Legislature(2007 - 2008)Newhalen
09/24/2007 04:30 PM 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 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Newhalen, Alaska
September 24, 2007
4:44 p.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
WITNESS REGISTER
RAYMOND WASSILLIE, President
Newhalen Tribal Council
Newhalen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a traditional community welcoming
ceremony to honor the committee.
AGNES RYCHNOVSKY
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
JUNE TRACEY
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
MYRTLE ANELON
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
LISA REIMERS
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
NANCY DELKITTIE
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
TERRY WASSILLIE, Secretary
Newhalen Tribal Council
Newhalen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
LYDIA OLYMPIC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
BELLA HAMMOND
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
[Inaudible]
[Location unknown], Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CHARLOTTE BALLUTA, Environmental Coordinator
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RICK DELKITTIE SR.
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
DAN OBERLATZ, Owner
Alaska Alpine Adventures
Vice President
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
BETTY WEIKEL
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
DAN SALMON, Member
Igiugig Village Council (IVC)
Igiugig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
SHAR (ph) [Inaudible]
[Location unknown]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
STEVE KAHN
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MASSA GUMLICKPUK
New Stuyahok
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ANNE CORAY
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
BRADLEY BOND
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
BILL TREFON SR.
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
KIM WILLIAMS, Member
Tribal Council
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
NATALIA BLUNKA
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
WASSILLIE CHUNAK SR.
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
TIMOTHY WONHOLA SR.
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
[Inaudible]
Nushagak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
[Inaudible]
[Location unknown]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
KATHLEEN WONHOLA
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SALLY GUMLICKPUK
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ALEXIE GUST SR.
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
[Inaudible], Union President
Lake Clark, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, and responded to
questions.
MICHELLE HOPE RAVENMOON
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
KEITH JENSEN, President
Pedro Bay Village Council
Pedro Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134 provided
information regarding Pedro Bay, and responded to questions.
MARVIN BALLUTA
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SERGIE CHUKWAK
Levelock, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, and made
recommendations.
[Inaudible]
[Location unknown]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
[Inaudible], President
Nondalton Village Council
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JAMES LAMONT
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
THOMAS TILDEN, Member
Nunumta [Aulukestai]
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and made
recommendations.
BRIAN KRAFT, Board Member
Renewable Resources Coalition
Remote Fishing Lodge Owner
Representative, Bristol Bay Alliance
Director for Southwest Alaska Trout Unlimited
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, made
recommendations, and responded to questions.
GEORGE HORNBERGER
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
MICHAEL BORLESKE
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
[Inaudible], President
Iliamna Native (indisc.)
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
SEAN MAGEE, Vice President of Public Affairs
Partnership Spokesperson
Northern Dynasty Mine
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
DR. CAROL ANN WOODY, Owner
Fisheries Research and Consulting
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CHIP [CHARLES] EMBRETSON
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
MIKE TREFON
Nondalton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearings on HB 134 inquired about
the process.
[Inaudible]
[Location unknown]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
[Inaudible]
Iliamna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the video
presentation provided by the Iliamna Development Corporation.
ED FOGELS, Acting Director
Office of Project Management & Permitting
Department of Natural Resources
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a slide presentation titled "The
Process and Requirements for Large Mine Permit Applications in
Alaska," and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 4:44:27 PM. Representatives
Seaton, Wilson, Johnson, Johansen, LeDoux, Holmes, and Edgmon
were present at the call to order. Representatives Neuman,
Gatto, Kawasaki, and Roses were also in attendance.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
4:44:54 PM
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 reviewed the various water use questions and the
two major aspects of HB 134: The protection of salmon, and
other fish habitat, encompassing the protection of renewable
resources in Bristol Bay; and the use of HB 134 as a vehicle to
prevent the development of a large scale mine in the area. He
clarified that this hearing is not on the Pebble Mine but rather
on the legislation as it relates to water usage and the
fisheries. He acknowledged that there has been discussion with
regard to conflicts of interest and pointed out that witnesses
need to identify who they represent. Finally, he invited the
prime sponsor of the bill to speak prior to opening public
testimony.
4:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON thanked everyone for coming forward to
participate, particularly the significant number of legislators
present. He acknowledged that the Pebble Mine is the impetus
for this legislation. The economic and environmental
ramifications of the Pebble Mine project have brought together a
gallery that represents diverse opinions, regarding the future
of the region. He characterized HB 134 as a work in progress,
with issues important enough to have a series of hearings in the
region. This legislation addresses an important crossroads in
terms of policy: whether to institute higher levels of
protection for waters that support the areas salmon habitat via
the five major drainages to Bristol Bay. The existing policy
provides for other industrial use purposes, which may
significantly compromise salmon habitat. The economic
difficulties of the region include school closures, and he
acknowledged that these issues would be brought to the fore,
during the discussion of this bill.
4:51:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related that when doing research for HB
134, statute was discovered that established the Bristol Bay
Fisheries Reserve; Senator Hammond 1972. The statute specifies
that surface entry permit, to develop oil and gas, may not be
issued on state owned/controlled land until the legislature, via
resolution, finds that such entry will not constitute danger to
the fishery. This foresight, he opined, provides a guide for
including further protective measures, with strict penalties for
use of water that would be detrimental to salmon. Directing
attention to HB 134, [Version M], page 2, Sec. 16.10.015, he
paraphrased the subsection and paragraphs, which read:
...within the watersheds of the Nushagak, Kvichak,
Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik Rivers, a person may not
(1) withdraw, obstruct, divert, inject,
pollute, or pump, either temporarily or
permanently, any subsurface or surface
water in drainages supporting salmon or any
water hydrologically interrelated or
connected to those drainages; or
(2) alter, destroy displace, relocate, channel,
dam, convert to dry land, or otherwise
adversely affect any portion of a river,
stream, lake, bog, tributary, or any other
water body including the beds of water
bodies, in drainages supporting salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stressed that the intent of this
legislation is to protect salmon habitat without
disenfranchising existing uses that are essential to community
life and development. To that end, six areas of exemptions have
been included in the bill, with the understanding that further
exemptions may be necessary. The legislation also includes
penalties for violations, which he said, are monetarily strict.
He stressed the need to consider this area as the last great
sockeye salmon producing area "on earth" and rhetorically asked,
"To what ends should it be protected." This is the policy
question before the community and the legislature.
Representative Edgmon said he looked forward to hearing comments
and suggestions that will be utilized to produce a final piece
of legislation, serving the constituents as well as the state
constitution.
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony and explained the
parameters for speaking.
4:58:06 PM
RAYMOND WASSILLIE, President, Newhalen Tribal Council, stated
resistance to the bill, not because of the mine, but because of
what will happen when the mine is closed. The area in question,
he pointed out, is between his home and where his family gathers
subsistence food. He said that he can't afford to pay the fines
that he would incur when passing over these areas to reach these
traditional use areas. He questioned how he will be able to
maintain a wilderness, survival cabin, which he has had for many
years, or continue boating activities that allow him to check
his subsistence fishing nets. Further, he questioned how this
legislation allows him and his grandchildren to continue to
survive in traditional ways. "What is going to become of us,"
he asked.
CHAIR SEATON pointed that page 2, line 13, refers to the
disallowance to "convert to dry land", and asked if this is what
the concern is for being able to build a cabin.
MR. WASSILLIE replied yes, as most of the land in the area is
bog.
5:03:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON underscored that the intent of the bill is
not to prohibit any of the historical, ordinary, daily life
activities in the area. He directed attention to page 2, lines
17-23, listing the exemptions, and offered assurance that this
list will be expanded upon, should an oversight exist that would
hamper traditional existence.
MR. WASSILLIE said that, as he reads the bill, it is a violation
of his "living rights." Additionally, he noted, although the
legislation doesn't refer to the mine, that's what it's about.
Why then, he questioned, doesn't the legislature address the
mine directly and not disturb the residents and their
traditional uses.
5:06:08 PM
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor, Lake and Peninsula Borough, introduced the
village elders and New Stuyahok Dancers, who performed a
traditional song and dance on behalf of the visitors to the
community.
[Singing]
CHAIR SEATON requested that the drummers and dancers be
introduced individually.
[Introductions were made - inaudible.]
5:14:39 PM
CHAIR SEATON made public announcements regarding fire exits,
testimony submission, and the bill history and legal resources
available in the room.
AGNES RYCHNOVSKY cited the necessity for jobs in the area as
well as the need to maintain subsistence uses. She stated that
this bill will restrict the ability of the Newhalen village
residents from accessing their traditional gathering grounds.
The hunters, she said, will be prohibited from crossing streams
to hunt the game. Further, it would restrict the development of
a small dock, which would allow easy access from the water to
the land in the north fork of the (indisc.) River.
5:20:50 PM
JUNE TRACEY asked if legislation restricts everyone from going
on this reserve.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the restrictions do not apply to
crossing the land, but noted that it would prevent the building
of dams, or creation of dry land, for road building or other
purposes.
MS. TRACEY stressed that the land and rivers are the supermarket
for the area. Land and water are more precious than the gold,
she said. Restrictions on hunting or fishing would not be
acceptable, but she conceded that her understanding of how the
bill effects those activities is limited.
5:23:42 PM
MYRTLE ANELON stated appreciation for being included in the
process of creating this legislation. People who do not live in
the area are expressing opinions as though they know more about
living here than the residents, she said.
CHAIR SEATON noted the schedule for the meetings in the local
area, which are intended to garner as much local opinion as
possible.
5:25:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked the witness to directly address the
issue of water use and protection.
MS. ANELON replied that the community has a (indisc.) program.
[Inaudible.] The water is never clean. At low water times, in
the river, she continued, bags of lead can be picked up, from
the sport fishing activities of the season. People who don't
live here may not be aware of this pollution, she surmised.
5:28:20 PM
LISA REIMERS provided a video of the Bristol Bay concerns
regarding the fishing industry, and other activities that are
routine to the area. She asked whether it could be viewed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON held that the video would be shown, in
conjunction with a large mine permitting presentation, by DNR,
as a wrap up to the day's public testimony.
MS. REIMERS inquired if the bill sponsor had solicited community
opinion, prior to the drafting process.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reiterated the intent of these
proceedings.
MS. REIMERS queried again, prior to drafting the bill, did he
make the effort to solicit opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that three days of testimony were
taken in Juneau [2/28/07, 3/02/07, and 3/05/07].
MS. REIMERS stressed how that did not occur in the local
communities. The fines are exorbitant, she pointed out, for
someone trying to cross the land to get to their traditional
berry patch. She stated her opposition to HB 134, as it would
create more hardships on those in the region.
5:30:44 PM
CHAIR SEATON stressed the importance for testimony to provide
individual opinion vs. dialoguing with, or questioning, the
representatives. Further, he pointed out that, although this
hearing is being made available throughout the state, via the
Legislative Information Office broadcast, testimony would only
be taken from the audience.
5:31:52 PM
NANCY DELKITTIE said: "I want to support this bill, because it
(indisc.) clean water." [Inaudible.] We rely on subsistence,
she continued. [Inaudible.] She related that she lives here by
choice, and the majority of her diet is subsistence foods.
5:33:28 PM
TERRY WASSILLIE, Secretary, Newhalen Tribal Council, testified
in opposition to HB 134, highlighting that, in order to practice
a subsistence life style residents must traverse the land and
water; crossing multiple streams. [Inaudible.] Future
generations should have the same opportunity. Regarding the
sponsor's comments for protecting the water (indisc.). He
recalled the restrictions that have occurred since the Lake
Clark National Park and Reserve was instituted. The state has
restricted residents from utilizing their private property.
This legislation will also impact commercial fishing by
increasing costs.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that since 1972 state statute
has included the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, and the
restrictions are only in place for land based oil and gas
development. Additionally, he pointed out that this bill is
designed to protect subsistence use. He expressed concern that
the bill is either not being read, or not understood, as
indicated by the citizen levels of concern, that their
subsistence life style will be jeopardized.
MR. WASSILLIE inquired (indisc.).
5:38:13 PM
LYDIA OLYMPIC paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you, Chairman Seaton and representatives for
giving us opportunity to tell you our stories.
I am from Igiugig, Alaska top of the Kvichak. As of
June 2006 I've moved to Anchorage, AK. I didn't
realize how precious our sockeye salmon was until I
moved away. I thought everyone in this world had this
incredible gift of crystal clear waters and abundant
salmon in their rivers and backyard.
The Frazier River fishery in British Columbia is in
decline and this year many natives chose not to
subsistence fish because of low returns.
I've served on EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency]
National Tribal Operations Committee and Regional
Tribal Operations committee for six years. I was one
of 19 elected nationwide to serve as an advisory
council to EPA on Indian country issues.
I saw first hand on how these rules and regulations
that are there to protect us, our fisheries, our
lands, and our environment can be changed by who is
elected and their administration. For example the
Bush administration changed the wording from hazardous
waste to fill and now industries can dump their fill
into a freshwater lake/stream such as the Lower Slater
Lake or by changing the air particulate matter 2.5-10
so that the mining industries, agriculture, and
fugitive dust are exempt in populations less than
100,000.
That is on the federal side now on the state side for
example moving the habitat division over to DNR or the
mixing zone regulation changed by the Murkowski
administration.
We must do all that we can to protect our fisheries,
our culture, our fresh water, and our way of life that
is why I support this bill and we all appreciate your
support and thank you for your time.
5:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether she would be more
comfortable with the Pebble Mine permitting process going
forward, if the Office of Habitat Management and Permitting was
a division under Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) vs. under
its current placement within the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
MS. OLYMPIC replied, "Yes." [Inaudible.] I don't feel
comfortable with the location of DNR and (indisc.), who worked
for the mining commission.
5:43:00 PM
BELLA HAMMOND recalled her earliest memories, which revolved
around the fisheries. She opined that the fisheries are
threatened, and require a high priority of protection. Clean
water and a healthy fishery are mutualistic, and a major
concern, for the local subsistence life style. A major threat
is looming. She mentioned that a ripple effect could occur,
throughout the fishing industry, should the perception of
polluted waters stain the reputation of the wild caught salmon.
People will not be comfortable, if they are concerned with
whether the fish are safe to eat, she said. She expressed the
need to be clear with any legislation addressing water.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that currently oil and gas development
is not allowed, but mining is; HB 134 would lift energy project
restrictions and disallow mining development. He asked if the
aforementioned could be considered beneficial to the region.
MS. HAMMOND responded that this region should be a top priority,
as "there is no other place like it on earth." Everything that
can be done, should be done, to protect this area, she
maintained.
5:50:27 PM
[Inaudible] stated, "I am absolutely for this legislation."
[Inaudible.] Subsistence is a priority, and her understanding
of this bill indicates that it will help to protect that way of
life, while insuring the quality of the water.
CHAIR SEATON reminded the witnesses that their opinions on the
water, and water resources, in connection with HB 134, would be
helpful to the committee.
CHARLOTTE BALLUTA, Environmental Coordinator, said, "Yes, I do
support the HB 134."
5:56:49 PM
RICK DELKITTIE SR., said, "I back HB 134, to protect our rivers
and streams (indisc.). I will fight to protect my land and the
water (indisc.).
5:58:39 PM
DAN OBERLATZ, Owner, paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
For the last 15 years I've been fortunate enough to
call this area home, and, for the last 10 years, to
share this world class destination with a multitude of
tourists each year.
The superlatives that define this area of Alaska are
simply staggering. Both the Kvichak and Nushagak
rivers are home to the world's largest sockeye salmon
fishery and Alaska's most prolific chinook run
respectively. Just downstream from this proposed
development is Alaska's first designated trophy trout
area and all 5 species of pacific salmon can be found
in these local waters. Iliamna Lake is one of two
lakes on earth to harbor a freshwater seal population
and the Mulchatna Caribou herd, sometimes the state's
largest, roams these vast tundra expanses each season.
The area has been home to vibrant indigenous cultures
for thousands of years who have relied on this bounty.
The region also boasts a thriving and expanding
tourism market and world renowned and reinvigorated
commercial fishery. Both of these sustainable
industries employ locals and contribute literally
hundreds of millions of dollars annually to local and
state economies.
It's an unfair mischaracterization to suggest that our
decision to question this project is simply knee-jerk
reaction to "fear mongering", that we are in some way
firing "aimless broadsides" at the mining industry or
DNR, or that we are attempting to prevent Northern
Dynasty from being allowed its "due process." To the
contrary, most of us here have drawn well informed
conclusions about Pebble based on compelling
historical evidence pointing to an industry riddled
with accidents and broken promises.
We, your constituents, need your help. There are too
many examples of modern pit mines gone bad in other
parts of the world, and we simply cannot afford to
make a single mistake and risk destroying this fishery
and the people who live from it. We must insure that
any company involved in a non-sustainable industry -
Canadian or otherwise, who intends to exploit and
profit from the non-renewable resources here is held
to the highest possible environmental standards -
standards designed specifically to protect and nurture
resources and industries that are renewable and
sustainable.
This is absolutely critical. Furthermore, we need to
make certain that if a mine is ever permitted, each
and every one of us can rest assured knowing that
during the process our legislators and lead agencies
did their due diligence and employed the most
stringent and scientifically sound water quality
safeguards to preserve this fishery. If you don't,
and God forbid there is ever an accident that harms
it, it will be those who had the authority to heed
this plea who will have to answer the question "what
were they thinking?"
CHAIR SEATON reminded everyone that HB 134 is about water usage,
in the Bristol Bay area, not about the [Pebble] mine.
6:03:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that HB 134 has exemptions for
certain projects, development, and industry in the area, such as
transportation, energy, and seafood processing, and solicited
the witness's opinion on these activities.
MR. OBERLATZ pointed out that he is representing the tourism
industry, as a sustainable industry in the Bristol Bay region.
However, first and foremost clean water is a priority, to ensure
the fishing industry, and subsistence activities. All of these
endeavors, including mining can co-exist, until there is an
accident; then everything will leave, he opined. If certain
industries are exempt perhaps they aren't as big of a threat as
large scale mining development.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if/how the tourists are transported
along the river.
MR. OBERLATZ responded that aircraft are used to bring the
tourists into the wilderness where backpacking, river rafting,
and other activities ensue, which do not include motorized
vehicles, or river boats. The air taxi service is crucial,
however.
6:06:16 PM
BETTY WEIKEL stated her concern for any activity that would
alter, divert, or otherwise compromise the watershed. A
healthy, non-toxic fish population, and a healthy food chain
needs to be preserved. She opined that the implementation of
this bill will help to support the subsistence way of life in
the area, as well as help to retain the renewable, sustainable
resource for generations to come.
CHAIR SEATON said that the bill disallows converting bogs, or
wet lands to dry land, for other than residential, domestic, or
municipal purposes. That restriction, he noted, could make it
difficult to build on land that required gravel fill. He asked
if that would be of any concern.
MS. WEIKEL stated that if it restricted people from building on
their own property, it would be a concern. However, if it is
activity that effects the watershed, the watershed should be
protected.
CHAIR SEATON explained that he is seeking concerns, and
suggestions, from witnesses to consider what changes need to be
made to the bill.
6:11:03 PM
DAN SALMON, Member, Igiugig Village Council (IVC), stated
opposition to HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am here to testify on behalf of IVC, as the longest
tenured community administrator manager in Bristol
Bay. Respectfully, IVC believes that HB 134 is an
extremely poorly written piece of legislation, aimed
at one company, or industry, rather than a bill to
address water quality in the state of Alaska. Why is
water quality any less important in other parts of the
state, such as Fairbanks, the Yukon, or Southeast,
than it is here? All support viable salmon fishing.
Why are some industries and entities exempt from the
proposed regulations. Is it justifiable to allow some
to pollute but others to not? We don't need other
special legislated areas; Igiugig is already flanked
by National Parks and Preserves on two sides, with a
multitude of rules and regulations that limit our
economic, and subsistence, opportunities. We strongly
object to another layer of laws, and regulations, that
limit our lives and increase our cost of living.
HB 134 has the potential to: 1) Limit, or preclude,
commercial water withdrawals in the Kvichak, and other
drainages. 2) Would prohibit private infrastructure
development that would alter or a stream or wetland;
roads, docks, river turbines, and home development in
Igiugig and elsewhere. 3) Impair oil, gas, and
mineral development. 4) Severely limit ANCSA (Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act) land selection usage by
local Native corporations, residents, Native allotment
owners, and the public, on private owned property.
Currently oil and gas exceeds $5.00 a gallon,
electricity is $.60 per kilowatt hour for residential
and $.71 for commercial. A roundtrip ticket to
Anchorage, our service area 270 miles east, can exceed
$550 per person. One council member here, with four
children spends over $3,500 in transportation to visit
Anchorage, for one trip a year.
I have roughly estimated revenues, from various
sources, to our community residents in 2007:
Traditional commercial fishing - $125,000 gross and
maybe $60,000 net; 20 years of tourism - $200,000 per
community; two years of mining exploration - $320,000;
state, federal, and borough resources make up the bulk
of the remainder. We have 33 people on our community
payroll for 2007 so far. We have 3 BB (Bristol Bay)
drift permits left in our community; 2 in my house,
and the other in a village council members ownership.
Our economy is struggling, and we have few options,
with the high cost of living, and lack of
infrastructure.
IVC is officially neutral on the Pebble Project,
reserving judgment until we have seen a proposed
development permit. In the meantime, we will continue
to learn and evaluate information as it comes to us,
from both sides of the table. We reject HB 134 in its
entirety.
6:15:54 PM
SHAR (ph) [Inaudible] stated that her main concern is for the
water. "Whatever industry might come into the area," she said,
"make sure they (indisc.) the Bristol Bay watershed." Having
moved to the Bristol Bay region, from the Great Lakes area of
Michigan, (indisc.) she stated, "I do not eat fish (indisc.) I
don't want to see that happen here." [Inaudible.] She
expressed concern for diverting the river, using a six inch
pipe, at 1,000 gallons per minute, and how that will effect the
watershed. More research needs to be done in this area.
[Inaudible.]
6:19:17 PM
STEVE KAHN described his subsistence life style, of hunting,
fishing, and harvesting berries, as well as his work as a
commercial fish/crab boat crew member. As a user of Alaska's
renewable resources, he said, "First of all, I support HB 134,
and other protections of Alaskan wildlife, salmon stocks, water,
and related habitat; not just in this region but throughout the
state." He expressed opposition to large scale mining. An open
pit mine would jeopardize water quality and effect the habitat.
He upheld the importance of the fishing industry, in the Bristol
Bay area, as a good source of renewable resource jobs. The
mining industry offers jobs based on (indisc.), he opined. His
research indicates that DNR has never rejected a large-mine
permit, regardless of concerns, which illustrates the need for
the legislature to take a leading role in protecting Alaska's
resources.
6:22:44 PM
MASSA GUMLICKPUK provided her testimony on HB 134, in her Native
tongue, and said, "Somebody please, translate it for me."
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER translated for Massa Gumlickpuk, calling
out from the gallery: "She supports HB 134."
6:23:22 PM
ANNE CORAY related her background and that, as a subsistence
user, she is grateful for the abundant salmon. She highlighted
other areas in the Lower 48 that have suffered from
environmental transgressions occurring around mine industry
sites, resulting in compromised fish populations/habitat:
Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. She said that she doesn't
trust the environmental impact statements that are supposed to
insure no harm will occur. Neither does she trust the
scientists hired by huge corporations, possibly working for
Northern Dynasty. She pointed out the 620 violations of Teck
Cominco at the Red Dog Mine. These levels of violations, do not
insure a clean environment. Some people in the area need jobs,
and have gone to work for Northern Dynasty. She said she
believes in jobs, if they don't threaten a way of life. She
said she supports sustainable resource development, not foreign
mega corporations. The emphasized the urgency of passing this
type of legislation.
6:26:57 PM
BRADLEY BOND said he is in strong support of the bill, as it
will protect the animals and fish.
6:27:35 PM
BILL TREFON SR., clarified that he is representing his home of
Nondalton. Pledging support for HB 134, he voiced the
importance of clean water to a subsistence lifestyle. This is
vital to the residents, and the recreational/sport fishing
enthusiasts, who depend on these resources. He urged
preservation of the land and water for future generations.
6:29:09 PM
KIM WILLIAMS, Member, Tribal Council, testified in support of HB
134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am a 45 year old subsistence user of fish. My
family including my late grandparents used all species
of salmon and I remember fondly as a very young girl
picking fish from the Nushagak mud, getting stuck, and
falling as I carried red salmon up to the bank to my
waiting Grandmother. Today, it is my six children who
participate as subsistence users to pick fish or to
wait eagerly with their grandparents to see that
bright silver glimpse of a tail or head in our
subsistence net on Kanakanak Beach.
Every year during May or early June, at Kanakanak
Beach in Dillingham, you will see my 69 year old Dad,
William Johnson and my husband, slugging thru the
Nushagak Mud to carry the lines that hold our
subsistence net. My father even remembers as a very
young boy fishing on sailboats with his Dad to harvest
wild Alaska Bristol Bay salmon. In our family it was
my 3 brothers who actively commercial fished with my
Dad at a very young age. It was only in 1973 that my
late sister Evelyn and I were required to be on the
boat because our family could have more nets to fish
in the water. From that moment on, my sister and I
participated in this commercial fishery like most
Bristol Bay kids. If my Dad gave the call that he
needed another fish picker on the boat, I would gladly
rise to the occasion. I don't think the call will
come anytime soon, since he taught my 22 year old son
to commercial fish and he is teaching my 7 year old
triplets to participate in this fishery. It is an
Alaskan legacy that we are blessed to participate in a
fishery like no other in the world.
This fishing income supported my college education and
it's that degree which allowed me to work for the
University of Alaska Bristol Bay Campus to host
several land and renewable resource conferences in
Dillingham (2004) and Newhalen (2005) in this very
facility. I also developed classes around Mining and
Fish - Can they co-exist? Which brought experts in
both fields to students to learn more about the mining
process and what information do we have about the fish
populations that are unique to Bristol Bay's
watershed. One of the most important lessons I
learned as a developer of classes and an instructor
during this period, is even though people will tell
you politics and money are not involved - that isn't
the case. Many people know that I will not ramrod
into someone's position even when a mining company
places a call to the Governor who then places a call
[to] the President of the University and the questions
come filtering down.
I don't know the history of legislation around the
creation of the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve in 1972.
I support House Bill 134 for the simple reason - if we
want jobs through development of our nonrenewable
resources it shouldn't be at the expense of the very
unique fish populations that inhabit the Bristol Bay
streams and rivers. It shouldn't be at the expense of
our fish that rely on very complex ground water,
aquifer systems, and other hydrologic regimes that
support their life history. Fish come first. They
have sustained many generations of Alaskans and will
continue into the future by the passage of HB 134.
CHAIR SEATON requested that when she speaks to other residents
about testifying on the bill, that she solicit their opinions,
and concerns, regarding the aspects of HB 134 dealing with
conversion to dry land, or building gravel pads, and the
exemptions of the oil and gas industry; does it fit with what
people would like to accomplish in the area.
6:33:17 PM
NATALIA BLUNKA said she supports HB 134, to protect the quality
of the water. She related a story of using the clean water, and
expressed concern that one day it might be polluted.
Additionally, she has 19 grand, and 3 great grand children who
she is teaching about respecting the land and water, as she was
taught by her elders.
6:34:28 PM
WASSILLIE CHUNAK SR., [Inaudible.]
6:34:49 PM
TIMOTHY WONHOLA SR., stated support for the effort that is
uniting the people to protect the watershed. He said, "It makes
me feel so happy that someone is listening out there." Having a
clean water act is important to the cultural user. He described
the two large watersheds, that are the primary support, for the
local fisheries. He expressed concern for the decline of fish
stocks in the north fork of the [Koktuli] River; head waters for
the Nushagak River. His family has observed fewer fish every
year, because the quality of the water suffers. The fish
decline pattern began, he reported in the last few years, with
the water monitoring that has been taking place. He expressed
fear for the survival of his culture, and his fellow Native
Alaskans. If the water is effected by new development, then the
land (indisc.), and he said, "That is sad." With all of the
user groups involved, he called for a study of the fish/water
conditions of the [Koktuli] River.
6:39:30 PM
[Inaudible] said, "I support 134."
6:39:49 PM
[Inaudible] (Indisc.) and discussed the importance of water to
the subsistence lifestyle that has been an ongoing activity, in
this area, for hundreds of years. "I support the HB 134," she
said, "Because I am a subsistence user (indisc.)." We need you
to help us keep our waters clean and continue our subsistence
way of life, she implored the committee.
6:41:11 PM
KATHLEEN WONHOLA said she is a strong supporter of HB 134, in
its entirety. It will help to protect the fishery, and
(indisc.).
6:41:55 PM
SALLY GUMLICKPUK said that she is a subsistence user, and a
"strong" supporter of HB 134. Growing up "on" subsistence, she
recalled the first fish she ever caught, and related the story
to illustrate how the culture is passed from generation to
generation, with pride. She expressed the need to ensure that
the resources are available for future generations. Some people
may make money at the Pebble Mine, but what will everyone else
do; they will still rely on having subsistence resources, she
opined.
6:44:23 PM
ALEXIE GUST SR., [Inaudible.]
6:44:41 PM
[Inaudible], Union President, observed that everyone is in
accord regarding the clean water issue; without argument.
[Inaudible.] He pointed out that everyone makes their money off
the land, and resources, as well as subsisting. Mining, by its
nature, is a polluting industry, requiring large amounts of
toxic substances to be contained, in a changing environment,
which, he said, "is a tall order to ever do that ...."
[Inaudible.] Oil and gas development is not a clean industry,
either, as evidenced by the history of drilling in Cook Inlet.
Oil and gas developers have improved their techniques, and
proven the ability to operate more cleanly. With the need for
jobs in the area, he pondered what the resident's choice would
be between a large scale mining operation, with all of the
potential possibilities and problems clearly set forth, vs. oil
and gas development.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that part of HB 134 includes an
exemption for residential, but not commercial use. Only eight
of the current area lodges hold water rights. He stated that an
outstanding question exists on how this will effect the
commercial lodges without water rights, and future lodges. He
asked the witness if he has considered this potential water
usage conflict.
WITNESS stated that he finds that language, in the bill to be
"clumsy." [Inaudible.]
CHAIR SEATON interjected, "But ... what we're talking about is
the bill that we have."
WITNESS [Inaudible response.]
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether there should be an exemption in
the bill for small scale commercial use.
WITNESS responded (indisc.) a written vs. a reactive thing
(indisc.) makes it a little bit more dynamic (indisc.).
6:50:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for a raise of hands from the
gallery to identify the commercial fishermen, and a second
raising of hands to signify subsistence users only. She assumed
that the remainder of the group are in someway employed, and may
also practice subsistence use.
[A number of inaudible, unidentified, overlapping responses from
the gallery arose.]
6:52:17 PM
MICHELLE HOPE RAVENMOON said that Bristol Bay is her home, and
she supports HB 134. The reason for her support, she said, "is
because it will protect the waters and the home that I love."
Salmon is her only food source, and she relies on a constant
source of fish throughout the year. [Inaudible.] Subsistence
users are allowed approximately 400 pounds of meat per year,
and, as she understands the bill, it will not impose on the
harvesting of these traditional quotas. [Inaudible.] Salmon
make up about seven per cent of the annual subsistence food, in
the Iliamna area, she maintained. [Inaudible.] Many tests have
been conducted by the state (indisc.). She stated that she is
not against mining, or economic development. Mine, or no mine,
clean water is essential, she stressed. Because it is difficult
for people to take time from work, and travel to these meetings,
she suggested that technology be employed to make it easier to
testify.
6:56:13 PM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the state teleconferencing system has
been in service during each hearing. Also, there have been
three hearings in Juneau, on HB 134, but the will of the
committee was to travel to the region for additional, personal
feedback. He stressed that this effort is not intended to
circumvent anyone calling via the teleconference system, or
sending written materials and opinions to be included in the
record.
6:57:14 PM
KEITH JENSEN, President, Pedro Bay Village Council, pointed out
that Pedro Bay is situated between Cook Inlet and the proposed
Pebble Mine. The main access road, to the mine, would cut
straight through Pedro Bay; crossing a variety of terrain. The
residents are concerned about what effects this would have on
the area, including drainage from the road, and the health of
the surrounding aquifers, given the water usage of the mine.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there are concerns regarding the dry land
restrictions.
MR. JENSEN stated that Pedro Bay sits on bedrock, and there is
minimal need to create dry land.
6:58:55 PM
MARVIN BALLUTA provided his introduction, and statement, in his
native tongue, then restated his support for HB 134 in English.
6:59:30 PM
SERGIE CHUKWAK suggested amending page 2, line 19 to include
Native (indisc.). He said, "They want to develop their land,
let them develop their land." If that provides some revenue
then that could be beneficial. Stating that he has been a
commercial fisherman for 30 years, he said, "I say give salmon
fishing a break, and let us develop our land if we want."
CHAIR SEATON reiterated the helpfulness of these types of
specific suggestions. He encouraged everyone to obtain a copy
of the bill, to aid them in formulating their input.
MR. CHUKWAK pointed out to the gallery that this is a draft of
the bill, and encouraged everyone to inform the committee of the
local needs, and desires, to properly craft the legislation.
7:01:37 PM
[Inaudible] addressed the committee in her Native language, then
stated, "I support HB 134."
7:02:26 PM
[Inaudible], President, Nondalton Village Council, said, "I
support the HB 134."
The committee took an at-ease from 7:03:08 PM to 7:20:32 PM.
7:20:59 PM
CHAIR SEATON discussed the versions of HB 134. He explained
that Version M is the working document, not the official
document available on BASIS. However, it can be viewed on
Representative Edgmon's website, and copies are available from
the Legislative Information Offices.
7:22:47 PM
JAMES LAMONT expressed concern for the problems that this bill
will create for the local people. He opined that they will be
prohibited from building houses, or roads, and from accessing
various traditional use areas. A refuge can not be changed,
once it is effected, and is governed by a strict set of rules,
he maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that HB 134 does not create a
refuge. He then asked if Mr. Lamont would support HB 134 if the
title simply read: "The waters of the Bristol Bay watershed
should be used first for public water supply, and for
subsistence use, and be given any priority over any other ...
large scale industrial use."
MR. LAMONT maintained his opposition to HB 134, reiterated that
a refuge is restrictive, and said he needs to learn more about
the situation.
7:25:59 PM
THOMAS TILDEN, Member, Nunumta [Aulukestai], recalled the
national recognition he received in New York City, when he
attended a late night talk show. Stating that he was from
Dillingham, the host recognized the area as the "salmon capitol
of the world." "That is who we are," he said, "we are people of
the salmon; we live off of it, we make our life off of it." HB
134 is necessary to ensure clean water and the continued
salmon/lifestyle, he stressed, and said "If we don't protect the
salmon, we are nothing. If you wanted to wipe out people, ...
wipe out the culture, then don't pass HB 134." The protections
in the bill are important, and he suggested amending the bill to
protect other river drainage areas, in the Alaska Peninsula.
Also, strengthen the bill, he said, by amending it to include
moving the Office of Habitat Management and Permitting, from DNR
to ADF&G. Amend it or not, but "by all means, pass this bill,"
he exclaimed.
7:30:51 PM
BRIAN KRAFT, Board Member, Renewable Resources Coalition;,
Remote Fishing Lodge Owner;, Representative, Bristol Bay
Alliance;, informed the committee that he rough necked for four
years, with Doyon, Limited, and has also been employed by Arco.
This has provided him with a good understanding of the oil and
gas industry, but he is not as familiar with the mining
industry. He agreed with the sponsor's intent for HB 134, and
explained the vital importance for protecting these headwater
areas. He suggested amending [page 2], line 11, to insert "an
amount that is large enough that has measurable adverse effect",
to allow for housing development.
7:34:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON paraphrased from the statute "Civil
Penalties for Discharge of Oil" [AS 46.03.758], which reads:
(1) recent information discloses that the discharge of
oil may cause significant short and long-term damage
to the state's environment; even minute quantities of
oil released to the environment may cause high
mortalities among larval and juvenile forms of
important commercial species, may affect salmon
migration patterns, and may otherwise degrade and
diminish the renewable resources of the state;
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that this statute governs oil and
gas entities, but not the mining industry, and asked if Mr.
Kraft would support inclusion of the mining industry, under such
statute.
MR. KRAFT opined that the mining industry should be held to the
same standards, and scrutiny as the oil industry.
7:36:03 PM
GEORGE HORNBERGER informed the committee that he's a pilot and
works for Northern Dynasty. He stated that HB 134 "is all about
Pebble Mine and nothing else." Restrictions on water embodied
in HB 134 are unworkable, and will effectively eliminate the
entire Pebble Mine process. He suggested that the permitting
process for the mine, be allowed to run it's coarse, and if the
requirements can not be satisfied it will become evident. This
legislation doesn't help anyone, he opined.
7:37:52 PM
MICHAEL BORLESKE opined that the legislation is written
backwards, as evidenced by the need to list exceptions. The
existing laws can be made better, and enforced, which will
provide the necessary protection to the area. Also, he hasn't
seen any information regarding how HB 134 will be funded.
7:40:20 PM
[Inaudible] President, Iliamna Native (indisc.), characterized
HB 134 as a distraction from the real issue of the future
economic development of the Iliamna Lake region. She suggested
focusing on the things that everyone agrees cannot be
compromised: the environment, (indisc.), an economic means to
provide for families, and (indisc.). If this legislation
passes, she opined, it will close the door on all economic
development in the region. "To put it another way," she said,
"To sacrifice our fish will kill our culture, but to eliminate
the ability to develop their region will kill our people." She
requested a deeper review of the communities, and their desire
to build a self-sustaining region.
7:43:11 PM
SEAN MAGEE, Vice President of Public Affairs, Partnership
Spokesperson, Northern Dynasty Mines, paraphrased from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I'm Vice President of Public Affairs for Northern
Dynasty Mines, and I'm here today on behalf of the
Pebble Partnership.
I'm going to return to the Pebble Partnership in just
a moment, but first I intend to make some very clear
and direct comments about the legislation before you
today - House Bill 134.
As you may recall, our company did not appear before
the House Resources committee in February of this year
when hearings on HB134 were first held in Juneau. At
that time, it was our view that this legislation would
so obviously alienate our right to pursue the
responsible development of the Pebble prospect, that
it scarcely justified our participation.
We took the decision to stand aside and let broader
interests - including community and institutional
leaders from Bristol Bay - comment on the far-ranging
negative impacts that HB134 would have on this region,
and the dangerous precedent it would create for the
State of Alaska.
Our view of the legislation has not changed. It would
clearly foreclose any opportunity to pursue
responsible development of one of the world's most
important mineral resources.
It would stifle investment and development across 22
million acres of a region that clearly needs new
economic opportunities. Affected industries would
include oil and gas, geothermal and other energy
development, tourism, fish processing, light industry,
manufacturing, and of course mining.
It would obstruct new infrastructure development and
challenge existing uses of land and resources,
including subsistence activities. And it would
provide competitive advantage - a virtual monopoly -
to existing businesses that would not have to comply
with its provisions.
We've heard rumors that the legislation could be
amended such that its provisions would apply to some
industries and not to others. And we simply cannot
understand how this approach - one that doesn't focus
on environmental impacts but on industrial practices,
and then allows those industrial practices for some
and not for others - squares with good public policy.
Clearly it does not.
Even worse, we fear that this flawed public policy is
being advanced for a singular purpose - to stop
Pebble.
HB134 is not an honest effort to ensure that the
Pebble Project is developed in a responsible manner,
to the highest possible environmental and social
standards - which is our interest as a company. It is
an attempt to stop development under any conditions.
And in doing so, it would have grave and far-reaching
consequences for the people and communities of Bristol
Bay. The collateral damage would be huge, and should
be understood and recognized by even the staunchest
opponents of our project.
So why has our company stepped forward to deliver this
message today when we chose not to do so in February?
The answer is there has been a meaningful change in
the manner in which the Pebble Project is being
advanced.
Last month, Northern Dynasty entered into a 50-50
joint venture partnership with Anglo American - one of
the world's largest and most respected mining
companies.
The Pebble Partnership is still being formalized, and
the Alaska-based management team that will lead it
into the future is not yet in place.
But as the committees of the Legislature and the
communities of Bristol Bay come together this week to
discuss the type of economic development they want in
this region, we believe it's important that all of you
understand the principles and values that will guide
the Pebble Partnership in future.
You'll hear a lot more about these principles in the
weeks and months ahead. They describe the values that
will guide our efforts as we seek to develop the
Pebble Project.
Pebble is for people - Pebble must benefit all
Alaskans.
Pebble must co-exist with healthy fish, wildlife and
other values natural resources.
Pebble must apply the world's best and most advanced
science
Pebble must help build sustainable communities.
At Pebble, we must listen before we act.
7:47:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed thanks to Northern Dynasty for
hosting the committee members, while in Iliamna. He asked if
the Pebble Partnership is opposed to having higher standards of
protection placed on the Bristol Bay watershed, and does that
constitute an implicit statement that the partnership is going
to damage water that otherwise would not be damaged. If the
partnership wants to support a no net loss of fish, it would
support this bill, but it can't support the bill because there
is going to be damage to the water. He asked if this is a
correct summation of the partnership's stance.
MR. MCGEE disagreed and said that HB 134 forbids the use of
water; specifically for industrial use. Water quality standard
statutes, already exist, he pointed out, and this bill merely
restricts water usage for certain industrial purposes; the
environmental impact of that use is not addressed. He opined
that the partnership can use the water resources and maintain
salmon stocks. However, the legislation forbids the use of
water altogether.
7:49:52 PM
CHAIR SEATON, for clarity, reviewed what various organizations
have contributed to the committees visit. Additionally, he said
that the legislature is fully compensating members for committee
attendance.
7:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if Northern Dynasty anticipates a
similar partnership relation to the communities, as the Red Dog
Mine has established in Kotzebue.
MR. MCGEE stated that Northern Dynasty is currently working in
partnership with the local communities and people; including
village corporations. He acknowledged the need to do more and
stated that it is part of the company's commitment, to the
region, as the project moves foreword.
7:53:16 PM
DR. CAROL ANN WOODY, Owner, Fisheries Research and Consulting,
stated that she has worked in the region since 1991; researching
sockeye salmon for the University of Washington. During the
last ten years, she has operated a counting tower on the New
Halen River to provide escapement information to ADF&G.
Additionally, she has worked on research projects with the Parks
Service, contributing to research publications. She provided a
scientific paper of a technical review of copper, for the
benefit of the committee. Recent research indicates how even
very low levels of copper can harm salmon. The levels indicated
are much lower than the limit specified in state law, as
criterion for protection of aquatic species. Toxicity tests are
lacking for most Alaskan species, all of which are used
(indisc.). The DEC model is used to calculate acceptable
pollution levels for copper, but it does not take into account
the myriad of (indisc.), or its (indisc.) effects with other
pollutants.
7:56:32 PM
CHIP [CHARLES] EMBRETSON suggested that water use/quality
concerns be addressed at the local, borough level of government.
He opined that it would be more efficiently handled, as a water
and air pollution issue, by the incorporated borough, as a
service area. The local government has not discussed this, and
he noted that this was the first he had heard of HB 134.
MIKE TREFON questioned, and took exception, to having a time
limit placed on the testimony for such an important issue.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated what the hearing schedule has been, and
is currently, for the bill; in order to obtain as much
testimony, and information, as possible. Written testimony is
also effective and appreciated, he encouraged.
8:00:47 PM
[Inaudible] said he is all for Northern Dynasty putting kids to
work. You can't live on subsistence anymore, he said, and
commented on the lack of wildlife in the area.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:08:56 PM to 8:11:04 PM in
order to prepare for the following presentations.
8:11:09 PM
The committee was shown a video presentation, produced by the
Iliamna Development Corporation, regarding Iliamna in relation
to the Pebble Mine.
8:22:04 PM
[Inaudible] said, "What it comes down to is, it's about the
people.
8:22:50 PM
CHAIR SEATON stressed the continued opportunities that will be
available for public testimony on HB 134, and urged that written
comments may also be submitted.
The committee took an at-ease 8:24:22 PM to 8:26:19 PM.
8:26:47 PM
ED FOGELS, Acting Director, Office of Project Management &
Permitting, provided a 36 slide overview titled "The Process and
Requirements for Large Mine Permit Applications in Alaska."
There is no single mine permit that is obtained, as illustrated
by the third slide listing 28 permits, and authorizations, that
must be acquired from various state or federal agencies. Slide
four established the 12 year timeline for a standard large-scale
mine project to begin operation; the Pebble Project is in the
early stages. He then emphasized that the state government
isn't really in the "driver's seat" with the process, as that
seat is occupied by the federal government. To satisfy the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is required. A Lead Federal Agency is
designated, which becomes the "driver," and the process then
begins, following a submittal of the full application package,
which, with Pebble, is still a couple of years out, he opined.
Three steps follow the submission of the application: Scoping
out the project and incorporating public feedback to delineate
issues/concerns, and receive public comments; Drafting of the
EIS, which is submitted for public comment; and the Final EIS,
with another public comment period. He reviewed the Pogo Mine
as a typical mine process, although on a much smaller scale than
what the Pebble Mine would represent. He emphasized the effort
for open communication including: pre-application meetings and
outreach, the EIS process, tribal consultation for government to
government communications, and open communications via the
internet web site, and public meetings.
MR. FOGELS then turned to mining, and reviewed the actual mining
process that begins with the removal of the topsoil, and ends
with the delivery of product, or tailings. He provided a series
of slides to illustrate the effort that goes into determining
what the water quality will be in the specific aspects of the
project. It is essential for the agencies involved, and the
companies, to understand the geochemistry, as it applies
directly to the mine operations, he offered.
8:35:43 PM
MR. FOGELS moved on to a partial list of the state regulatory
requirements, including: waste disposal permit and bonding,
reclamation plan approval, dam safety certification, sewage
treatment system approval, air quality permits, fish habitat and
fishway permits, water rights, right of way/access, plan of
operations approval, cultural resource protection, monitoring
plan, and coastal zone consistency determination. These permits
and approvals are received via DNR, DEC, or DOT. He maintained
that the mine operators are financially bonded to ensure
adherence to the standards, and provide reclamation. This
reclamation can be successful with the appropriate science,
engineering, and adequate bonding. He explained the bonding
process, and provided a slide to indicate the bond levels
currently held on existing mines in Alaska.
8:40:08 PM
MR. FOGELS addressed the concern for the safety of dams,
explaining the strict standards to which they are subject for
certification by DNR. He reviewed the previously mentioned
regulatory requirements, and attendant state agencies that are
involved for continued monitoring and review of permit
standards. He also reviewed the state agencies that constitute
a large mine permitting team: DNR, DEC, ADF&G, DOT&PF, DCCED,
and DOL. Additional slides provided the counterpart federal
agencies and federal regulatory requirements.
8:44:23 PM
MR. FOGELS explained what work is currently being done with
[Northern Dynasty] ensuring that the Pebble project is on track:
ensuring that the Company is collecting the right baseline data;
understanding what the issues are as early as possible;
coordinating public notices, hearings, public comments;
designing for closure; technical reviews of mine plans and
environmental data; ensuring appropriate monitoring; and
determination and maintenance of appropriate financial
assurances.
8:47:04 PM
CHAIR SEATON finalized the meeting, and provided a timeline for
availability of the current information.
[HB 134 was held over.]
8:48:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|