only
exempt the restricted Native allotments, then the unrestricted
allotments would still fall under the provision that would not
be able to have certain commercial developments.
MR. ANDERSEN answered the way the proposed amendment is written.
10:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether Mr. Andersen would
favor restrictions related to large scale mining being applied
to Native allotments or Native Corporation lands.
MR. ANDERSEN opined that any type of development should be
scrutinized.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX observed that he is addressing the
differences of corporate and private land. She asked if he
would consider extending the amendment to include all privately
owned land.
MR. ANDERSEN pointed out that the proposed amendment addresses
Native corporation, Native allotments, and Native town sites.
He expects his amendment to provide an opportunity for the
committee to address these concerns.
10:31:34 AM
PETER CARUSO, Representative, Bristol Bay Fisherman's
Association (BBFA), provided the mission of the BBFA: to
advocate for the sustainability of salmon in the watershed.
Membership is restricted to Alaskan residents. At the September
7, 2007, board meeting, HB 134 was reviewed and unanimously
opposed. He reported that the opposition centers on the
grandfathering in of existing fish processors in the bay, but
does not allow for future growth in the fishery. The existing
processors were unable to handle the recent volume of the
current runs. Given the growth of the fishery this restriction
on development would prove detrimental to the fishery.
10:32:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the board had reviewed the original bill
or Version M, when arriving at their decision.
MR. CARUSO said it was the original bill that was reviewed.
CHAIR SEATON noted that the BBFA board interpreted the original
bill correctly, however, Version M does provide seafood
processors exempt status. The water usage, of the seafood
processor would still need to meet state standards, he pointed
out, and support facilities could be affected. He asked if this
exemption satisfies the associations concerns.
MR. CARUSO responded, "Yes, it needs to be dressed up."
10:34:39 AM
EVA NIELSEN-KING, Representative, South Naknek Village Council,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
My name is Eva King. I am a year round resident of
South Naknek and have been a commercial salmon
fisherman since 1976, when I was ten years old. Four
of my sons are now commercial fisherman. I ask that
oral and written statements be entered into the
record. I am also representing our village
government, The South Naknek Village Council - a
federally recognized tribe.
In 1990, 18 years ago, processing companies paid us 70
cents per pound for salmon as publicly stated in the
Borough Post newspaper of that year.
In 2007, processing companies paid commercial
fisherman a low of 40 cents a pound at Ekuk, on the
Nushagak River 58 cents, and up to 60 cents a pound
here in the Naknek-Kvichak District; pre-1980's fish
prices. Some of our leaders are saying our salmon
runs are on the rebound, if this is true why is it
that many of our fishermen can't afford to purchase
their winter fuel?
Fishermen this season were placed on limited catches
from 2-6,000 pounds. Some were not allowed to fish at
all because our processing companies could not process
the salmon because they didn't have the capacity,
which they assured the state they had earlier. All of
this happens during the peak of the run. Couple this
current problem with the pre-1980 salmon prices and
not being allowed to deliver your catch, this proposed
legislative HB 134 will prohibit natural resource
development and only adds to our economic distress.
All villages in Bristol Bay except for Dillingham, the
regional center, don't have employment opportunities.
Dillingham is the headquarters to BBAHC, BBNA, BBEDC,
and other private enterprises with jobs available
here. We are happy for the people of Dillingham who
have good job opportunities.
We know your focus is targeted to stop the Pebble
Project however your legislation is more far reaching.
It would prohibit development on Native Corporation
lands and other private lands. All of this without
consideration is an illegal taking of rights.
Millions and millions of acres of land would be locked
up and prohibited from being developed.
Because we lack job opportunities - lack of
infrastructure, high energy and utility cost. Your
legislation lacks any concern for those of us who
reside here year round. But instead want only to take
away any potential.
There is no question our regional economic base must
be diversified - we cannot depend on commercial
fishing alone anymore. We need local jobs, not
government welfare. Your quest strongly appears to
satisfy sportsmen, conservation groups, lodge owners;
people like Bob Gillam and maybe some of yourselves so
as not to disturb your summer playground as proposed
in HB 134. Additionally, many who will be testifying
in support of HB134 in the next few days are already
retired, semi-retired and are not interested in the
welfare of younger generations. They are living in
the past when commercial fishing provided an annual
income. To my knowledge these so-called elders have
not presented solutions to our economic dilemma.
It would be nice to have the days of old - when
commercial fishing provided families their annual
income.
By introducing HB 134, you have successfully divided
families, village against village, ethnic groups
against one another. You have used subsistence
hunting and fishing as your wedge. You have done this
so well that many locals embrace your statements as
the truth, not knowing your strategy.
If you feel so strongly about Natives keeping hunting
and fishing subsistence lifestyles, we insist that
your legislation HB 134 be amended to ensure a
subsistence priority for Bristol Bay Alaska Natives.
If you do this, you would at least publicly state your
commitment to the importance of subsistence hunting
and fishing for the Bristol Bay Natives.
Subsistence hunting and fishing does not include
sportsmen and their organizations. They are the same
as any commercial fishermen and should not be included
with subsistence.
Rep. Bryce Edgmon in his press release September 20,
2007 Bristol Bay Times, recommended we include
pressing issues to this legislative committee for
consideration and action.
So here goes. Your committee must stop the outside
fish processing companies from robbing us blind by
paying us extremely low prices. These low prices are
forcing our resident people to move to urban areas to
find other employment instead of staying at home and
going on government welfare assistance. We are a
proud people and shun the idea of government handouts.
We have an immediate need for roads and bridges
connecting village to village to increase trade,
commerce, health, and safety. Our state government
through your actions must invite foreign salmon buyers
into Bristol Bay. We need competition! Again, we
know like the anti-Pebble Project movement, how
powerful the salmon processing lobbyists are. And
like anything else, it seems what ever is a benefit to
resident Alaska's the chances of inviting foreign
processors will not happen. Most, if not all Bristol
Bay salmon processing companies own salmon farms.
Maybe this is part of the reason for our low prices
for wild Alaska salmon.
Inviting foreign buyers in for a competitive salmon
price can happen if you want it to and are committed
to make it happen. So where do you stand on this?
Can we depend on you? How soon?
These invitations to foreign buyers should run on five
year increments - not an annual basis since it takes
time to plan for finance and equipment. With out this
invitation for foreign buyers the current fish
processing companies will continue to pay us pre-1980
prices. The cost of living from 1980 to 2007 has
risen approximately 75%. You can do your own research
if you wish, however this number of 75% is
conservative. We need immediate help from you - here
again is a missed opportunity to help in our economic
distress.
Again, for the record I am apposed to HB 134 as it is
currently drafted. For me to reconsider my views on
HB 134 I am requesting the following:
Amend HB134 to guarantee subsistence hunting and
fishing a priority use for Bristol Bay Natives.
Begin immediately building roads and bridges in the
Bristol Bay region connecting villages to one another
for trade, commerce, health, and safety. Senator
Stevens recommended this at a health forum in
Anchorage in August.
Since HB 134 is an illegal taking of rights with out
consideration - we strongly request the legislature
and the administration disclose to the Alaskan public
the monetary cost we as Alaskans would pay to Northern
Dynasty, Native Corporations and private land holders
as soon as possible.
As an example, excluding Northern Dynasty's claim,
Native and other private land holder's, amount to
several million acres of land that would be prohibited
from development, because of your legislation; HB 134
and its companion Senate Bill 67.
When can we receive a report of the potential monetary
cost this type of legislation will cause?
There have been statements of reports by reputable
people that the State doesn't have enough money in our
state permanent fund portfolio to cover all cost
relating to HB 134. In fact, the portfolio would fall
short to cover the total cost.
Is one of your solutions to raise taxes or institute
taxes to cover these shortfalls? Your legislation HB
134 and its companion Senate Bill 67 will cause
numerous lawsuits. So how much is our state willing
to endure?
I wonder as should you, how would the late Jay Hammond
feel about paying for an illegal taking of rights
knowing there is a high cost that could destroy his
legacy of the Permanent Fund and then some?
Believe me; your political quest and development
prohibitions carry a terrible high cost. And if your
legislation miraculously passes there will not be
enough money combining all of our state coffers to pay
for your mistakes.
My village of South Naknek does not have many
employment opportunities, as I reported before in the
last hearings. More than two-thirds of our village
population has already moved away to find jobs and we
are currently losing two more households. Because of
a lack of employment opportunities and people moving,
our local school has been closed for several years
now. This has torn the heart out of our community.
Now all of our school children are flown to Naknek to
attend school daily. You have no idea of the danger
and the emotional stress this causes the school
children and parents as we are a maritime community
with wind most of the time. Our airport is in
extremely bad condition, we have complained for years
to everyone in the state government to bring the
airport up to safety standards. Our airport was
rebuilt several years ago. However it is in worst
condition now than what it was before it was rebuilt.
Now we have less length than what we started with and
our new cross-wind is hardly useable with many
sections sinking more than three feet. We urge each
one of you to visit our airport and come to your own
conclusions.
With bad weather our children do not fly, so we
sometimes boat the children to school, or drive them
in sub-zero weather if the river is frozen. We have
even gone so far as to find a charter and personally
pay for them to get them home when they are weathered
in at Naknek.
South Naknek is the only community in the United
States with a flying school bus. After describing the
current airport conditions would you subject your
child to this horrible kind of danger?
For your information there is a plan to build a bridge
to connect South Naknek to the Naknek - King Salmon
Highway on the north side of the river. This bridge,
once built would solve many of our problems and more
importantly provide safe travel for our school
children. This is our current plan however many years
ago there was another plan to build a bridge across
the Newhalen River connecting Newhalen-Iliamna and
Nondalton. Because of politics this bridge was never
built. I pray that this will not be our fate too.
You know well who stopped the Newhalen River -
Nondalton Bridge, I need not mention his name.
It would be welcomed by all residents of South Naknek
for you to put your energy into our plight and needs
as much as you have put in to HB 134. This would be a
more positive endeavor. The potential cost for a
successful passage of HB 134 will not leave any money
left to build any infrastructure anywhere in the state
of Alaska.
If not for high negative emotions and negative
political strategies Alaska and Alaskans should
welcome industries in who want to invest for the
benefit of all. I am praying that the majority of our
State Legislature is still prudent and reasonable and
will let the process for development work before
making judgments and decisions.
Alaska has the highest standards for environmentally
sound resource development. Politics and negative
emotions have always been grounds for making the
poorest and costliest decisions - oppose HB134 and its
companion Senate bill.
I must add that I am not receiving a salary, nor have
I ever, from Northern Dynasty. Further I am not
receiving $300,000 + or any consulting fees either.
You are welcome to review my tax returns if you wish.
Shame on those folks and organizations that have lied
only to think they would gain public support for their
blatant and damaging lies. Northern Dynasty has
always been above board and open. I urge each of you
to ask those who testify for HB 134 who is paying
their way. Fair is fair, right?
Finally, as a point of information Northern Dynasty
has hired more local residents than all salmon
processing companies and sportsmen operations within
the past few years combined. Considering salmon
processing companies have been around since at least
the late 1800's and sportsmen operations since at
least the 1950's. A pretty good track record for
Northern Dynasty isn't it?
10:40:31 AM
JIM WALLMAN, speaking as a subsistence user, stated support for
the bill and expressed appreciation for the exemptions. Further
changes may need to be made, however, he pledged faith that the
committee will make the appropriate alterations while upholding
the best interests of the region. He encouraged the committee
to become familiar with the complete process that allowed the
permitting of mines in Montana to operate, through the
subsequent poisoning of the water that occurred. Further, he
said that with the rebound in the fishery market, and the added
value being placed on the fishery, "we already [have] our gold
mine."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that Alaska rules and
regulations, already in place, would prohibit the type of
activity that occurred in Montana.
10:43:51 AM
FRANK WOODS introduced himself as a commercial fisherman and
subsistence user. He pointed out that the current gold rush is
not for one mine; the Nushagak area has another 120 claims.
Currently the Nushagak is experiencing record runs of sockeye
salmon, and clean water is essential to maintain a healthy
return. Further, he said he is not against development or
growth, but it must be done responsibly. He predicted that this
issue, already nation wide, will become an international
concern. He provided the committee a copy of his daughter's
school term paper on mining.
10:48:05 AM
TED ANGASAN, Representative, Naknek Tribal Council, reported a
village population decline from 225, in 2001, to 60 today. The
five school children commute via airplane to Naknek. The people
rely entirely on fishing. In 2004, the Tribal Council passed a
resolution to support studies of the mine, and what it might do
to provide employment in the area. In March, 2007, a resolution
was issued to oppose the mine unless certain restrictions were
passed. However, he said, he did not vote in favor of the
resolution. He opined that the village has few choices, and
without the economic opportunities that the mine offers, it may
become a ghost town. The Naknek [inaudible] road project is
slated to receive $4 million over the coming years, but this
bill would disallow the road and derail the project. Native
allotment lands would not be able to be developed, he pointed
out; area Natives have awaited these allotments for decades. He
said, on behalf of the Naknek Village Council, and as a private
citizen, he opposes the bill, as written.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that the bill is not against
progress in the area.
10:53:02 AM
HARRY WASSILY, SR., stated support for the bill, and said Alaska
is the last frontier, with fresh water and clean air. He
expressed concern for the exploration activities, and the damage
that is being suffered by the tundra. The state would do well
to monitor these activities now, for the damage and runoff waste
that is already occurring. It will get inside the salmon, crab,
and moose he cautioned, rendering them uneatable.
10:57:07 AM
JOHN D. NELSON, JR., stated five world classes associated with
Bristol Bay: sockeye salmon capital of the world, hunting,
sport/commercial fishing, subsistence, and pristine waters. He
reported on the tremendous amounts of water circulated out of
three open pit mines: Bingham Canyon Mine, Kennicott Mine, and
the Newmont Mine.
10:58:54 AM
BILLY MAINES, Member, Dillingham City Council; Tribal
Environmental Coordinator, (indisc.) Tribal Council; Vice Chair,
Nushagak Mulchatna Watershed Council, provided a reminder of the
integral relationship between water and life. He speculated
that if any of the fish, wildlife, or other flora and fauna of
the area, were to testify, they would be in favor of this bill.
He advocated for as many restrictions as possible, as a means
for preserving the area. He reported that he no longer drinks
the water directly from the rivers or lakes, due to development.
The nutrients that come from the watersheds, into Bristol Bay,
feeds/maintains a billion dollar ecosystem in the Bering Sea,
which "we seem to be responsible for."
11:02:26 AM
WILLIAM JOHNSON, noting that he is a commercial fisherman and
subsistence user, stated his support for the concept of HB 134,
and said that it requires amending to include reasonable,
renewable resource economic development. He reported that for
two years he researched becoming a miner. Following the DNR
guidelines and process he was on track to prospect, until he
realized what consequences would occur to the area. There are
20 mines for various types of deposits, throughout the area. He
suggested providing roads and encouraging renewable resource
development. This type of development relies on clean water, he
said. Further, he opined that the enhanced salmon products
being marketed will provide a continued economy base, and is the
best way to proceed.
11:05:53 AM
SAM FORTIER, Representative, Alaska Peninsula Corporation;
Newhalen Tribal Council; King Salmon Tribe; Twin Hills Native
Corporation, stated that the four organizations he represents
oppose HB 134. He then related that he has also been asked to
represent 20 individuals who have were intimidated by a threat
of investigation if they were to speak on HB 134. He
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I have also been delegated by the Alaska Federation of
Natives Litigation and Legislative Affairs Committee
to inform you that AFN has recently adopted a
resolution opposing HB 134.
We are opposed to HB 134 because it will radically
curtail private water appropriation rights and private
property uses in most of Bristol Bay.
We are opposed to HB 134 because it will radically and
unconstitutionally change the existing regime under
Alaska law regarding resource use and consumption, so
that virtually all forms of future economic
development in Bristol Bay will be prohibited. In
addition to not addressing extraordinary situation,
such as drought, that may effect villages and cities,
the bill would effectively prohibit any new water-
intensive industries or business. These impacts are
not confined to state owned lands, but will
extensively impact privately held lands, including
Native corporation lands.
We are opposed to the criminalization of formerly
lawful uses of private property by Section 1, part 1
of HB 134. This section prohibits: withdrawing,
obstructing, injecting, pumping, either temporarily or
permanently any subsurface or surface water in
drainages supporting salmon or any water
hydrologically interrelated or connected to those
drainages in the Nushagak, Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik,
and Ugashik watersheds. The sweeping prohibition
against previously allowable uses of water is
assuredly unconstitutional. Appropriation of water is
guaranteed under Article VIII, Section 13, Alaska
Constitution.
We are opposed to the bill because virtually all of
the aquifers in the Bristol Bay watershed are
"hydrologically interconnected or related to"
drainages. This bill would effect private water wells
and other forms of use, on private lands.
We are opposed to the bill because it has a profoundly
disproportionate and adverse effect on Native
Corporations, whose mission it is to provide economic
opportunities to their shareholders now and for future
generations.
We are opposed to the bill because it amounts to a
taking without compensation in violation of Art. VIII,
Section 16, of the Alaska Constitution.
We are opposed to the bill because it directly
interferes with the riparian rights of Surface estate
owners, including the right to beneficial uses of
water adjacent to and beneath their properties.
We are opposed to HB 134 because it directly
interferes with any hydrological based form of
alternate energy. The proposed language forbids any
development that would result in pumping or
withdrawing geothermal energy sources, such as steam,
that is "hydrologically interrelated or connected" to
a salmon stream drainage would be off-limits.
We are opposed to HB 134, because salmon streams are
already protected under existing law, as contained in
Alaska Stat. 16.10.010. HB 134, however, strips other
regulatory agencies, such as the Department of
Environmental Conservation, from deciding on a case by
case basis, whether to permit or license hydroelectric
power, or to permit water use for civic, domestic,
irrigation, manufacturing, mining, "or other purposes
tending to develop the natural resources of the
state," as allowed under Alaska Stat. 16.10.015.
We are opposed to the bill because it prohibits and
punishes previously lawful conduct with no fair
warning. The bill is silent on the criteria used to
determine such complicated terms as interrelatedness
and interconnectedness. Nor are any definitions
supplied for either of these terms.
The law will extend to "any portion of a river,
stream, lake, bog, tributary, or any other water body,
including the beds of water bodies, in drainages
supporting salmon. The ambiguous phrase, "otherwise
adversely affecting," is so broad as to render any use
not permitted under Section 1, even something so
mundane as traveling across a swamp on an ATV [all
terrain vehicle], a criminal act. It would most
assuredly halt any oil and gas or mineral exploration
or development on Native lands.
We are opposed to the bill because it is broadly and
patently unfair. The grandfathering of existing
industries and the exclusion of any new industries or
businesses would have a significant and negative
impact on economic growth and orderly development in
Bristol Bay, virtually guaranteeing that it will
remain a captive colony of fishing lodges and fish
processors. In this manner, the bill would also
appear to violate every Alaskan's right to uniform
application of laws and regulations guaranteed under
Art. VIII, Section 17, of the Alaska Constitution.
Locking up the resources on Native lands, as this bill
would do, will also affect 80,000 Alaska Native
shareholders throughout Alaska, 11 other Regional
Corporations and 200+ village corporations statewide.
Those individuals and corporations rely upon resource
revenue sharing under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. HB 134's prohibitions will directly
and inalterably impact BBNC's ability to share
resource revenues.
HB 134 is bad for Bristol Bay, it is bad for Alaska,
and it is disastrous for Village corporations.
11:12:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if the clients involved are
comfortable with the current regulatory process. [Inaudible.]
MR. FORTIER replied, absolutely. The process is fair and works,
he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired whether any of the clients
actively take part in the regulatory process [inaudible].
MR. FORTIER answered that they do, or he represents them.
11:13:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to the number of shareholders
Mr. Fortier is representing.
MR. FORTIER reported that the Alaska Peninsula Corporation has
over 640 shareholders, Twin Hills Native Corporation has about
70. He is also appearing on behalf of the Alaska Federation of
Natives, which is the representative body for most of the
state's Native organizations. Further, he stated that 90
thousand acres of land are held in common by Choggiung and other
Bristol Bay village corporations. This Native land pool was
formed for the express purpose of economic development,
including mineral, oil, and gas interests.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON [Inaudible.] He referred to Title 16
statute to read the existing penalties for interfering/violating
a salmon spawning area; $500.
MR. FORTIER responded that Sec. 030 prohibits unpermitted
interference. He opined that HB 134 would criminalize
previously legal activities.
11:16:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if habitat being located within DNR
constitutes a concern.
MR. FORTIER said that the present regulatory scheme is
acceptable.
11:18:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reiterated that the concept of the bill is
to provide clean water habitat for salmon spawning, and inquired
if his clients oppose that concept.
MR. FORTIER stated that, if the question is whether his clients
oppose protecting water, the bill goes beyond that scope. He
opined that private property interests are protected under the
state constitution, and he considers the bill to be an attack on
private property owners in the Bristol Bay region.
11:22:19 AM
DAN DUNAWAY specified that although he is an alternate member of
the Nushagak Fish and Game Advisory Board; a member of the
Bristol Bay Advisory Council; and retired fisheries biologist;
he is speaking on his own behalf. He paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I support HB 134 in its general intent. We must
protect the water end fish habitat in the Bristol Bay
area. The fish populations dependent on pristine
waters of our area are critical to the subsistence
users as well as world renowned to the sport and
commercial fisheries. I believe the Bristol Bay WILD,
NATURALLY PROPAGATED fish adds significantly to the
value and prestige of all Alaska's fisheries, like
Cadillac adds prestige to GM automobiles. Since 1990
trout management has been guided by the South West
Alaska Rainbow Trout Management Plan that specifically
precludes enhancement and artificial propagation. A
survey conducted prior to implementing the plan found
people don't come here to catch hatchery fish, they
want wild natural salmon and trout.
Support for this and other bills comes from a fear
that environmental protections were greatly diminished
under Governor Murkowski. As yet Governor Palin has
refused to restore the Habitat Division to Fish and
Game, and allowed the Commissioner of DNR to belittle
environmentally concerned Alaskans. We are no longer
certain the State has the most rigorous and effective
environmental standards or the will to enforce them.
We acknowledge this bill needs improvement. Changes
to this bill should include provisions for small to
moderate scale water uses, especially for
environmentally sound commercial operations such as
the local farmer Mark [Herrmann]. I don't want to see
small environmentally sound economic development
discouraged. I also suggest through this bill or by
resurrecting older bills we should make instream flow
reservations for all waters in Bristol Bay prior to
allowing large industrial water use.
I have met a number of people who can afford to fish
anywhere in the world who say Bristol Bay is the best,
their favorite place to come world wide. Many more,
especially European anglers told me - take care of
what you have, protect it, there are fewer and fewer
places like this. This area is a valuable resource as
it is and could become more rare than gold in the
future.
11:27:12 AM
MR. DUNAWAY, responding to a question from the committee, stated
that Christopher Estes was the state specialist on instream flow
reservations. He related, "It was a really important thing
about preserving water rights and instream flow for fish
populations throughout Alaska, but I understand it's a very
incomplete process."
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the public information table,
and the six-page legal brief regarding water right issues.
11:29:04 AM
CHENISE NELSON, Student Representative, Dillingham High School,
stated support for the concept of the bill, on behalf of her
high school. She offered a picture of the traditional use of
the area by the Natives, vs. foreign investors, and asked the
committee, "Who do you represent?" Considering it a threat to
the fish habitat, she finished, "If the Pebble Mine were to be,
life as we know it would cease to exist."
11:29:38 AM
HEIDI ANDREWS, Student Representative, Dillingham High School,
said that mines are notoriously harmful to areas, particularly
open pit mines. She reviewed the use of cyanide, as an
extraction agent, and the environmental threat that it poses.
Tourism and the subsistence life style would be jeopardized by
mining activities.
The committee took a brief at ease from 11:32 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.
11:35:35 AM
TERRY HOEFFERLE [The beginning audio was not captured, his
written testimony is provided in its entirety.] paraphrased from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I am the fourth son of Henry and Anne Hoefferle, and
was born and raised in the Gogebic Mining District on
the south shore of Lake Superior. For 35 years I have
been a subsistence and sport hunter and fisherman in
Western Alaska. During that time I have been a
commercial fisherman, educator, and bureaucrat.
In my testimony today I want to support protection of
wild salmon and clean water and prohibit threats to
these. In doing so, if time permits, I intend to:
Encourage combining HB 134 and SB 67. Ideas in
[these] bills are not mutually exclusive and
complement each other.
Address problems with Exclusions and Prohibitions in
HB 134, which might lead to an exhaustive list of
exceptions (needs to be rewritten).
Prohibitions of: Specific operations that "use or
generate" cyanide, sulfuric acid, or other toxic
reagents. Prohibit large scale industrial and
commercial use, all others exempt.
Shortcomings of our management regime to address these
issues. Put it in ADF&G like SB 67 does, not DNR/DEC.
DNR is set up to expedite and encourage mining
permits, as though these are the highest and best use
of our resources. More stringent standards.
Speak to the urgency of taking legislative action now.
I want to express my concern about proposals to
operate massive mines in the headwaters of our rivers.
This is an exceptional, fragile environment which
demands exceptional measures of us to protect it. I
speak in favor of HB 134, or some combination of 134
with SB 67 as measures beyond the current regulatory
regime that should be enacted.
Multinational resource extraction companies are not
charitable organizations. As profit making
corporations, law requires of them a fiduciary
responsibility to the bottom line. If the citizens of
Alaska want a mining company to do anything that would
diminish its profits, including often costly
environmental safeguards, it is their responsibility
to make and enforce laws demanding those things. Our
current regulatory regime is woefully inadequate.
We are not talking about mom and pop gold panning or
placer mining. It is not likely that anyone will see
either a nugget or a flake of gold from the type of
mining operations contemplated here. The ore
concentrate carried away from the mine site represents
only a tiny fraction of the earth that must be dug up.
The remainder is waste rock and tailings. Hundreds of
millions of tons of those tailings will be toxic and
need to be safeguarded forever. Northern Dynasty
Mines (NDM) proposes nothing different from low grade
metallic sulfide mines that have already failed. NDM
simply proposes a greater scale - to accommodate as
much as 8.2 billion tons of waste.
I have heard two spurious claims repeated by opponents
to HB 134: 1. A mine can be developed safely here,
and 2. Alaska has some of the most stringent mining
laws in the world. These are patently false.
The chemical nature and location of the rock at the
mine site makes the release of sulfuric acid and toxic
copper into waters a virtual certainty. According to
a recent survey, the governmental success rate in
permitting, so as to prevent such contamination, has
been demonstrated to be exceptionally poor - a 93%
failure rate, nationwide. There are reasons for such
dismal results: One of the most prominent reasons is
shortcomings in public policy.
DNR, faced with a massive failure rate at similar
mines around the country, in much more arid climates,
is not credible in its claim that its permitting
process will work when others have failed. This is
why it is so important for the Legislature to enact
legislation now that conserves the Bristol Bay
drainages and establishes processes and standards that
protect those drainages. Doing so is the only way to
serve the public and protect Alaskan's interests in
the natural resources that belong to them.
There are many (including our Governor) who advocate
letting the permitting process take its course. This
approach presupposes that our permitting process
indeed adequately protects those precious resources.
Experience, and a review of applicable law shows that
it does not. The permitting process gives Alaskans no
say until the decisions are made, by the fox told to
guard the henhouse (paid permitting staff, DEC and DNR
heads who have ties to the industry). Existing law
and regulatory regime regarding mining and water are
at a par with oil protocols in place prior to Prudhoe
Bay and Exxon Valdez. Two pages in Statute. The
current process places the interest of large
multinational corporations above the needs of the
people of Alaska.
This begs the question: "Can the mining companies
point to a single similar open pit mine that did not
significantly pollute water and destroy land?"
Mining companies have claimed in the press that they
can develop mega mines in Bristol Bay without hurting
the environment. Let's take them at their word and
add to the permit process the requirement of
Wisconsin's 1997 Act 171 which demands that any
company mining in sulfite bearing rock: provide
examples of mining operation in the U.S. or Canada
that have not resulted in significant environmental
pollution.
The law includes specific qualifying criteria that
must be satisfied in order for the example site, or
sites, to be considered. The mining company must
submit documentation from groundwater/surface water
monitoring that includes data showing that: (1) An
example mine has been closed for 10 years without the
pollution of groundwater or surface water from acid
drainage at the tailings site or at the mine site or
from the release of heavy metals; and (2) An example
mine has operated for 10 years without the pollution
of groundwater or surface water from acid drainage at
the tailings site or at the mine site or from the
release of heavy metals.
OR make the prohibitions in HB 134 more specific:
1. Prohibit: a. use or generation of cyanide,
sulfuric acid, or toxic or acidic ore processing or
reagents; b. storage or disposal of industrial waste,
mining waste rock or overburden, mining processing or
beneficiation products or byproducts, tailings, or
chemically processed ore or waste, and c. withdrawal,
appropriation, obstruction, channeling, injection,
pollution or alteration, on either a temporary or
permanent basis, any surface or subsurface water
hydrologically interrelated or connected to waters in
the area covered by the bill.
2. No state agency shall issue a permit or
authorization for prohibited activities or that would
have potential to create acid mine or acid rock
drainage into surface or groundwater. For mining
sulfide minerals or ores, both the mining area and
affected area, including all facilities, shall be
reclaimed and remediated to achieve a naturally self-
sustaining ecosystem appropriate for the area that
does not require long-term or perpetual care,
including treatment, and the areas shall be returned
as expeditiously as possible to the ecological
conditions that approximate pre-mining conditions.
3. Any permit, lease compatibility determination, or
authorization for facilities related to mining sulfide
minerals or ores in the protection area shall be
subject to a public notice and comment period after
which the agency shall respond to comments in writing
and with scientific or technical justification for the
agency's position.
11:37:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested that he speak to the scale, modification
of the bills, and [inaudible]. Further, he asked if a per day
water use volume limit should be considered.
MR. HOEFFERLE opined that a prohibition on large scale
industrial/commercial uses, would be in order. Any operation
with upwards of 300 million tons of toxic waste, cannot be
compared with operating a fish hatchery, or a salmon processing
plant. Any operation of a size that could operate on a 160 acre
Native allotment would be of an allowable scale. The statutes
that govern oil development and water, are [visually indicated]
thick. Contrast that with the mining and water statutes, which
cover two pages. The laws governing mining water are not
current, and are woefully inadequate, he said.
11:41:47 AM
ANDREW DEVALPINE, Director, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service
Area (BBCRSA), paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
It is no accident that the very first legislative acts
of the Murkowski administration were to rework the
Alaska Coastal Management Program [(ACMP)] and to move
fish and game's habitat division into the Department
of Natural Resources. These moves were made under the
mantle of streamlining. In the world of coastal
management, their effect was to disenfranchise local
districts.
The original ACMP was designed to give local
governments and districts a way to comment on
development in their regions and to have these
comments integrated into state and federal law -
districts would have policies that reflected local
priorities, and those policies gave local comments
legal heft. That is to say, comments tied to these
policies were backed up by statute and regulation.
The Murkowski ACMP eliminated that connection and
pulled the ACMP authorities back into the state
agencies. Local districts could still comment, but
they would, in effect, have no more local policies to
base their comments on and, hence, no statutory tie-
in. This is how the Murkowski administration
disenfranchised the local districts.
Rep. Edgmon's bill is predicated on the notion that
the watersheds feeding into the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve are inadequately protected. As we went
through the ACMP revision and the Habitat division
move, we were assured that the fundamental statutes
and regulations the agencies work under remained
intact and, consequently, environmental protection was
uncompromised.
While this is true to an extent - agency statutes and
regulations are intact - the Habitat division in
particular has lost the hooks that local policies gave
them to hang their project stipulations on. What
Habitat has to work with henceforth remains to be
seen, in my experience, but one thing is certain -
local concerns will not be so well represented.
Does this mean Habitat, and the other agencies, are
inadequate to the task of regulating a Pebble Mine? I
call your attention to the Kuipers Report. This a
systematic, peer-reviewed study that examines the
accuracy of Environmental Impact Statements written
for a sampling of mining operations. The findings
show that EIS's failed to predict water-quality
impacts in a significant percentage of these studies.
The shortcomings boil down to testing for acid-rock
drainage. Bottom line - there is no test that
adequately foretells how different bodies of waste
rock will behave over time. There are a variety of
tests - collectively called kinetic bench tests - and
all of their shortcomings involve lack of time to
adequately assess how different ores behave.
I have not found any part of the DEC regulations that
even mention these tests. This is the sort of thing
we would like to have policies on. But you know what?
We can't. The state tells us every area we want to
address with our policies is covered by the various
agencies -- yet the state has nothing on this. So,
no, it does not appear to us that the watershed is
adequately protected.
11:46:27 AM
DEWAYNE JOHNSON stated support for HB 134, because it will
ensure water for the residents, as opposed to allowing the mine
to prioritize water usage. If water levels are low, the village
people will not be able to obtain supplies via barge. Flying
supplies in would be cost prohibitive, he opined.
11:47:24 AM
JOE FAITH said that HB 134 is necessary to protect the water in
Bristol Bay, especially from harmful water diversions, and
pollutions. He reminded the committee that they are charged
with "regulating the regulators." Permitting predictions, often
do not match the reality once mining begins. Up to 90 percent
of the current operating mines, have exceeded water quality
standards. One hole in the permitting process is the lack of
regulations for mercury emissions for gold mining; except as a
hazardous pollutant when a single mine exceeds 20 thousand
pounds. He said this could risk having advisories issued for
daily salmon consumption limits. Mercury emission standards
should be required for the entire state, he maintained. Other
concerns he posed were: Pebble Mine as an experiment, due to it
size and operating conditions; water requirements for operating
the mine; salmon runs; volcanic conditions in the area; and the
potential for earthquakes. Additionally, other mines may be
developed in the area, requiring more water. He likened the
subsistence resources to a neighborhood grocery store, and said,
"You wouldn't want somebody to go to your store and threaten it
with cyanide and sulfuric acid." Water is the source of life
and needs to be protected by this bill, and he requested it be
passed with the appropriate amendments.
11:50:52 AM
BOBBY ANDREW, Spokesman, Nunamta Aulukestai, praised the
committee for journeying to the region, and encouraged them to
do the same throughout the state, when other regions stand to be
impacted by similarly important legislation. He pointed out the
village resolutions that have been passed to oppose the Pebble
Mine. The effects of mineral development will be evident in the
water quality, as well as the air, and land. Water, as the
source of life, is fundamental for the health of the areas
renewable resources, and the residents who depend upon them. He
called for all of the watersheds of the area to be protected, as
spawning grounds for the anadromous and non anadromous fish.
The subsistence life style has sustained the people of the
region, who consider themselves "rich in many ways." Many have
chosen to lead a western culture based life, and many live
between that and their traditional culture. The village
corporation leaders have the responsibility to protect the land,
as they were selected for their ability to sustain renewable
resources, as well as future economic development purposes. He
stated support for the amendment proposed by Ralph Andersen
[same day testimony taken at 10:18:00]. He acknowledged that
some villages passed resolutions in support of the original HB
134. Finally, he offered to be a facilitator for committee
members interested in visiting any of the villages.
11:57:05 AM
PATRICIA TREYDTE, as a commercial fisher and subsistence user,
stated that the Pebble Mine could only be detrimental to the
area. She cautioned that the bill is broad, and in need of
amendments. The individual exceptions pose a problem, she
opined, stating that private property rights are extremely
important whether they effect individuals, Native corporations,
or Native allotments. However, those rights must be balanced
with protecting the resources, as the resources belong to
everyone; everyone depends on them. Imposing restrictions based
on the scale of the project may be the best approach, vs.
individual exceptions which could cause unintended consequences.
12:01:28 PM
ALICE RUBY, Mayor, City of Dillingham, stated that the city
supports HB 134 in its concept and intent. She paraphrased from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
My name is Alice Ruby and I am speaking to you now as
the Mayor of the City of Dillingham. Welcome to
Dillingham again. Thank you for coming here and
allowing us to speak to you in person.
We understand that you flew over the Nushagak and
Kvichak drainages during the past couple of days. So
you are somewhat familiar with the geography of our
area. The water body that flows past our community is
the mouth of the Nushagak River - the Mulchatna River
flow[s] into the Nushagak and literally past our front
door.
Dillingham is a first class city. We are located
outside of the Lake and Pen Borough boundaries and we
are a part of the unorganized borough. Our municipal
boundaries extend about 11 miles north and about 6
miles west. They generally follow the shores of the
Nushagak and Wood Rivers.
We have about a $10 million annual municipal budget.
Of that, about $5 million is the School district and
$5 million is city operations. Our city contributed
$1.3 million to the City school district for FY 08 -
that is an increase from about $1.1 in FY07 and $1.2
in FY06 - please note that our school contribution is
almost twice what is required by law.
We are a permanent population of about 2500 people.
But at any time you will see hundreds and sometimes
thousands more people moving through our community.
During the summer months, hundreds of people flow
through for commercial fishing - fishermen,
crewmembers, processing labor force and the fishing
support industry. Fortunate or unfortunate, a large
percentage of those people are from outside of our
region - from around the state and around the nation.
We are a transition and transportation hub for the
Togiak National Wildlife refuge, the Wood Tikchik
State Park and the Nushagak/Mulchatna Watershed.
During the spring, summer and fall, we see hundreds of
people flow through our community in route to the 50#
lodges and dozens of temporary sport fishing and
hunting camps in those areas. A client will pay from
a few hundred to over $5,000 per week to visit one of
those sites.
We support our city through a 13 mill property tax, a
6 percent sales tax, a 10 percent bed & alcohol tax
and a variety of user fees via our dock, harbor,
landfill, water & sewer and others.
In about 2 months our voters will be presented with a
proposition for a $15 million G.O. [General
Obligation] Bond to renovate our schools. We expect
to take advantage of the state's debt reimbursement
program and we expect to be able to repay the bond by
holding tight to our current level of service.
We choose to tax ourselves fairly heavily; especially
relative to other communities within our region. We
do so because we want to maintain and grow our
infrastructure and ultimately the community that we
have.
It's no secret to any resident in our community that
we're struggling. We are an economy in recovery. Our
cost of living is high from everyday groceries to our
energy.
Our economy and ultimately the community's tax base
are critically dependent upon our renewable resources
- that is our fish, game and the habitat that sustains
us. Whether it is commercial fishing, commercial
recreation, private recreation, or subsistence
activities. We choose to grow our economy based on
the resources that surround us - we have chosen to
make an effort to enhance our fishing industry and our
recreational industry.
Anything that happens in the headwaters of the
Nushagak/Mulchatna Rivers will have an affect on our
community. It will affect our social as well as our
economic well being and our future. That is why the
City of Dillingham has taken a position of "Fish
First". Any activity that threatens the water quality
of the river is of great concern to our community. We
must protect those renewable resources and we must
protect the river that feeds us.
HB 134 represents the protections that are needed for
the river bodies that feed our community and the
economy that we are continuing to try to grow. We
strongly urge your support.
I listened with interest to some of the suggestions
for modifying the bill. We agree that there is
probably room for some modifications to the bill. The
exemptions could be broadened to include community
development. Though the council hasn't given
direction, I believe that the suggestion that the
prohibited activities could be based on size or
magnitude has some potential for clarifying. I don't
believe the council would support exclusion of land by
ownership status because it is the water column that
is being addressed. All lands whether federal, state,
private, or trust lands (such as allotments) should be
considered; otherwise excluding parcels in a patchwork
pattern would probably defeat the purpose of the bill.
12:04:17 PM
DOROTHY B. LARSON said that although she is an administrator for
the Curyung Tribal Council and vice-president of Curyung Limited
Corporation, she related that the Curyung Tribal Council
supports HB 134, pending modification. She pointed out that the
intent, although dealing with water usage, extends to protect
all of the habitat/environment in the region; perhaps state and
worldwide. Monetary value is placed on economic development,
however, a monetary value should also be attached to the
subsistence factor of the renewable resources. This inherent
value may be difficult to ascertain, but she reported that for
her family it would amount to approximately $27,000; considering
what they would have to purchase if they could not consume
salmon, moose, caribou, duck, geese, berries, and other natural
resources. She stipulated that this figure should be considered
conservative, and explained how she arrived at the total. These
"backyard" resources are all dependent on water and a quality
habitat. Extrapolating this figure to encompass the 800
Dillingham households, and the sub regional residents, the
figure is over $21 million dollars annually. The inherent value
cannot be priced, she opined. The state should take a stand on
protection over development. She stated that she is not against
development, however, some opportunities are more feasible in
light of the harm and adverse effects that they could cause to
the environment.
12:09:26 PM
GEORGE WILSON, JR., introduced himself as a commercial fisherman
and subsistence user. He stated support for the bill, with
modification to allow fish processors to expand, and other dock
construction to occur. Additionally, he suggested that private
and Native land should be exempt for small commercial business.
Industrial scale development should not be allowed, he opined.
12:11:22 PM
ANNA NIELSEN, Elder, as an elder, she related a story, from her
youth, of the reindeer herders, who would visit her home village
of Nushagak once a year to slaughter several hundred deer. The
early fishing operations of the area were also related. She
pointed out that the common thread was the care of the land.
These groups would always leave a "clean camp," she said,
because of their concern for the environment. She opined that
people do not take the same level of care today. The animals
must be cared for, via a clean habitat, and she expressed
concern for the detrimental effects, and what would be left
behind, should a large scale mine begin operations.
12:18:08 PM
RUSSELL NELSON paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I believe that the Bristol Bay watershed needs
protection for the sake of our salmon economy and
lifestyle. My biggest fear is we would trade a long
term renewable economy for a short term non-renewable
economy that has the potential of destroying not only
the salmon populations that this community depends on,
but also the tourism that has been built up here over
the past several decades.
The only concern that I have with this bill is, that I
would like to make sure that we can still continue to
develop gravel pits, rock quarries, roads, and power
lines between the villages and towns as necessary when
the people in the communities of Bristol Bay require
them.
While you are here I hope you will take time to look
at our schools and keep in mind that Research shows a
Facility condition may have a stronger effect on
student performance than the influences of family
background, socioeconomic status, school attendance,
and behavior combined. Well designed facilities send
a powerful message to kids about the importance a
community places on education.
12:20:07 PM
RICK TENNYSON, Land Manager, Choggiung Limited, paraphrased from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Choggiung Limited Village Corporation represents the
villages of Dillingham, Ekuk, and Portage Creek with
over 1700 shareholders most residing in the Bristol
Bay region, and is owner of about 350,000 acres of
land. Choggiung opposes the development of open pit
mining in Bristol Bay region; therefore, we support
house bill 134 in its existing version or a similar
version.
Choggiung's Mission Statement:
Choggiung's mission is to be a profitable corporation
ensuring current and future shareholder benefits, as
we protect our land, and respect our people and
heritage.
As with many Alaskan locations Bristol Bay is unique.
Bristol Bay's unique is our abundance of wild salmon,
Bristol Bay hosts the world's largest sockeye salmon
run. These salmon along with many species of trout
thrive in our naturally pristine waters. People from
all over the world come to enjoy our pristine
environment, but they leave the land and water as they
found it, pristine.
These natal pristine waters provide nourishment to our
mammals, fish, plants, and berries. All of which are
vital to our subsistence way of life.
These waters not only provide for our subsistence
needs, but our economic needs as well. The combined
commercial value of salmon, halibut, and herring
totaled over $100 million in 2005. This industry has
been our economic engine for more then the past
century. Each year this industry leaves the land and
water as they found it, pristine.
Open pit mining will forever change the regional
demographics of our land and water. This will affect
our subsistence and economic lifestyle of Bristol Bay.
We the local residents, down stream of an open pit
mine will receive little or no economic benefits from
an open pit mine, but we will be the one receiving the
blunt of the affects of an open pit mine. These
affects could be subtle, such as mine employees
competing for our subsistence foods or as catastrophic
as injecting toxic waste in to our aquifer. This
would kill our mammals, fish, plants, and berries
totally destroying our subsistence way of life,
leaving the residents down stream with absolutely
nothing.
Choggiung Limited shareholders voted at its 2006
Annual Shareholder meeting at a ratio of three to one
to oppose open pit mining in the Bristol Bay region.
Choggiung Limited Village Corporation strongly
supports economic development and the creation of jobs
in Bristol Bay but is unwilling to compromise its
longstanding relationship with our land, water, and
traditional lifestyle. Any economic benefits an open
pit mine may offer in the Bristol Bay region is not
worth risking our subsistence way of life.
12:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN [Inaudible.]
MR. TENNYSON responded that Choggiung is in partnership with the
Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), operating a rock
quarry/gravel business. Additionally there have: land leases
along the Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers; commercial fishing
interests; and commercial and residential rental units in town.
12:24:20 PM
ROBERT HEYANO noted that he is a commercial fisherman and
subsistence user. He stated that he supports the concept of HB
134, and paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I support the concept of HB 134 for the following
reasons:
1) Clean water and fish habitat are essential for
maintaining the fish resources of Bristol Bay. Under
Federal management and before enactment of the 200
mile limit the Bristol Bay salmon returns experienced
periods of very low levels. Through conservative
management and because of the fact that the water and
fish habitat were pristine and undisturbed the salmon
resources rebounded to all time high levels without
the aid of a single hatchery.
2) I believe the actions taken by the past
administration, moving habitat from Fish and Game to
DNR, the loss of senior experienced management the
move created within habitat division, changes to the
Alaska Coastal Resource Management program reducing
their effectiveness on habitat protection, and
allowing mixing zones in salmon spawning streams has
weaken the protection of fish and their habitat
through the permitting process. Protecting clean
water through legislation such as HB 134 would place
it in statute and prevent further administrations from
changing it by EO.
3) The Alaska Board of Fisheries after their December
Bristol Bay meeting gathered additional information
and concluded at their March 2007 meeting that there
are not sufficient habitat protections in place for
the Bristol Bay fishery.
4) The image of Alaska with its clean and pristine
waters sells Alaska produced seafood products.
Approximately 2 years ago Bristol Bay drift gillnet
permit holders established the second RSDA in the
State of Alaska and voted in support of a 1% self
assessment tax to fund the RSDA, The primary goal for
the RSDA is to increase the value of the fish to the
harvester. With all the publicity and attention that
the Northern Dynasty mineral deposit has generated, my
concern is that without additional protections for
assurance of clean water the mining activity would
have a serious negative impact to the primary goal of
the RSDA.
5) The value and uniqueness of the salmon and resident
species of fish resources in this area require
additional protections such as what HB 134 would
provide.
12:28:11 PM
HJALMAR OLSON, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Bristol Bay
Native Corporation; Member, Board of the Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN); Member, Nushagak Fish and Game Advisory
Committee; stated that earlier testimony of the AFN Board taking
a stance on this bill, should be considered erroneous. When the
board convenes in Fairbanks, in the next month, the issue may be
on the agenda, however, he reported AFN generally takes
positions on statewide issues only, not regional issues of this
type.
12:30:09 PM
RACHEL MUIR paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I have only lived in Dillingham for fifteen years, but
living in a place pristine enough to support wild
salmon habitat is an honor and, globally, is becoming
a rare privilege. I support measures such as House
Bill 134 to restore protection of the watershed of
Bristol Bay.
12:30:46 PM
MIKE DAVIS recalled the effort that was expended on hearings, in
the 1970's, to appropriately address regulatory measures for the
impending oil development. He suggested that an eco system will
be impacted, by the proposed [Pebble Mine], and opined that
existing regulations do not address the protection of an entire
eco system. The legislature should take up the task of ensuring
this type of regulation, he suggested. He requested that the
committee modify and support this legislation, as it is a "step
in the right direction."
12:32:35 PM
RICK HALFORD stated support for the concept of HB 134, and said:
There's a lesson in this bill for all of us. You
know, Mr. Edgmon started out with a draft request to
Legislative Legal; probably to build a rifle to shoot
a moose 250 yards away. ... The lawyers ... went all
through this, in every direction, and sent him back a
shotgun, and the moose is still 250 yards away. And
we're spending all of our time arguing about where the
stray pellets go. The bottom line is the Pebble Mine.
It's hard to avoid getting back to that, because it's
mega projects we're talking about not little projects.
MR. HALFORD continued, handing out a visual page to the
committee, indicating the scope of the Pebble Mine. He
underscored that it is the largest project of its kind in the
world. He sympathized with the situation that the committee is
faced with: the largest salmon run on earth, and a this mega
project that sits in a saddle between the two drainages that
feed that fishery. Corporations are not allowed to have a
conscience, because it's an economic instrument, he pointed out.
He explained contribution restrictions that govern corporations,
as such contributions are inherently used to sway decisions.
The only way in which a corporation is allowed to contribute
funds is if it is intended to create a better environment for
their work, and, eventually, to lead to a better bottom line for
their stock holders. He went on:
That means leave less in Alaska; take more from
Alaska. Article 8, of the constitution, Sec. 13 talks
about water rights. ... It finishes with: "water
rights are subject to the general reservation of fish
and wildlife." That's after everything else, and
applies to everything else. Now, what reservation is
there for the Upper Talarik Creek fish when his
spawning bed ... is at the bottom of a two thousand
foot deep hole that's three miles wide. Somehow you
have to figure out what to do with that. I don't know
that you will be able to deal with it in this bill.
Again, it's become a shotgun, it needs to be a rifle.
It needs to exempt all of the small things that we're
too worried about and deal with the mega projects that
we are worried about. But one of the things that you
hear ... is let the permitting process work. ... That
sounds good. But be worried that that's code for "let
us get far enough that we establish court enforceable
rights, that we can then sue you for, and you can
never afford to stop us." ... At the very least, amend
the mineral leasing act to say that no court
enforceable rights accrue until after the permits are
actually issued.
12:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES recalled when Mr. Halford, a former
legislator, represented his district. [Inaudible.]
MR. HALFORD responded, "I'm afraid I have. Again the magnitude
is unbelievable." He likened it to the Prudhoe Bay development,
and speculated that it will spawn a number of organizations to
take up the issue. It's bigger than ANWR, or the gas line, it
is the biggest issue on the horizon for the state, he opined.
The values on both sides are astronomical and set up "the
perfect storm" for a discussion between renewable and non-
renewable resources. He predicted the battle will ensue for
some time to come.
12:39:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified the amendment that he suggested
be made to the bill: disallowing enforceable rights to accrue
until after the permits are issued.
MR. HALFORD cautioned against allowing the permitting process to
proceed, expecting that the project could be disallowed via that
process. The investment that the corporation establishes,
through that process, entitles them to property rights, which
can be litigated. At that point, the state would not be able to
afford to stop the development, despite the dangers to the other
resources. A $50 billion lawsuit would have to go unchallenged.
To avoid a legal trap, this point needs to be clarified by
Legislative Legal, and included in the bill.
12:41:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked about the permitting process and the
location of the Office of Habitat [inaudible].
MR. HALFORD responded that at some point you have to have an
investment climate that operates. The exploration aspect can be
economic for the region, even if the long term project is not
supported; a conflict that needs to be avoided.
12:42:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES recalled that when Mr. Halford was a
legislator there was legislation that addressed watersheds.
[Inaudible.]
MR. HALFORD said that years ago he opposed legislation that he
wished he had not. The legislation amplified the aforementioned
section and discussed inflow stream reservations for salmon. He
referred again to Article 8, Sec. 13, to emphasize the point he
made earlier for reservation of habitat. Further, he stressed
that the size of this mineral project is unparalleled.
12:44:40 PM
THOMAS TILDEN, Member, Choggiung Tribe; Representative,
Choggiung Limited; on behalf of the Choggiung Tribe and
Choggiung Limited, stated support for the concept of HB 134, and
said the tribe would be willing to work with the committee on
appropriate modifications. He recalled the formation of the
Comprehensive Bristol Bay Plan in 1982. At that time, the
Native interests focused on protection of the salmon habitat,
including the extensive watershed. The concern was submitted to
be included in the comprehensive plan and was overruled by the
mining industry and the state. He said, "It seems as though ...
the State of Alaska is something that we are fighting with."
This fight extends to the Coastal Zone Management Plan, and the
issuance of water permits. He pointed out that the fisheries of
Bristol Bay belong not only to Alaska, but to the nation, as
people come from around the nation to fish, or work during the
season. He expanded the scope to the international arena,
considering the exportation of the fish products to the global
market. Further, he stated, "What we are working with here is
an 1872 law." At that time the gold was visible in the ore, but
today the method does not require visual evidence. The gold is
extracted utilizing cyanide, and other caustic chemicals that
are harmful in the environment. When his father came to Alaska,
he recounted, he came as a gold miner. After several seasons of
mining, he discovered his gold in the renewable resources of the
region. He finished:
That's what we find, here in Bristol Bay, is we have
found our gold. And our gold is about ready to be
trashed. You don't plant a cabbage field, and throw a
... herd of cattle in it, and expect to eat cabbage
afterwards; it's not going to be there. It's just
like putting a mine ... at the head of the watershed
of our salmon streams. One of them is going to go.
You're going to either eat beef or salmon. But I
doubt very much you're going to be eating any salmon,
because I think you're going to have to find a way to
eat gold. And we don't want to eat gold. ... To
thrive the way that we thrive we need to continue to
live the way that we live. ... We know that this
particular bill is not perfect, but we love the
intent. We want to continue to live our lifestyle,
and we depend on you to protect us, and watch over us,
by doing what is right; making the changes so that
this bill is doable for all of us.
12:49:20 PM
ULU TILDEN said, following college, she chose to return to her
childhood home of Dillingham to live and work as a biologist.
She related that this summer she obtained a job coordinating six
interns, some of which entered the situation unsure of their
education but left wanting to be biologists. The aforementioned
is just one example, she said, of ways that the young people of
the area can find work. She opined that there are other avenues
to diversify the local economy without turning to something as
high risk as a mine. Ms. Tilden informed the committee that she
is a finalist for the Alaska Marketplace Award with the hope to
start an organic farm if she is funded. Although she
characterized the spirit of HB 134 as good, she expressed the
need for modifications to the legislation in order to allow
smaller renewable development. She pledged her support for
protecting the watersheds from high risk development for future
generations.
12:50:49 PM
KAREN MCCAMBLY related that last year she testified before the
Board of Fisheries as a commercial [fisher] and subsistence
user. She said that her thoughts have not changed. As a mother
and youth advocate of Dillingham, Ms. McCambly said that she is
present today for the children because what is done today will
be of consequence of [their] future and livelihood. The
decisions that will be made will make or break the residents of
the region. She then paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
We must first protect our water quality by not
allowing the Pebble Mine to be developed in this
region. Earlier in the year, Northern Dynasty Mines
sent out some representatives to "inform" the people
of this region about their plans. Their presentation
was mediocre, their answers vague, and their concern
for us was none existent. Afterward it was clear that
they were not out here for us, they were here because
it was good for their PR [public relations]. My
question for them is how much money is enough, so that
they can sleep at night, after telling us that
everything is going to be OK. Luckily, ladies and
gentlemen of the legislature, you have the power to
put us at ease. ... I am asking that when you ...
write HB 134, that you please remember us. Remember
the people who took time away from their jobs,
remember the students who took time away from their
class, remember everyone who stood before you, because
they felt that it was important to share with you
their feelings, their thoughts, and the anxiety of the
project that is before us. ... Thank you for acting on
what is in the best interest of the people. All I ask
is that you ... do for us what we cannot do for
ourselves. You are the voice of the people.
12:53:42 PM
STEVE WASSILY, JR., introduced himself as a generational
commercial fisherman living a subsistence lifestyle. There are
few jobs in the villages, making subsistence crucial. He
related his opposition to the Pebble Mine as he feared for what
the Pebble Mine would do to the region's environment, and
subsistence lifestyle.
12:56:51 PM
MARIAN SMALL suggested that part of Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) should have addressed the
protection of the water, Native livelihoods, and Native culture.
She said:
Every raindrop that falls down, goes down into our
land, and our creeks, and to our bodies. There's no
job in this world that's going to support our families
forever. Every raindrop is needed in order for our
Native culture, and lifestyle to survive.
12:58:17 PM
STAN SMALL, speaking as a commercial fisherman, recalled
discussion from a Board of Fisheries meeting in which the Pebble
Mine mentioned the possibility of using an earthen dam. After
looking into the use of an earthen dam, Mr. Small related that
he discovered an earthen dam that failed in Idaho, creating
casualties. Pebble Mine is proposing an earthen dam, and should
it fail, it would be toxic water cascading forth and destroying
the environment. He offered support for the bill, but needs
some work.
1:00:18 PM
HELEN CYTHLOOK paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am representing myself, but do have some comments
for the Qayassiq Walrus Commission (QWC) and the
Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Council (BBMMC) I work for.
Although what I say does not currently reflect what
their stance on this HB 134 Bill is.
I am an Aleknagik Traditional Council member. I have
commercially fished all my life 'til recently some
personal health problems have prevented me from
participating in the seasonal fishery. Although, I
along with the majority of the Bristol Bay and the
Alaska Peninsula heavily rely on our year-round
traditional activities of harvesting and gathering for
our food resources which include mainly in the
Nushagak area salmon, or 'sayaq, neqa" in the Yupik
Eskimo language. Our late father, Tom Chythlook,
taught us to practice our traditional way of life,
which includes Native traditional values/customs of
treating the land, the seas, the water, and the air we
breathe in with utmost respect, like walking into a
church with reference. One, because the lands, the
earth, and the environments our traditional Native
ancestor's or ciurllaq's walked on are sacred
traditional areas where they used to live on. Without
pure water, the marine and fresh water food resources
will die because they will stop being nourished by
water to grow, produce, and give themselves to us to
sustain us. We need to continue to protect our lands,
the lakes, the rivers, and the ocean ecosystem we
gather and harvest our traditional food resources.
Please reference the attached 2 documents I supplied
for you, a letter to Governor Sarah Palin, dated March
13, 2007, and a memo dated August 22, 2007, of some of
the concerns of the QWC I work for - #1. The QWC
Commissioners would like to be involved with any
environmental issues that will affect their
traditional way of life including - having agencies
work with them in conducting water quality test
monitoring of the commercial herring/salmon gillnet
fishery waters of Togiak, Nushagak, Naknek, Kvichak,
Egegik, and Ugashik Districts to establish a baseline.
Please refer to attached correspondence for further
details. I support Representative Edgmon's draft
working bill, HB 134, as long as our traditional way
of life will continue to be protected with no
restrictions, and to continue to give us the freedom
to gather and harvest our salmon, marine mammals,
moose, and caribou, herring, herring roe, clams, water
foul, bird eggs, medicinal and edible berries in pure
air, pure water, and a pure environment for
generations to come.
1:03:52 PM
PETER CHRISTOPHER, SR., related the wide area in which he
commercial fishes and subsists within. He then related his
support of HB 134, although he expressed the need for some
revisions. He stressed the importance of protecting the
watersheds of the area for the health of the fisheries, and
included concern for the health of the game animals in the area.
He reported visiting mines in Nevada, Fairbanks, and Nome,
stating that he was not impressed with any of them. He
described the river near Nome, where the mine has closed,
leaving the river polluted with an orange tinge, and juvenile
fish that are deformed. Also, the moose in the area have blue
livers, and the feathers of the cranes are not intact. "It
scares me," he said.
1:10:21 PM
MARGIE NELSON said that the watershed is the lifeline to the
Bristol Bay people and communities. "Without the health in our
watershed, what will we have?" she asked, and continued:
Water effects every part of our life. ... Water is
essential for our survival. Water is a cycle, it
effects our whole environment. I want my health, I
want my clean water, and I also want to keep our
salmon wild.
1:12:23 PM
JODY SEITZ stated support for the intent of HB 134. As a
researcher for ADF&G 18 years ago, she walked the length of
various aspects of the watershed. She related her opposition to
Pebble Mine. She opined on the sensitivity to salmon regarding
changes in their habitat, then clarified the necessity for
independent science and appropriately supported,
unbiased/unfettered scientists to prevail on the issue.
1:14:45 PM
KEVIN JENSEN noted that although he is a member of Pedro Bay
Village Council; director of the Pedro Bay Corporation; and an
employee of the formerly known as Northern Dynasty Mines, he is
speaking on his own behalf. He stated that information
regarding Pedro Bay may have been reported erroneously to the
committee regarding the geology of the area. Pedro Bay is
surrounded by wetlands, and does not sit on bedrock, as
mentioned. The bill would effect development plans that this
village has in place, including a deep water port and bridges.
He noted his opposition to HB 134, adding that there could have
been changes made to [the law] that's already in place.
1:17:15 PM
CHAIR SEATON thanked everyone for their participation.
[HB 134 was held over.]
1:17:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 1:18
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|