Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/18/2008 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
February 18, 2008
8:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen (via teleconference)
Representative Craig Johnson (via teleconference)
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
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
09/26/07 (H) Heard & Held
09/26/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/18/08 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ADAM BERG, Staff
to Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 134, and responded
to questions on behalf of the bill sponsor, Representative
Edgmon.
DAVID CHAMBERS, Ph.D., President
Center for Science in Public Participation
Bozeman, Montana
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and responded to
questions on HB 134.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions on HB 134.
ED FOGELS, Director
Office of Project Management & Permitting
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony and responded to
questions on HB 134.
SCOTT THORSEN (ph)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 134.
MARTHA CROW
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
MATTHEW NICOLAI, President
Calista Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 134.
TREFON ANGASAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 134.
RALPH ANGASAN SR., President
Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to HB 134.
DAN DUNAWAY
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
KAREN CURRY
Far Bank Enterprises
Bainbridge, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
FRANK WOODS
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
Nunamta Aulukestai
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
THOMAS TILDEN, Chief
Curyung Tribal Council
Choggiung Limited
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
JEREMIAH MILLEN, Field Representative
Alaska Wilderness League (AWL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
GEORGE MATZ
Cook Inlet Alliance
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
KONRAD SCHAAD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
MARK MUNRO
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
JOE FAITH
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
BRIAN KRAFT
Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:36:07 AM. Representatives
Seaton, Edgmon, Holmes, and LeDoux were present at the call to
order. Representatives Johnson (via teleconference) and
Johansen (via teleconference) arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
8:36:22 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.]
CHAIR SEATON provided some of the history of the bill, including
the field hearings, and explained that Version O, is a result of
the field hearing testimonies.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Version 25-LS0381\O, Kane,
1/22/08, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for discussion.
8:39:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, sponsor of HB 134, said that public
testimony in Bristol Bay identified two common themes: the
overriding concern that no harm should come to the watershed no
matter the feelings toward Pebble Mine, and the lack of economic
opportunities for individuals and communities in the region. He
pointed out that everyone who testified wants to keep the waters
clean and the subsistence and commercial fisheries intact. He
noted that although many people support the concept of HB 134,
they have concern for any unintended consequences of the bill,
specifically related to economic development. He reported that
he worked with his staff to incorporate these public concerns
into Version O.
8:42:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON then turned to the major changes to the
bill. Beginning with Section 2, he explained that all of the
exemptions have been removed and the prohibitions and penalties
will only apply to sulfide mining operations in the Bristol Bay
Fisheries Reserve, not any jurisdictions outside this reserve.
He explained that there will be fines of up to $1 million per
day for damage from "sulfide mining operations" [defined in
Section 2, lines 25-27] to the "anadromous waters of the Bristol
Bay watershed" [defined in Section 2, lines 22-24].
8:46:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON summarized Section 3, which requires a
resolution of legislative approval for any oil, gas, or mining
activity in the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. He explained
that he has determined through his discussions with Legislative
Legal Services that this is not special interest legislation
because the bill deals with the statutorily designated Bristol
Bay Fisheries Reserve. He opined that HB 134 does not
constitute a "takings," which he defined as a government action
that diminishes a leaseholder's property right, because the
courts have clearly stated that exploration rights are separate
from development rights.
8:49:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that sulfide
mining is not allowed unless the legislature finds this will
cause no danger to the fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted his agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired whether Section 2 prohibits
mining, and if it is possible to mine without withdrawing,
diverting, or pumping water.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON specified that the intent is not to
prohibit mining. However, whether this bill does prohibit
mining by virtue of the penalties for damaging anadromous
streams is a policy question that is central to the bill. He
expressed interest in the [mining] industry's point of view.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if channeling, damming, or
relocating is always defined as damaging.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that Section 2, lines 9-12, uses
existing ADF&G language from AS 16.10. He further explained
that Section 2, lines 13-16, include terms his staff compiled to
give additional meaning to lines 9-12. He allowed that some of
these terms may be recognized to have unintended consequences.
CHAIR SEATON, referring to Section 2, lines 10-11, asked if
reinjection of water, similar to the oil and gas process, is a
concern if it occurs within an area that is not surface overlaid
by salmon water.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed that this is correct as long as the
reinjection is not in the proximity of an anadromous stream.
8:53:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what defines the proximity to a stream, and
whether Section 2(a) applies to any water that is pumped and/or
reinjected within the watershed.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied that the intent is for the bill to
have a very broad application, giving anadromous streams as much
protection as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked for an explanation of sulfide
mining.
8:54:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that no definition for sulfide
mining exists in state statutes, so it is necessary to construct
a definition.
ADAM BERG, Staff to Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, said that the sponsor relied on scientists for a
definition. Legislative Legal and Research Services asked the
sponsor to list the minerals. He mentioned that the author of
the mineral list was David Chambers.
8:55:52 AM
DAVID CHAMBERS, PhD, President, Center for Science in Public
Participation, said that Mr. Berg requested technical advice on
sulfide mining. He said he advised the sponsor on which
minerals to include on a list of sulfide minerals. He explained
that gold is not a sulfide mineral, although gold does commonly
occur with sulfide minerals. There are many gold mines which
have sulfide mining problems, including acid mine drainage. He
mentioned the Pogo and Kensington Mines as examples. He
explained that placer mining is gold mining in a non-sulfide
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked if gold should be included on this
mineral list.
8:58:39 AM
DR. CHAMBERS responded that mining gold in sulfide rock material
could pose a threat to the fisheries. He said he did not know
if gold would be covered under this legislation, even though the
intent appears that it should. He offered his belief that this
may be a problem if gold is the only recovered mineral from a
mine. He warned that his worldwide mining studies show there is
more water damage from gold mining in sulfide [minerals] than
from any other single source.
8:59:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Chambers if gold can be mined
with a sulfide operation.
DR. CHAMBERS responded that it is most typical for gold mines to
be sulfide mines.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX posed a scenario in which gold is left off
[this mineral list], and asked if someone could mine for gold
and just call the rest "by catch".
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that although gold was omitted from
the mineral list because he did not want the bill to affect the
placer miners, it may have to be included in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether placer miners use sulfide.
9:02:09 AM
DR. CHAMBERS explained that gold is often deposited with sulfide
minerals during a volcanic genesis. When gold deposits are
exposed by weather and moved by gravity, often downstream, most
of the sulfide minerals are weathered away, leaving only the
placer gold.
9:03:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if cyanide releases any sulfides during gold
processing, and, if so, would this be exempt under HB 134.
DR. CHAMBERS replied that it is not common to use cyanide in
placer operations, as gravity is used for the separation
process.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that cyanide is not mentioned in the
bill.
9:05:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked who Dr. Chambers works for and
where there is more information about his organization.
DR. CHAMBERS explained that the Center for Science in Public
Participation is a non-profit company providing technical advice
on mining, primarily to public interest groups and tribal
governments.
9:06:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum, dated February 12, 2008, which read in
part:
When the legislature wishes to act in an advisory
capacity, it may do so by resolution; but, when it
intends its action to have a binding effect on people
outside the legislature, it may do so only by
following the enactment procedures for bills.
CHAIR SEATON, referring to Section 3, asked if the use of a
resolution is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred the question to Brian Kane, the
author of the memorandum.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Kane to clarify whether a positive
enactment of a resolution is binding or advisory.
9:10:25 AM
BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, opined
that in State v. A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary (Alaska 1980), the court
clearly states that any action to bind a person outside the
legislature needs to be passed as a bill, not a resolution. He
did not know if AS 38.05.140(f) referenced in Version O, Section
3, has been challenged in court. He offered his belief that a
binding action would require a bill, not a resolution.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Kane whether a resolution passed by the
legislature is binding.
MR. KANE expressed his belief that the court would not rule the
resolution is binding. Based on A.L.I.V.E. Voluntary, the court
has said a resolution is advisory, and a bill is binding when
regulating someone outside the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if this would become binding by
changing the wording from "resolution" to "bill", and would this
change create any unintended consequences.
MR. KANE responded that it was his belief that the change in
wording would appear to meet the requirements from A.L.I.V.E.
Voluntary without any foreseeable unintended consequences. He
said the goal of the bill is to work with what is already in
statute, AS 38.05.140(f).
9:13:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Edgmon for a synopsis of the
Legislative Legal and Research Services memorandum dated
February 12, 2008 in response to the "takings" issue.
9:14:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that "resolution" is used in
Section 3 instead of "legislation" because of concern for a
"takings" claim.
MR. BERG explained that the February 12, 2008 legal opinion
states that there may be a "takings" claim regardless of Section
3.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON offered his belief that while the opinion
from Legislative Legal and Research Services is valid, it is
legally conservative. He offered a "far more extensive opinion"
on "takings" which was different from that of Legislative Legal
and Research Services. This legal opinion dated January 9,
2007, "Elevating Habitat Conservation Standards in the Bristol
Bay Drainages," written by William P. Horn of Birch, Horton,
Bittner, and Cherot, was commissioned by Trout Unlimited.
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that although many legal opinions have
been submitted, he wants to be able to address the February 12,
2008, opinion. He reminded the public that for those who have
already submitted comments, it is not necessary to do so again.
He asked that the public testimony only address Version O.
9:20:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON established that he wanted to get some agency
opinions and clarifications on the record before he begins with
public opinion.
ED FOGELS, Director, Office of Project Management & Permitting,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said that DNR does not
have a position on Version O, but would like to mention the
effect on its land management.
MR. FOGELS explained that the differences from the original bill
to Version O are: the restrictions on water usage within
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve are limited to only include
sulfide mining and leasable minerals; and the activities within
the reserve are restricted only if they affect anadromous fish
waters. He noted that AS 41.14.870 defines anadromous fish
waters, which do not include tributary waters of the anadromous
waters or up surface waters. He commented that Version O makes
unclear to DNR which waters are affected. He noted that Version
O prohibits any water usage by sulfide mines, and given that all
mines must use some amount of water, Version O effectively
prohibits all sulfide mining.
MR. FOGELS relayed DNR's belief that the term "sulfide mining"
is vague. He expressed his understanding that because the list
of specified metals which define "sulfide mining" in Version O
does not include gold, then a gold mining operation would not be
subject to this bill, even if sulfide minerals were present in
the ore.
MR. FOGELS noted that there are already provisions for civil and
criminal penalties for environmental release or reporting
violations, under AS 46.03.760, AS 46.03.790, and AS 12.55.035.
He mentioned that AS 46.03.780 provides that for violations
which cause the death of fish, animals, or vegetation, and/or
damages to the environment, the violator is liable to the state
for damages. He observed that Version O affects state and
Native corporation land and water.
MR. FOGELS requested more clarity as to which agency, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), assesses these fines. He requested an explanation of
the process for someone to defend against alleged fines, and
whether these fines will be set through an administrative,
civil, or criminal action.
MR. FOGELS commented that the reference in Section 3 to AS
38.05.135 appears to be in error, unless the bill intends to
prohibit the development of leasable minerals. He asked how
Section 3, which is intended to apply to all mineral rights,
will work with Section 2, which effectively prohibits most
mining.
9:25:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked what is the maximum penalty assessed
under Title 46.
MR. FOGELS offered his belief that fines may range from $500 to
$100,000 per violation and that AS 46.03.780 may require the
violator to restock and restore the environment to its prior
condition.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that the intent of the bill is
to increase the penalties for sulfide mining to be comparable to
those for oil discharge, as the current mining penalties are
insufficient to protect the anadromous streams into Bristol Bay.
CHAIR SEATON asked for his interpretation as to whether page 2,
lines 11-12, includes the entire watershed.
MR. FOGELS expressed his belief that this would include the
entire watershed.
CHAIR SEATON said the committee would ask Legislative Legal and
Research Services for clarification regarding the difference
between Section 2(a) and 2(b).
9:29:36 AM
SCOTT THORSEN (ph) said that the bill is irresponsible and
duplicative because federal and state water quality regulations
coupled with modern mining techniques are already responsibly
managing the waters. He mentioned that the bill is a semi-
transparent attempt to stop the Pebble Mine.
MARTHA CROW said that she supports HB 134 because it is
important to keep Alaska's water clean. She said she misses
drinking water directly from the river.
9:33:03 AM
MATTHEW NICOLAI, President, Calista Corporation, said that he
has pledged to protect the company assets, which include the
subsurface rights. He mentioned that HB 134 does not allow
exploration of the land, which will result in a loss of shared
revenue for all the regional and village Native corporations.
He offered his belief that HB 134 will result in a "takings"
lawsuit against the state. He mentioned that he has
participated in the development of 18 federal environmental laws
to protect Native lands.
9:38:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that a survey of Bristol Bay Native
Corporation shareholders revealed 69 percent are in opposition
to some fashion of the mine.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that this legislation impacts
the Bristol Bay Fisheries Preserve and that the proposed Pebble
Mine site is on state land, not Native corporation land.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if Calista Corporation is
economically involved, or philosophically involved with respect
to Native corporation land.
MR. NICOLAI responded that if any legislation affects Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) defined incomes, then all
Native corporations must take a position. He explained that an
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) committee opposed the
original bill and the committee will most likely reconvene to
address Version O. He allowed that denial of resource
exploration on Native land will result in an economic loss and
the Native corporations need to protect their assets.
9:42:00 AM
TREFON ANGASAN said he was opposed to HB 134 because of the
"takings" issue.
RALPH ANGASAN SR., President, Alaska Peninsula Corporation
(APC), declared that the APC opposes all versions of HB 134. He
explained that the APC landholdings included land near the
Pebble deposit. He offered his belief that HB 134 constitutes a
"taking" by not allowing the APC a determination of use for its
own property. If sulfide mining is prohibited in the Bristol
Bay region, the APC surface exploration agreements will be
negated, exploration activities will cease, shareholder jobs and
APC revenue will be lost, and the APC will hold the state
accountable for any financial loss. He explained his belief
that the newly-formed APC subsidiary for environmental
consulting will lose millions of dollars in contracts and
contract opportunities. He said he believes the bill will
affect the APC shareholders expectations that mining will bring
improved transportation, communications, and utilities to the
region, and he believes this will result in the movement of
young people to urban areas. He offered his further belief that
HB 134 is based on "unfounded and baseless untruths with
absolutely no scientific evidence to support the meager
findings." He opined that this bill gives the appearance that
tourism and sport fishing are more important than other
sustainable economies for providing good jobs and opportunities
to local residents and businesses. He offered his belief that
HB 134 is a product of special interests.
9:49:18 AM
DAN DUNAWAY said that he was raised in Alaska, graduated from
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) with a degree in
fisheries biology, worked during the university summer breaks in
Bristol Bay, and upon graduation was hired by the ADF&G. He
reflected that he worked in Bristol Bay as an ADF&G sport
fisheries biologist from 1989 until his retirement in 2002 and
he currently serves on the Bristol Bay Rural Advisory Council
for the federal subsistence program.
MR. DUNAWAY encouraged "gold associated with sulfide minerals"
to be included on the minerals list in Version O. He explained
that although he is not entirely opposed to mines, but he is
concerned with the damage from sulfide mines. He expressed his
desire to be assured that the design and operation for any
permitted mines is truly sufficient to protect the Bristol Bay
waters and fisheries.
MR. DUNAWAY explained that his studies of mining have shown that
sulfide mines have tremendous potential to damage the fisheries.
The ores and tailings of sulfide metal mines, when exposed to
air and water, generate sulfuric acid that dissolves toxic heavy
metals which are then carried into surface and ground waters.
These toxic metals and compounds kill fish, animals, and plants.
They can also threaten human health. He cited the Flambeau mine
in Wisconsin, which the mining industry touts as a successfully
operated and closed mine. Although the mine closure work was
certified as complete, he directed attention to two letters
which contend numerous problems still exist. These letters
point out that toxic ground water is getting into the Flambeau
River, and post-mine water quality is "far worse than acceptable
standards." He stated that he believes the mining technology is
not yet adequate to protect [the fisheries], and that he
supports HB 134.
CHAIR SEATON opined that Version O prohibits any mining at all,
and asked if there are water quality standards that are
acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that Version O is not
prohibiting all mining, but is addressing anadromous streams and
the penalties for damage to anadromous streams.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Dunaway to offer his interpretation of HB
134 as a bill that either addresses water quality standards or
prohibits water usage in an area associated with a sulfide mine.
MR. DUNAWAY offered that his interpretation of HB 134 is not to
prohibit a mine, but instead to allow a mine with very high
standards for the protection of fish and water.
9:57:04 AM
KAREN CURRY, Far Bank Enterprises, related that she grew up in
Fairbanks as a "die hard salmon angler" and she understands the
impact of hard rock mining to the surrounding communities due to
the proximity of the Fort Knox Mine to Fairbanks. She offered
her belief that the fundamental difference between the Fort Knox
Mine and the proposed Bristol Bay mining district is that
Bristol Bay is home to the largest salmon run in the world. She
opined that HB 134 will protect the fisheries in Bristol Bay
from sulfide mining operations. She commented that the riches
of the Bristol Bay area are its renewable resources. She
offered that her company has Alaska sales of fishing gear and
apparel worth almost $4 million, most of which is being used in
the Bristol Bay region. The health of the Bristol Bay fishery
is important to many Alaskan Natives and Non-Natives. She
explained that her company received huge support for its "One
Day for Bristol Bay" fundraiser. She relayed that anglers in
the Lower 48 are knowledgeable about sulfide mining and the
devastation caused by slurry spills, cyanide leaching, dam
failures, and toxic dust to watersheds in Colorado, Montana,
Idaho, South Dakota, and New Mexico. She pointed out that when
spawning fish die, the fishing industry dies.
10:01:57 AM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND offered her strong support for HB 134, noting
that she wants to see gold included on the mineral list. She
said she does not believe there is the proper technology for
mining in this area. She expressed the need to review the
mining history. She then expressed that "clean water is more
precious than any mining development" and HB 134 will protect
the Bristol Bay watershed. She opined that this is a chance to
rectify the oversight of not already giving this area long term
protection. She further opined that Alaska needs to set high
standards. She mentioned that there has never been a legal
decision upholding a "taking" suit. She noted that the Alaska
Conservation Alliance is advocating environment, energy, ethics,
and economy as the keys to future decision-making for Alaska.
10:04:37 AM
FRANK WOODS, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), said that
the BBNA board declared [support for] any legislation protecting
salmon habitat. He mentioned that this bill protects the
resources of Bristol Bay for the commercial, subsistence, and
sport fisheries because salmon is why people live in Bristol
Bay.
10:07:49 AM
TERRY HOEFFERLE, Nunamta Aulukestai, said that he believes
Version O has removed many concerns of the local communities.
He expressed his agreement with Version O's focus on sulfide
mining and the earlier comments of Mr. Dunaway. He opined that
there is not a place in the world where sulfide mining exists
that has not polluted the surrounding environment. In fact,
many states with large scale mining have passed citizen
initiatives which no longer allow sulfide mining. He testified
that the further a mining company progresses in the exploration
and permitting process, the more likely that the issue of
"taking" will be raised. He suggested that the legislature
change the "taking" rules to state that there is no valid
"taking" until there has been permit approval. He expressed
concern that allowing the process to take its course will
ultimately mean expensive "taking" litigation.
10:13:10 AM
THOMAS TILDEN, Chief, Curyung Tribal Council, Choggiung Limited,
related that both Curyung Tribal Council and Choggiung Limited
have submitted resolutions against the Pebble Mine Project to
the House Special Committee on Fisheries. Speaking on his own
behalf, he said he believes that jail time should be included in
Section 2(c) with the monetary fines and penalties. He cited
examples of more punitive penalties in Canada. He relayed his
support for Section 1, which legislates a heightened level of
protection for Bristol Bay because the people of Bristol Bay
depend on the salmon. He said he believes the Alaska Federation
of Natives (AFN) represents a strong commitment to protect the
culture and the subsistence lifestyle of Alaskan Natives. This
commitment to protect, he opined, is more important than revenue
[from ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. § 1606 (ANCSA § 7) (i)(1)(A)].
10:20:31 AM
JEREMIAH MILLEN, Field Representative, Alaska Wilderness League
(AWL), said that AWL supports protection of the Bristol Bay
fisheries in order to maintain subsistence, tourism, and
commercial fishing which are vital to the region. He stated his
belief that Alaska has an obligation to protect the qualities
that shape its environment, history, and culture, and to
maintain careful stewardship of its resources. He identified
the unifying element within Bristol Bay as salmon because the
salmon fishery drives the economy, culture, and ecology of the
region.
10:24:23 AM
GEORGE MATZ, Cook Inlet Alliance, Kachemak Bay Conservation
Society, opined that HB 134 will not prohibit a sulfide mine if
the mine does not impact surface or ground waters. He relayed
that the Cook Inlet Alliance supports HB 134 because the bill
sets a clear, unequivocal standard that leaves little room for
creative interpretation.
10:28:49 AM
KONRAD SCHAAD informed the committee that he and his sons have
been fishing in Bristol Bay for more than 20 years. He said he
believes "that Version O puts some teeth" into ensuring the
future of Bristol Bay. He expressed his belief that fines for
infractions are not enough [to deter infractions].
10:30:50 AM
MARK MUNRO related that he and his wife have fished in Bristol
Bay for 20 years. He explained that he supports Version O
because he believes the risk [from mining] is too great and that
the [mineral] resource is not disappearing. Mining, he opined,
should wait until the technology improves, so that mining is not
putting the sport fish, commercial fish, and subsistence
cultures at risk. He noted his agreement with the addition of a
jail penalty and personal liability to HB 134.
10:32:31 AM
JOE FAITH related his support for Version O. He allowed that he
would like to see "gold associated with sulfide mining" included
on the mineral list. He informed the committee that as well as
fishing, he runs a gold suction dredge. He related his
understanding that placer mining will not violate the bill,
although operating a gold suction dredge in salmon spawning
water is a violation of the intent of the bill. He suggested
including a definition for sulfide in the bill because sulfides
seem to create the [environmental] problems. He advocated for
the inclusion of a jail penalty with the other penalties
described in the bill.
10:36:15 AM
BRIAN KRAFT, Trout Unlimited, related that he owns two fishing
lodges in the Bristol Bay area and he has been studying the
Pebble Project for more than four years. He said that he
supports Version O because he believes the bill extends the
intent for a Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. He noted that Trout
Unlimited has submitted to the committee the following
documents: "Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hard Rock
Mines", "DNR's Vague Statutory Standards" dated 11/15/07, and
the earlier referenced legal memorandum from William P. Horn,
dated January 9, 2007.
10:39:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation (BBNC) position on HB 134 is neutral. He said he
did not want to suggest by his earlier remark that BBNC had any
other position.
CHAIR SEATON announced that public testimony would remain open
for Wednesday's meeting [2/20/08].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:41
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|