Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/26/1999 01:08 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 1999
1:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Mary Kapsner
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Supporting the responsible development of the Tulsequah Chief Mine
through the cooperative effort of Alaska and British Columbia and
urging Governor Knowles to withdraw his request for a referral of
the Tulsequah Chief Mine to the International Joint Commission
under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 4
SHORT TITLE: TULSEQUAH CHIEF MINE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PORTER, Barnes
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/19/99 513 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/19/99 513 (H) RESOURCES
3/26/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 208
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4930
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 4.
NORM RINGSTAD, Project Assessment Director
Environmental Assessment Office
P.O. Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9V1 Canada
Telephone: (250) 356-7481
POSITION STATEMENT: At invitation of sponsor of HCR 4, explained
review process and answered questions.
BOB CARMICHAEL
Redfern Resources Limited
900-999 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Telephone: (604) 669-4775
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave slide presentation on technical aspects
of proposed mine, relating to HCR 4.
AL CLOUGH, Local Chapter President
Alaska Miners Association, Incorporated
Kvaerner Environmental
3100 Channel Drive, Suite 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-4489
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of tenets in HCR 4.
ERROL CHAMPION, Cabin Owner and Member
Taku River Recreation Association
P.O. Box 295
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 789-2055
POSITION STATEMENT: Encouraged including language in HCR 4 that
demands response from Redfern Resources and
the B.C. government on how they plan to
protect and ensure downstream water quality.
DOUGLAS DOBYNS, Environmental Planner
Douglas Indian Association
P.O. Box 240541
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 364-3567
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; discussed joint project
with EPA and USGS to conduct water quality
monitoring on the Taku River, and poor track
record of British Columbia mines regarding
water quality.
MICHAEL DUNLAP, Council Member
Douglas Indian Association
P.O. Box 240541
Douglas, Alaska 99824-0541
Telephone: (907) 364-2916
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
ELDON DENNIS, Fisherman
P.O. Box 20070
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-3544
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 in support of Governor's
position on IJC review.
CARL PETERSON, Fisherman
2403 Aurora Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-2794
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
KATHY WELTZIN
P.O. Box 210665
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-0288
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concern about
road and encouraged focus to be on watershed.
JIM BECKER, President
Juneau Chapter
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters
P.O. Box 240522
Douglas, Alaska 99824-0522
Telephone: (907) 586-1900
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concerns and
spoke in support of Governor's position.
AARON BRAKEL
420 East Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concerns and
spoke in support of Governor's position.
JAY CRONDAHL
626 Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1464
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
BRAD PIERCE, Taku River Cabin Owner
3281 Nowell Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-4831
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed support for
Governor's position.
LAURIE FERGUSON CRAIG, Issues Coordinator
Alaskans for Juneau
P.O. Box 22428
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-2768
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to passing HCR 4 at
this time and in support of IJC consideration.
RICH DAVIS
Seafood Producers Cooperative
2347 Kevin Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-2696
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
ROBERT BOSWORTH, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6140
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; detailed department's
concerns and answered questions.
TIM BRISTOL
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6945
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
DON WEIR, President
Taku Wilderness Association
(No address provided)
Atlin, British Columbia, Canada
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; discussed concerns about
proposed road and long-term effects to
watershed, as well as B.C.'s poor track record
regarding monitoring and regulation of mines.
JOAN JACK
Nakina Center for Aboriginal Learning and Living
(No address provided)
Atlin, British Columbia, Canada
Telephone: (250) 651-7557
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concerns.
BRYAN JACK, Taku River Tlingit
(No address provided)
Atlin, British Columbia, Canada
Telephone: (250) 651-7799
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 in opposition to the road
and in support of IJC review.
ROGER BURGGRAF
830 Sheep Creek Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2596
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 4.
MARY NORDALE
100 Cushman Street, Suite 311
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 479-2596
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 4.
WILLIAM CAMPBELL, Taku River Tlingit
(No address provided)
Atlin, British Columbia, Canada
Telephone: (250) 651-7799
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4 in opposition to the road
and mine.
CLAY FRICK
P.O. Box 8118
Port Alexander, Alaska 99836
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4.
JOEL BENNETT
15255 Point Louisa Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1718
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; spoke in favor of
Governor's position and further IJC review;
expressed concerns about coho salmon habitat.
PHILLIP GRAY
4410 North Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HCR 4 and in
support of Governor's proposal regarding IJC.
NEIL MacKINNON
1114 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3494
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concerns about
impacts of environmental groups on Taku River.
WAYNE WEIHING
Tongass Conservation Society
P.O. Box 1193
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-8276
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; spoke in support of
Governor's position regarding IJC.
MIKE SALLEE
P.O. Box 7603
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-7603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 4; expressed concerns.
KERRY HOWARD
Project Review
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0030
Telephone: (907) 465-8794
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HCR 4, answered questions
relating to recourse for state and effects of
IJC referral.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Harris, Morgan, Whitaker and Joule.
HCR 4 - TULSEQUAH CHIEF MINE
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would hear House
Concurrent Resolution No. 4, supporting the responsible development
of the Tulsequah Chief Mine through the cooperative effort of
Alaska and British Columbia and urging Governor Knowles to withdraw
his request for a referral of the Tulsequah Chief Mine to the
International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
Number 0076
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HCR 4, came forward. He told members he had heard both
sides regarding the proposed mine in British Columbia (B.C.),
including the point of view that the process is too risky for
Alaska, and that Alaska should intercede. However, he believes
that the mine is worthy of consideration. He asked members to
listen to the testimony and make their own judgments.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER acknowledged that the permitting system for
mines in B.C. is different from that in Alaska; however, he doesn't
believe that necessarily makes it deficient. He stated, "The House
Majority, for the years that I have been here, has basically
supported the notion of responsible resource development. Whether
you say 'responsible resource development' or 'resource development
in a responsible way' shouldn't make a difference, but I think, in
this case, perhaps, some people are trying to convince others that
it does make a difference which way you say that." He suggested
that although some may describe B.C.'s system as new and untested,
he believes that is not the case; he urged members to ask about
that point.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said as he understands it, the B.C. system
allows, after initial certification inquiries, for permits to be
issued as development occurs; in contrast, in Alaska almost all
permitting happens before any development may take place. He
stated, "The criticism of this type of a system, I have heard, is
that once the project is underway it has a self-fulfilling quality,
and that the permitting is actually diminished because of that. I
think you will hear, from the folks that know about it and do it,
that that isn't the case." Representative Porter submitted that in
some cases, Alaska's system, which allows "challenges and repeated
inquiries and virtual arbitrations" before one bit of a project has
begun, is an opportunity for "obstructionism" so that a project
will never occur.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked members to look at the following: 1)
whether the B.C. system meets the same standards, albeit with a
different method, that our own systems and standards for
environmental protection have; 2) whether the system is adequate
for protecting the concerns that people have about the road
construction, and whether it is really going to be a public road;
3) whether First Nation considerations in Canada are about the mine
project or about longstanding land disputes, and what the
involvement is of First Nation peoples in the process; and 4) what
risks are associated with the mine tailings, including where they
will be located and in what amounts.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "Our system would want every single
one of these questions answered before the project could begin. I
guess the question remains, again: Will the standards that we
expect to be met be met under the system that they have?" He next
pointed out that HCR 4 asks that a referral to the International
Joint Commission (IJC) not occur. Noting the steps and time that
such a referral would involve, he asked members to determine
whether that referral would provide additional information or
protections to this project, and whether it is appropriate or
"obstructionistic." Representative Porter asked Mr. Keith Ogilvie
[Special Advisor, International Relations, Intergovernmental
Relations Secretariat] and Mr. Norm Ringstad of the Environmental
Assessment Office in B.C. to explain how their system works and
answer questions; he indicated that he himself had to leave.
Number 0667
CO-CHAIR OGAN invited Representative Jeannette James to join
members at the table, which she did. He then invited Mr. Ogilvie
and Mr. Ringstad to the witness table; Mr. Ogilvie declined,
deferring to Mr. Ringstad, but offered to answer questions.
Number 0751
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the system in place in B.C. is equal
to, or compatible with, Alaska's system, and what safeguards will
be in place. He noted that this project has generated more public
interest than most other mining projects in Alaska.
Number 0855
NORM RINGSTAD, Project Assessment Director, Environmental
Assessment Office, came forward, noting that he is with the British
Columbia Environmental Assessment Office in Victoria. He specified
that he and Mr. Ogilvie were present to provide information, not to
take a position on HCR 4. He indicated he would answer by
providing a quick summary of their entire process, which he hoped
would be enough of a basis to determine the comparability of their
processes and products to those in Alaska. He stated:
As you may be aware, this project has been under review since
1994. The Tulsequah project was subject to the British
Columbia Environmental Act, as most - if not all - major
mining projects are in British Columbia. The project was also
subject to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, so there was a federal Canadian government
review process, as well as a provincial government review
process, that this project had to come through prior to a
decision being made on whether or not it could proceed.
As part of the meeting of the requirements of both of those
processes, I chaired a committee called the Tulsequah Project
Committee, and that committee comprises provincial British
Columbia government agencies, the Yukon government agencies,
First Nations, Alaska state and U.S. federal agency
representatives. We, as a committee, coordinated the overall
review of this project to meet the requirements of both our
British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act; and we did that over a
three-and-a-half-year period, beginning in the fall of 1994
and culminating in a set of recommendations to our respective
decision makers on the Canadian side in March of 1998.
I should point out that the Environmental Assessment Act, as
it applied to this project, is a fairly new process in and of
itself; the Act was proclaimed in June of 1995. However, the
Environmental Assessment Act is modeled on the previous
British Columbia Mine Development Assessment Act and process.
... Since 1976, there has been a coordinated overall
environmental assessment review process for ... mining
projects in British Columbia.
Throughout the review, we ensured that all of the issues that
were raised were taken into consideration. We identified
issues specific to the potential for transboundary affect on
water quality and fisheries; and knowing that there was a
potential for transboundary effects, we complied with the
transboundary consultation / notification / information
requirements of the treaties for ensuring that ... our
neighboring jurisdictions were involved in the review, and
also that their issues were taken into consideration.
In March of 1998, at the conclusion of the review, the British
Columbia ministers of Energy and Mines, and Environment, Lands
and Parks, approved the project to proceed to permitting, and
they did that with the issuance of a project approval
certificate. In and around the same time, the federal
government, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
accepted the project review conclusions as meeting their
review needs, and also authorized the project to proceed to
the next level of review under our statutory permitting.
I should point out that in British Columbia we have a
two-stage decision-making process. The first stage is a
conceptual level ... of assessment, identification and
resolution of strategic issues; if it is determined that there
are no strategic flaws that ... would arise in the project
during the permitting stage, that is the time when the British
Columbia government approves the project to move to the
permitting stage.
At the permitting stage, there are a number of provincial and
federal statutory permit requirements, at which time the
detailed, technical assessment design and mitigation plans are
put together, in support of making applications for the
permits; and until each of those permits [is] obtained for
each of the components of development, ... no construction
takes place. The project approval certificate given at the
first stage of review does not authorize a project ... to
actually go into construction; it only authorizes it to move
to the permitting process.
Number 1226
In March, when the decisions were made to have the project
move to the permitting process, it was acknowledged that there
were a number of outstanding concerns raised by U.S. federal
agencies and Alaska state agencies, concerning a number of
issues related to transboundary effects. As a result of that,
British Columbia and Canada did two major things. Number one,
it made a formal invitation to Alaska state and U.S. federal
agencies to continue to participate actively in the review of
those permit applications, by way of sitting on a regionally
based standing committee of permitting agencies, ... and that
committee would take the role of coordinating the review of
those permit applications, and would include the further
consideration of the concerns raised by Alaska state and U.S.
federal agencies.
MR. RINGSTAD told members the second thing they did was embark on
an 11-month continuation of bilateral discussions and information
exchanges between B.C., Canada and U.S. federal and state agencies.
In 1998, they met three times - in Washington, D.C., in April; in
Vancouver, B.C., in November; and in Seattle, Washington, in
December - producing a number of further documents and
communications. Through that 11 months of iterative dialogue and
consultation, technical specialists on water quality and fisheries
on the Canadian side dealt directly with the technical specialists
on the Alaskan and U.S. federal sides.
MR. RINGSTAD stated that it was their hope on the Canadian side
that the 11 months of "bilaterals" would bring the comfort level up
for the U.S. agencies, "to agree that our permitting process is a
process within which the remaining issues - which are technical in
nature - can be resolved, and the standards for environmental
protection, through that permitting process, will be ... equivalent
to that in Alaska." As to the comparability between Alaska state
or U.S. federal processes and their B.C. and Canada processes, he
said he cannot answer the question any more specifically.
Number 1396
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Ringstad whether there are other mining
cases dealing with transboundary circumstances between Alaska and
Canada.
MR. RINGSTAD answered that there are a number of mining projects
located in northwestern B.C. on transboundary rivers. There is the
Premier-Silbak mine near Hyder, Alaska, on a tributary leading into
the Salmon River. There is the Cominco Snip Gold Mine on a
tributary leading to the Iskut River. And in the same general
vicinity are the International Skyline Johnny Mountain Mine and the
Prime Resources Eskay Mine; the latter mine is located in the
headwaters of the Unuk River.
MR. RINGSTAD noted that these projects were also subject to the
province's mine review process, prior to proceeding to permitting.
After clearing the first hurdle, they had moved into the permitting
stage, then into the development-operations stage. Some of them
are now closed, or in the process of being abandoned and reclaimed.
MR. RINGSTAD stated, "During those reviews, there was an invitation
for American input at the EA [Environmental Assessment] review, and
it is my understanding from discussing with technical specialists
in the Ministry of Environment on the British Columbia side - who
are responsible for the permitting of and the maintenance of water
quality - that, in fact, these projects are meeting the compliance
standards for water quality, and the potential for downstream
effects is not considered to be significant."
Number 1543
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Ringstad believes that there would
be the same results with this mine.
MR. RINGSTAD replied:
Yes, I do. At the first stage of decision making that we
completed by March last year, one of the major tasks of the
committee was to determine the potential for significant
effects, in a transboundary context, on fish and water
quality. Through the iterative approach to modifying the mine
plan design - to make it as environmentally friendly as
necessary, in the process of looking at accumulative effects,
assessment of water quality, and looking at the road access in
terms of potential for effects on fish - both the British
Columbia environmental assessment process participants and the
federal government, who also participated, were satisfied that
with the adoption of the appropriate mitigation measures
during the construction and operation, that there would be no
potential for any transboundary effects.
And, also, during our permitting process, it is my
understanding from my discussions with the Ministry of
Environment on the British Columbia side that, from a water
quality point of view, the standards to be set for permitting
the mine will be similar or equivalent to the standards set as
if the mine was in Alaska.
Number 1630
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked why Mr. Ringstad believes this project is being
treated differently, if there has been past experience doing this.
MR. RINGSTAD said he doesn't know why. He agreed that the concerns
raised on this project were not similarly raised in the other mine
project reviews relating to transboundary rivers, although the same
types and levels of potential for effects, and the same types and
levels of mitigation strategies, were in place.
Number 1670
CO-CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 1:30 p.m. to bring more chairs
into the crowded committee room; he called the meeting back to
order at 1:34 p.m. He asked Mr. Ringstad to explain the design
criteria regarding the tailings impoundment; specifically, he asked
what level of flooding would need to occur to destroy the tailings
impoundment dam.
MR. RINGSTAD said he could answer by providing a summary of the
conclusions reached by their technical experts in discussions with
technical experts on the United States side. He pointed out that
the dam and tailings impoundment are located on the fan of the
flood plain of Shazah Creek, a tributary to the Tulsequah River,
outside the 100-year flood plain of the Tulsequah River. Although
they are within a determined flood plain of Shazah Creek, it is yet
to be determined, through further detailed assessment, exactly
which flood plain they are in.
MR. RINGSTAD told members the dam will be designed to the
specifications of Canadian dam safety standards. The actual design
criteria will be established during the permitting process, but it
will be designed to withstand whatever natural disaster is deemed
to be "within the realm of happening." At this time, he doesn't
believe there is a final dam design specification. Mr. Ringstad
stated:
Through the discussions that I have been involved in, and the
subgroups that I have chaired, it was obvious to me that the
permittors for the dam will ensure that the dam design
criteria will be extremely conservative, to ensure that the
dam would withstand any natural hazard event, whether it's a
debris flow, whether it's ... a hydrological event. It was
determined through ... a fairly detailed reconnaissance-level
review of the potential for hazards that debris torrents,
debris hazards, are not a major factor that would influence
the integrity of ... the tailings pond and dam.
Hydrologically, the Shazah Creek has some hydrological data on
it from which we can determine return periods. More
information will be collected over the life of the project to
help finalize what the final dam design would be, but it is my
understanding from what I have heard that a doubling ... of
the ... 200-year ... flows in Shazah Creek would make that
event up in the 1-to-10,000-return event, and it is my
understanding - from the technical experts on the Canadian
side - that that would not breach the dam, or in any way
destroy its integrity, from the point of view of failure.
Notwithstanding, that type of an event, if it ever did happen,
could require maintenance or upgrading ... on the armament
around the face of the dam. But the actual dam design details
will be determined at the permitting stage, under the
Provincial Mines Act.
Number 1907
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there are any health or environmental
hazards from the tailings materials.
MR. RINGSTAD explained that one feature of this mine design - as he
understands it from the subcommittees that dealt with this - is
that the ore mined has with it a pyrite high-sulfide waste
material, which would end up in the tailings stream. There would
be a pyrite float in the mill circuit, which would remove all, or
the majority, of the sulfide material from the tailings; that
pyrite float would be mixed with cement and made into a paste
backfill, then put back into the underground stopes, both from a
mine safety point of view and as an acceptable disposal technology
for acid-producing waste material.
MR. RINGSTAD noted that it is proposed to put into the milling
process a source of calcium carbonate from a nearby limestone
quarry, so that the remaining tailings going into the tailings pond
are non-acid-generating. He specified that there are no "health
hazard constituents" of the tailings or the effluent. Mr. Ringstad
then stated:
It is my understanding from toxicity testing of bench-scale
effluent tests that rainbow trout have passed the LC-50 (ph)
tests with 100 percent survival in a 96-hour period, meaning
that the effluent in the tailings pond is not acutely toxic.
... There is no discharge from the tailings pond during the
life of the project, as it is currently planned. There is a
total - 100 percent - recycling of all tailings water into the
milling process.
Any seepage from the dam, any seepage from the tailings pond
will be monitored through the development of monitoring wells
around the face of the dam downstream, with the potential
mitigation plan of pumping any water back into the tailings
pond if it was found to be of a deleterious manner. ... At
reclamation, the pond will be dried, and the tailings
themselves will be covered with a suitable growth medium, and
the reclamation plan [is] to leave them in a dry, revegetated
state.
Number 2058
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked, "Would you take some of those tailings, put
them in a large glass, pour water over it and drink the water?"
MR. RINGSTAD said he couldn't answer that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his understanding that B.C. has had a time
deadline to get a permit processed. He asked how many extensions
there have been regarding this project.
MR. RINGSTAD replied that, for the entire review, there were four.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Ringstad had attempted to schedule
an appointment with the Governor while he is in Juneau.
MR. RINGSTAD said he had not.
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what the situation is with the First
Nations people, in terms of the land settlement and entitlement,
and where the First Nations people stand with this project.
MR. RINGSTAD said that is outside his area of expertise or mandate,
but it is his understanding that the Tlingit First Nation people
are engaged in B.C.'s treaty planning process, "at a certain
stage." Treaty issues are not covered by his office under the
British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act, because there is
another arena in which those issues are being addressed. He noted
that Tlingit representatives were present, then stated:
We invited Tlingit to sit on the project committee in 1994;
they actively participated in the review, throughout the
entire three-and-a-half-year period. They have been invited
to continue to participate in the permitting process, and I
can say that their participation - both by themselves and with
their consultants - made a positive contribution to making a
better mine plan, and it made a major contribution to probably
one of the most progressive environmental
follow-up-and-monitoring programs for this project that we
have had in British Columbia.
And, notwithstanding that, they do still have some concerns
with respect to this project in their traditional territory.
The province keeps an open-door policy to continue to discuss
with them the nature of those concerns and opportunities for
resolution. In the meantime, as you may be aware, in February
the Taku Tlingit laid a petition with supporting affidavits
into the B.C. Supreme Court, and so the matter is now before
the courts. ... I cannot say much more about it than that."
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS expressed his understanding that the B.C.
government has issued the environmental permit for this mine.
MR. RINGSTAD responded:
We do not have an environmental permit. What has been issued
- and it was issued in March of '98 - was what they refer to
as a project approval certificate, which was basically an
approval to proceed to permitting, with no authority to
undertake any construction. The major permits required of the
proponent before surface disturbance can be undertaken: on
the road, it is a permit under the Forest Practices Code of
British Columbia Act - that would be ... a permit to construct
the road; under the Mines Act, it would be a work system
approval and reclamation plan permit for the mine site; and
under the British Columbia Waste Management Act, a permit for
the handling of any waste material. And none of those permits
have been issued to date.
Number 2315
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted that a communication says that Redfern
Resources Limited, the company involved, hasn't addressed the water
quality issue downstream of the mine. He requested a response.
MR. RINGSTAD replied:
The advice I received from those agencies with the technical
expertise on water quality on the B.C. and Canadian side
agreed that the potential for downstream water quality effects
was not significant, and that, through the British Columbia
waste management permitting system, that the details of ...
those issues ... will be addressed to the satisfaction of both
British Columbia and Canada, and Alaska state, and, as such,
before the project is approved to discharge any contaminant
materials, that all of those issues would have to be addressed
satisfactorily.
Number 2372
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked, "Do you feel, from the Canadian side
of things, that it's essential that this go before the
International Joint Commission, or ... can it be handled between
the two governments?"
MR. RINGSTAD answered:
Through the continuing bilateral discussions we've had with
B.C., Canada and U.S. federal and state agencies, British
Columbia has taken the position that we feel that ... our
permitting process is an appropriate venue within which to
address the remaining issues, and that, by way of the
invitation for the Alaska state and U.S. federal agencies to
participate, we feel that is an appropriate venue.
Number 2442
BOB CARMICHAEL, Redfern Resources Limited (Vancouver, B.C.), came
forward to give a slide presentation. He explained that the
project is located on the bank of the Tulsequah River, about 14
kilometers upstream from the confluence with the Taku River, to
which the Tulsequah is a tributary. The tailings pond is on Shazah
Creek, a tributary to the Tulsequah River. The closest that the
mine itself will get to the Taku River is about 14 kilometers.
MR. CARMICHAEL showed a slide looking up the Tulsequah River,
depicting the old Polaris Taku townsite on the left and the mine
site on the right, with Shazah Creek flowing into the Tulsequah
River. He then showed a slide of the townsite of Tulsequah. He
told members that the valley has a fairly long history of mining
activity; the town existed there for about 30 years, serving the
Polaris Taku and later the Tulsequah Chief Mine.
MR. CARMICHAEL next showed a slide of the ore deposit, with
historic and proposed workings. He pointed out that the entire ore
body, as it exists, and the planned underground workings are below
the level of the river. The deposit is located about
three-quarters of a mile into the side of the mountain from the
river. Upon closure of the mine and reclamation, this mine will be
allowed to flood naturally, and all the stopes will be backfilled;
there will be no potential for drainage into the Tulsequah River.
MR. CARMICHAEL showed a slide of what the mine site will look like
when it is constructed, including the proposed mill site and the
buildings associated with the mine. He told members it is entirely
an underground mine, with a very small surface "footprint." He
pointed out the access road heading up Shazah Creek to Atlin, as
well as the tailings storage impoundment on Shazah Creek.
MR. CARMICHAEL next showed a shot of the bench where the plant site
is, then a picture of the Shazah Creek valley depicting the
location of the tailings impoundment. He stated, "This is where I
feel there's been a lot of misunderstanding about what we're trying
to do up here." He mentioned the design for the tailings
impoundment, indicating it is well-clear of any flooding danger
from the Tulsequah River.
MR. CARMICHAEL explained, "The design parameters that we used were
the 1-in-200-year flood on Shazah Creek. The state of Alaska was
interested in sort of worst-case scenarios, so, as Norm [Ringstad]
mentioned, one thing they wanted us to investigate was what would
happen if, say, we run into a volume of water that was double the
1-in-200-year flood event. It turns out that that corresponds to
about a 1-in-10,000-year return event; it's an extremely unlikely
event." Mr. Carmichael said in any case, the tailings impoundment
would survive such a flood-related event, and the risk of the
tailings stored in the impoundment being washed down the river is
zero.
MR. CARMICHAEL told members that, as Mr. Ringstad had touched upon,
the material stored in the tailings impoundment would be mixed with
limestone, and all of the pyrite would be removed and placed back
underground; the material stored in there will have no potential
for acid generation. That allows it to be reclaimed as a dry
impoundment; they can "dewater" it at the end of the mine's life,
then recontour it and revegetate it. He said it forms a very nice
walk-a-way solution, with no potential for acid (indisc.) drainage
out of the tailings pond, and no concerns about flood devastation
or of the tailings entering the Taku River system.
MR. CARMICHAEL noted that environmental measures include keeping
the development in hanging-wall rocks, which is a little unusual
for mining. He stated, "We've done that because we want to stay
away from some of the rocks that do have acid-generating potential.
Sulfides will be removed from the tailings. There'll be limestone
added to them. We'll put as much of the waste rock as possible
back underground. The reclamation involves sealing and flooding
the mine workings, which have been backfilled, so there's no chance
of drainage out of that." He pointed out the dry tailings storage,
which he had described briefly earlier.
MR. CARMICHAEL next showed a shot of the access road up to Atlin
and then down to Skagway, Alaska, followed by a picture of a
now-dormant storage facility in Skagway, to be used for storing and
shipping their concentrate. He concluded by showing the loading
facility at Skagway.
Number 2739
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked what Alaska or the United States can do if the
project goes ahead and somehow results in environmental damage to
rivers that flow across the border, for example, or damage to
Alaskan fisheries. He asked whether there is recourse under
international law or through treaty agreements.
MR. CARMICHAEL said that is outside his area of expertise.
MR. RINGSTAD noted that it is also outside his area of expertise,
then stated, "I don't have an answer specifically for that. With
respect to the road and the mine itself, under our provincial
legislation, there are bonds that are established ... to protect
against any risk and liability that would be leveled to the
provincial government."
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he would like to have that answered at some
point, before this resolution, if it moves from committee, is taken
up on the House floor.
Number 2824
AL CLOUGH, Local Chapter President, Alaska Miners Association,
Incorporated, came forward, noting that executive director Steve
Borell had provided written comments. Mr. Clough said that the
long history of mining in the Tulsequah area bears consideration in
this project. As Mr. Ringstad had highlighted, there are at least
four examples of other trans-border mining projects that are on
salmon streams; those have been successfully permitted and
operated, and in some cases, those are being reclaimed.
MR. CLOUGH stated, "Obviously, there are some heightened issues on
this. From the Alaska Miners Association perspective, we are very
much in favor of the tenets laid out in this joint concurrent
resolution, which basically says, 'Let's get this thing back to the
technical people, to the technical discussions that need to take
place to make sure this project moves forward in a responsible
manner.' And we would submit that perhaps the IJC issue has served
its purpose in getting people more aware of the issue, getting more
dialogue and more involvement by all concerned, and, as I say, it
is time to move it back off that forum and get it moved ahead and
resolved."
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that he would now take testimony from the
public.
Number 2910
ERROL CHAMPION, Cabin Owner and Member, Taku River Recreation
Association, came forward, stating, "I appreciated you asking the
key question that our association has on this whole matter, and
we've circulated correspondence to you prior." He told members the
association was formed several years ago to represent property
owners and users of the Taku River valley, mainly on the Alaska
side of the border. There are 130 lots on the City and Borough of
Juneau tax rolls, with 70 cabins built over the past 60 years.
Several members are second-generation users of the river, and one
member is apparently a fifth-generation user.
MR. CHAMPION stated:
Since the last ice age, the Taku River is the main access
route to the northern Interior. Tlingit Natives and others
sailed up and down this river between Canoe Landing and
tidewater; it's a distance of about 100 miles. Earlier this
week, our association sent you communications outlining our
views. We neither support nor oppose the reopening of the
Tulsequah Chief Mine because it's a Canadian project, and it's
the obligation of the B.C. government to review and regulated
the proposed mine.
MR. CHAMPION advised members that the association's main concern
centers on the fact that Redfern Resources has failed to respond to
repeated requests for Redfern's position on how they plan on
protecting and maintaining water quality below the border.
TAPE 99-20, SIDE B
Number 2968 [Numbers run backwards because of recorder]
MR. CHAMPION said they don't understand why Redfern Resources
doesn't want to communicate with members of the association or with
the state of Alaska. He told members:
While it's the sole responsibility of the B.C. government to
review and regulate this project, we do not want to see a
repeat of the soil contamination situation that Alaskans faced
in Skagway three years ago; that Canadian mine had no
responsibility and was not accountable for the cleanup costs.
Further, Premier Clark has not been a particularly good
neighbor to Alaska and, because of previous encounters, we
frankly don't think he cares about the Alaskan side of the
Taku River. We would encourage the legislature to rewrite
this resolution to contain language that demands a response
from Redfern and the B.C. government on how they plan to
protect and ensure downstream water quality during the life of
the project. Alaskans deserve to have those questions
answered.
Number 2926
DOUGLAS DOBYNS, Environmental Planner, Douglas Indian Association,
came forward. He stated:
We have a joint project with EPA [Environmental Protection
Agency] and USGS [United States Geological Survey] to conduct
water quality monitoring on the Taku River for a five-year
period. Our first sampling event was in October, which was
reconnaissance. The second sampling event was in November,
which is being analyzed at the Manchester Laboratory in
Washington State. This is to parts per billion; it's been
collected under the protocols of USGS and EPA. And we have a
quality assurance project plan that's been accepted by U.S.
EPS as being a valid laboratory and field sampling guide.
We feel that it's very necessary that someone baseline the
environmental conditions that are in the river at this time.
In our review of the Redfern data, one thing that was glaring
to us was that the samples were single-sample events that were
repeated, but there was no regular sampling that would
actually baseline the conditions in the river.
And so, we put this project as a proposal to USGS, and entered
with the director in the state of Alaska on a joint project to
conduct this. At the end of five years, there'll be a report
published by USGS that will be [an] official interpretive
report published in the USGS database. And I think that
that's something that you should be aware of, that it's
necessary for us to establish the scientific credibility,
because there's a lot of discussion without really having
reference to a regular data base.
MR. DOBYNS, noting that he himself is a "technical person,"
deferred to a council member from the Douglas Indian Association,
Michael Dunlap, who is on the environmental committee and is the
past president of the council, to further address the issues.
Number 2794
MICHAEL DUNLAP, Council Member, Douglas Indian Association, came
forward, giving his Tlingit name of Kah Du Shan; he specified that
he is Xix Chi Hit [Frog House] Gaanax Adi from the Taaku Kwaan on
the Alaska side of the border, and that he is an IRA [Indian
Reorganization Act] tribal council member of the Douglas Indian
Association, a tribal government in the Juneau area. He read into
the record his concerns about HCR 4:
The crux of the question is captured in the last "WHEREAS"
clause, which reads, "WHEREAS the government of British
Columbia has made assurances that the development of the
Tulsequah Chief Mine will result in no transboundary impacts".
This is the very question that is being challenged by Alaska's
Governor, Tony Knowles, and by the Douglas Indian Association.
The truth is that we do not trust ... British Columbia enough
to let them proceed without more assurances than they have
offered. If there could be a binding contract, assurances
that would require compensation in the event of a
transboundary impact, such as using a posted bond that would
be put up by the mine ahead of time, we would be more
impressed.
It is not an arbitrary position to question the assurances of
British Columbia in this matter. There are indications that
[B.C. Premier] Glen Clark's credibility is in question on a
number of counts at this time in general, and the track record
for the environmental control over mine pollution in B.C. is
not good, in particular.
There is the issue of the judicial review of the B.C. mining
certificate that has been filed by the Taku River Tlingits.
The First Nation is concerned enough to take expensive legal
action to defend their homeland. We are told to expect the
review to be heard within the next few weeks. It did not seem
prudent for the legislature of the state of Alaska to be
making a claim that all of the concerns have been met over
this issue. In fact, it may be that ... the intervention of
the IJC is the only way to (indisc.--coughing) the
jurisdictional question and the outstanding environmental
concerns that have been expressed by the many interest groups,
in addition to the Douglas Indian Association and the Taku
River Tlingits.
The Douglas Indian Association has begun a water testing
program on the Taku River, together with USGS and the EPA.
The second sampling will be taken in the next two weeks and
shipped to the EPA Manchester Lab in Washington State. This
is a five-year project that will document the baseline water
quality at the USGS gauge, just downstream of the B.C. and
Alaska border. The database will document the water quality
from November 1998 to October 2002, according to official
protocols of USGS and the EPA.
We suggest that this work will tell us whether there are
transboundary impacts or not, so that we will not have to take
the word of British Columbia or Redfern mine company. We ask
that the Alaska State Legislature support this activity,
rather than assuming that there will be no transboundary
impacts. Ask, instead, that the contractual assurance is
established, ... that will pay for any damages to the valuable
fisheries and the other natural resources that the Alaskans
depend upon from the Taku River. If the legislature is not
... prepared to take this action, we ask, at the very least,
the proposed resolution being considered here not be passed.
Number 2603
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Dunlap to briefly cite what he was
referring to when he said B.C.'s track record is not good with
water quality.
MR. DOBYNS returned to the witness table. He stated:
I've personally done review of two mines in British Columbia.
One is the Western Mines that feeds into Buttle Lake on
Vancouver Island. This was done under doctor Allen Austin at
the University of Victoria, who just recently retired ... and
has filed all of this papers with the library at the
University of Victoria.
We found extensive problems with tumors in fish, elevated
heavy metals; it resulted in a major amount of questions on
this, since it was the drinking water source for the city of
Campbell River. This issue has been going for approximately
30 years, and it's been in and out of numerous discussions.
The mine is in a provincial park of British Columbia, I should
add ....
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether that mine was permitted under the same
process as this one.
MR. DOBYNS replied:
No, it was permitted under an earlier process. However, since
it was brought up numerous times by concerned citizens for
redress by British Columbia, and they failed to get very good
satisfaction, I think it's pertinent. The second is [Island
Mines] that feeds into Quatsino Sound. And that's been used
- cited - as a stellar example of dealing with tailings
disposal in the marine environment; and I can tell you that
that was not the case. There's problems with crabs migrating,
juvenile salmonids, and I participated with some First Nations
people in monitoring that on northern Vancouver Island. So,
from my experience, I would say, as a professional opinion,
that there is not a good track record ... in this regard.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked what Mr. Dobyns' educational background is.
MR. DOBYNS answered, "I'm a Master's of Environmental Science."
Number 2435
ELDON DENNIS, Fisherman, came forward. A Juneau resident for 32
years, he has been involved in commercial fisheries for 28 years.
Mr. Dennis said he fully supports the Governor's efforts to ensure
the safety of the Taku River fisheries, and he emphasized the
importance of these fisheries.
MR. DENNIS referred to his first encounter at a meeting with
Redfern Resources representatives and said, "They proposed a
barging system at that time, and when meeting and discussing with
them, they were totally unaware that the barge schedule they were
planning to run would interfere with gillnets all across Taku
Inlet; they didn't have an idea that a fishery was even operating
at that time of the year, which is the summer."
MR. DENNIS stated that based on experience with the Canadian
government, dealing with the transboundary treaty negotiations, he
doesn't believe a word they say. Furthermore, he finds it
incredible that Alaska legislators are purporting to serve the
interests of Canadian mining companies, rather than looking after
the interests of Alaskan citizens involved in the commercial
fisheries.
Number 2335
CARL PETERSON, Fisherman, came forward, specifying that he owns and
operates a 42-foot gillnet and longline vessel on which he catches
and processes salmon, halibut, shrimp and other species. He told
members he was speaking against HCR 4. Mr. Peterson stated:
The reason I am against this resolution is that I don't
believe there has been enough information on this project
regarding safeguards for critical salmon spawning and rearing
habitat. I also have major concerns about possible leaching
of acid from this mine into the Taku River watershed. This
river system now supports a world-class run of king salmon, as
well as a large run of sockeye and coho salmon; pinks and
chums use this river system, along with numerous freshwater
species of fish, and large numbers of waterfowl and other
wildlife.
I would like to make it clear that I am not against mining or
other resource development. I just believe that these
projects should not have an impact on existing industries and
recreational users. I do support the efforts of Governor
Knowles to bring the highest level of protection to this
pristine watershed.
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to HCR 4, page 2, line 20, where it states,
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature recommends
continuing the cooperative effort between the two governments
toward to environmentally responsible development of the Tulsequah
Chief Mine". He asked whether that language is offensive to Mr.
Dennis.
MR. DENNIS said no, he has no problem with the legislature's
working towards that goal. However, he believes it should go to
the IJC, and he backs Governor Knowles' efforts to do that.
Number 2232
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked, "What do you think that this
international commission can do that our environmental agencies in
the state can't do?"
MR. DENNIS replied that he is not an expert on this. However, if
there were to be a problem with leaching of acid, for example,
there would be no recourse for commercial fishermen; all of a
sudden, the fish wouldn't show up and the fishermen would be out of
business. He pointed out that in Prince William Sound, where the
Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, they had said there was no effect
on the herring fisheries, yet ten years after the spill, there is
still oil in the water, and people up there haven't even been paid
for that disaster. He would like to have some recourse, through
the legislature or the Governor's office, for example, that says if
something does happen, the fishermen can be compensated. Testimony
that day indicates there is little recourse with the British
Columbia government, yet any effluent coming out of that mine will
go downstream, "straight to us."
Number 2150
KATHY WELTZIN came forward next. She pointed out that the project
includes a 150-kilometer road going through the watershed, with
more than 50 stream crossings. She emphasized the need to focus on
the whole watershed, not just the mine itself.
Number 2081
MR. CARMICHAEL said the road will be permitted under the B.C.
Ministry of Energy and Mines, as a private industrial road. It
will have a manned gate, and access will be allowed only to people
on mine business.
Number 2066
JIM BECKER, President, Juneau Chapter, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters (USAG), came forward on behalf of USAG, an organization
of men and women who make their living commercial fishing in
Southeast Alaska. He noted that USAG has chapters in Puget Sound,
Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau and Haines. He stated:
We are here today to encourage you to support the
Administration's efforts to have the issue of the Tulsequah
Chief Mine resolved by the International Joint Commission. To
date, the process has been totally inadequate in addressing
the impact of the mine on Alaskan Taku gillnet, sports and
subsistence fisheries.
The extent of our involvement was one public hearing at the
Baranof Hotel in the fall of 1997. At that hearing, Redfern
presented a full and complete overview of the proposed mine.
However, many questions from the audience raised serious
doubts as to the thoroughness of Redfern's application, and it
also raised concerns about ... additional potential
development, using the road built for Tulsequah Mine.
At the conclusion of that public hearing, we accepted
Redfern's offer to get on their mailing list and continue the
dialogue with them on unresolved issues concerning potential
impact on our fishery. To date, we have received nothing from
Redfern. It seems that we were afforded the opportunity of
commenting on the mine at the end of their public permitting
process, because in March of 1998, Redfern was issued a
permit.
Our organization has a responsibility to work diligently to
protect our fishing industry and ensure the long-term
survivability of our fishing industry. We have an internal
board resolution which guides our efforts in matters of
economic development, water quality and habitat issues. The
final part of our resolution says we strive to make it clear
we are not opposed to economic development. ... Expansion or
development of new industries can be good for everyone, as
long as development doesn't come at the expense of an existing
industry.
USAG has a long and successful working relationship with other
mine applicants, most notably, Coeur Alaska. We were the
first fishing organization to publicly support their
Kensington Mine, and even after Coeur Alaska had to make a
basic change to their tailing discharge, we continued to have
a healthy dialogue with them. From our perspective, the
process of permitting this mine didn't adequately consider the
impact on the healthy, viable Alaska fishery. [We are] the
one industry just down the stream, and we weren't even brought
into this discussion till the very end.
We base our concerns about the mine operation on information
submitted by the Department of Fish and Game, habitat and
restoration division. They say, in an October 30, 1997,
memorandum, and in subsequent memorandums, the following:
Their concerns are of downstream interested parties.
Tulsequah Mine and related activity has a potential to
substantially affect the water quality and fisheries of the
Taku River watershed.
In comment about ... Flannigan Slough, the department said,
"We are particularly concerned about the short- and long-term
impact to this area." The department has concerns about the
tailing storage ponds and water treatment plan, as well. The
department concludes [that] in the event of a landslide,
avalanche or earthquakes, tailing impoundment seepage would
increase substantially. They also raise the question of how
the cyanide would be shipped. In regard to the access road,
the department raises questions about sediment, siltation and
fish passages. Also, the department questions secondary
impact from additional development ... of the newly
established access road.
These are our concerns, as well. And if the mine were in
Alaska, all these and other related issues would be completely
hammered out in the public process. The only avenue left to
protect the Alaska interest is the International Joint
Commission. We appreciate and support Governor Knowles'
insistence that this matter be resolved there.
Number 1825
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "You said that the operator of the mine
offered to keep you informed, and you got on their mailing list and
then heard nothing?"
MR. BECKER affirmed that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Carmichael of Redfern Resources Limited to
jot down some of the questions and problems; Co-Chair Ogan stated
his intention of providing time at the end of the hearing for a
response. He expressed hope that this process can foster some
better communications.
Number 1769
AARON BRAKEL, Juneau resident, came forward next. He told members
that he supports the Governor's position on this. He believes it
needs to go to the IJC, which would give Alaska a seat at the
table. In contrast, HCR 4 says, "Let's not even sit at the table."
MR. BRAKEL pointed out that the Tongass Land Management Plan says
that the largest impact on fish habitat from logging in Southeast
Alaska is from the road building. He expressed extreme concern
about the road building on this project, noting that there are many
problems with the route, including that it is steep and will have
impacts on fish downstream.
MR. BRAKEL referred to mention that the road will be closed to the
public. He emphasized that a person flying south can view all the
devastation and clearcuts in British Columbia, which run for miles
along the streams and right up the sides of mountains into
avalanche zones. He concluded, "They're not going to stop that
from happening in Canada. ... Their record on fish habitat
protection is terrible. So, I hope that you support the Governor's
position and go to the International Joint Commission on this, so
that we - Alaska - can have a seat at the table."
Number 1623
JAY CRONDAHL came forward, concisely stating, "No. Vote no on the
resolution."
Number 1582
BRAD PIERCE, Taku River Cabin Owner, came forward next. He told
members that he has nothing against Canadians or Canadian
companies. However, he wonders why the legislature would want to
promote the interests of a Canadian company over the interests of
Alaskan voters who have cabins up the river or who earn their
livelihoods in Taku Inlet. He supports what the Governor is doing
by making sure that this developer meets international standards.
In response to Co-Chair Ogan's question about whether he works for
the Administration, Mr. Pierce specified that he was speaking on
his own behalf, although he works for the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Joe Geldhof, but there was no response.
Number 1462
LAURIE FERGUSON CRAIG, Issues Coordinator, Alaskans for Juneau,
came forward, noting that she had provided written comments that
say that Alaskans for Juneau supports IJC consideration and
referral for this project, and that they do not support HCR 4. She
stated:
There are a couple of things that have come up that may be
relevant, that are not in our comments - number one, the
process between how Canada decides these projects and how the
U.S. and Alaska decide them. There was a similar approach
taken to the A-J Mine here in Juneau, called phasing. And our
citizens' group, and another citizens' group, appealed the
city's decision of going ahead in segments and not knowing
exactly what would happen before permits were granted.
They chose to make those decisions before the answers were in.
We took that all the way to the supreme court and ended up
with a fine precedent that says that is not to be done; and I
would be happy to provide you with a copy of that court
ruling, so that you can consider that as you take your vote,
and how your vote would be influenced by standing supreme
court decision making.
The second point, very briefly, is about the IJC. I have been
following an issue that they are working on right at this
time. They are primarily an organization that was designed to
resolve problems with the Great Lakes. They are currently in
some hearings right now between Canada and the U.S., and it
provides a forum for both sides to present their approaches,
in an equal and fair way. There are currently four hearings
going on in the U.S. side - and citizens that are affected by
this Great Lakes potential decision - and four hearings going
on that have just concluded today, over the last two weeks, on
the Canadian side. And I think that's the fair kind of
approach that we see here with the legislature - that you want
to hear what everybody has to say.
And so, I would suggest that - along with some of my fellow
people - I recommend that you not pass this resolution at this
time, and consider continuing to support the Governor in his
assessment that this should have IJC approval.
Number 1300
RICH DAVIS, Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC), came forward next,
informing members that he is a 36-year resident of Juneau; for the
last 30 years, he has been a commercial fisherman. He, his wife
and their three children are totally dependent on Alaska's
commercial fisheries resources. He has fished both commercially
and recreationally for salmon from the Taku River since he was ten
years old. He serves the 400-member SPC as their representative to
the United Fishermen of Alaska. Mr. Davis stated:
We harvest Taku River salmon in both gillnet and troll
fisheries in Southeast. Mining issues, as they relate to
mineral extractions, and fisheries issues, as they relate to
water quality, are not new to us.
The Tulsequah Chief Mine project does not answer the questions
or assuage the concerns of Alaska's resource agencies at this
point. Our state's resource agencies have our interests and
concerns in mind. A few corporate executives and government
diplomats from Canada can show up here and change a few minds
- how convenient for them.
The Canadians are not your constituents. If they're going to
mine upstream, with adequate safeguards for the water quality
necessary to sustain salmon habit, then let's make them prove
it with thorough science, good planning, and satisfy the
state's concerns that our resource agencies have.
Put yourself in the fishermen's shoes. Our neighboring
government has degraded its waterways, exploited its salmon
resources, to the point where their commercial salmon
fisheries in British Columbia are no longer sustainable.
Rather than face the reality of their own irresponsibility,
they - for years - have labeled Alaska's fisheries as the
culprit.
Their government is not my government. I don't trust them,
and they don't elect you. We oppose the resolution and will
support the Governor's effort to resolve the differences we
have through the International Joint Commission, until the
mine's proponents convince Alaska's resource agencies that
water quality and fish habitat concerns of the users of the
Taku River drainage are addressed.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Davis what steps Redfern Resources and the
Canadian government could take that would make him comfortable.
MR. DAVIS replied that if they could convince the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) that the efforts that they are going to
undertake would ensure the safeguards of the spawning habitat, the
rearing habitat, the critical fisheries habitat, and the resources
that inhabit that river, he would be much more comfortable. "But
our state agencies, at this point, have not been convinced that our
concerns are addressed," he concluded.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Deputy Commissioner Bosworth whether the state
has changed its position.
Number 1094
ROBERT BOSWORTH, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, answered, "We have not changed our basic position."
Number 1084
TIM BRISTOL, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, came forward.
He stated:
Just for the record, we are adamantly opposed to this
resolution. We think that the International Joint Commission
actually would give the state of Alaska more control over
development of this mine. I grew up on the Great Lakes, and
there were a lot of IJC issues that came up; and usually it
was the Canadians, very concerned about something that was
going on, on the American side of the border, and they would
go to the IJC to make sure that they had fair representation,
being a smaller country and having a lot less people on their
side of the border. And I just kind of see it as turnabout,
and ... I think it's fair play.
And I would also encourage the legislature to look at the
concerns that the commercial fishermen are bringing up here.
They probably have the most intimate relationship with
Canadians when it comes to treaty negotiations and dealing
with allocation of resources, particularly salmon, and I think
that we should defer to them on this issue.
Number 1002
DON WEIR, President, Taku Wilderness Association, came forward,
noting that he is from Atlin, B.C. He handed out a copy of written
testimony, attached to a document titled, "Lessons from the
Environmental Assessment process of the South Kemess Copper/Gold
Mining Project," which he said details problems with the B.C.
Environmental Assessment Act and why it should be of concern to
Alaskans. Mr. Weir stated:
There are two key questions here which I really think that
people should be thinking about more seriously, and ... it's
a broader question than Redfern. Our concern with this whole
project, in addition to the problems with the Redfern mine,
are the long-term impacts, looking at the watershed over a 10-
or 20-year period.
Our main concern here - and a lot of it was from talking to
people in the B.C. government - is that there is an agenda
here to have a road going from Atlin to Telegraph Creek,
setting up, basically, an industrial corridor in there for
logging and for mining.
We knew that if the Redfern project did go ahead - it was
given a project approval certificate - that interest would be
aroused; and that is exactly what happened. The Muddy Lake --
or the Explorer Gold moved into and was doing exploration work
on the main-stem Taku. People who were rafting down the river
sat down with those people, talked to them, asked them what
their long-term mine plan was; and they said they didn't
really feel they needed the Tulsequah Chief road, that they
wanted to punch a road from the mine site, on the main stem,
connecting with the Muddy Lake road.
A month later, I came to Juneau, was talking to an Alaska
state fisheries official, and when I showed him where they
were talking about punching a road, he said that is the heart
of the Taku with regard to the fishery.
We know that that is what the government would like to do, to
pull in tax revenue, and that is what our concern is here.
The Redfern -- the work they have done is decent work, but the
long-term impact on the watershed is what people should be
thinking about .... We would hope the IJC, if it did happen,
would address that.
The other question, which I think all stakeholders should have
a major concern with, is whether the monitoring and the
regulatory processes in B.C. will adequately address issues if
the mine does go ahead; and that is what I address in here
[the handout]. There is a long litany of pollution abatement
orders, violations to fisheries Acts, one thing after another;
I have six pages of them here, just on two mines - one, the
Huckleberry Mine, and the Kemess Mine in the interior of B.C.
And I think that should be a concern if the mine does go
ahead.
I'll read just a brief snippet here: From the point of view
of other stakeholders, the ... key question should be whether
the assessment of this process properly addressed the short-
and long-term impacts of this project. Another question is
whether the mitigation measures created by the provincial
government, to cover up flaws in Redfern's project report,
will adequately deal with the long-term impacts. The best way
to make this determination is to look at British Columbia's
track record on other mining projects. The record does not
provide much assurance.
We have been told by numerous government officials that, due
to severe budgetary cutbacks, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, to properly investigate and remedy the inevitable
problems that will come.
It's your call whether you want to go to an IJC or not, or
even if the IJC would address the issues. But there are some
serious problems here. Taku River Tlingit have filed a court
challenge against the project certificate, and the key part of
that case is that there were clear violations of the
environmental assessment, and violations were made on
political grounds because the government wanted this project;
and there's a history of these things happening.
And the impact will not be on us in Atlin, except
socioeconomic (indisc.). The impact will be on you downriver,
if the watershed is opened up. And I hope you will just take
a serious look and perhaps delay a decision on this resolution
until the outcome of the court case in the summer, because we
think it will indicate that there were some really serious and
blatant violations. And it should be of concern to you.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if Atlin is at the headwaters of the Taku
River.
MR. WEIR answered that Atlin is north of the Taku watershed, on
Atlin Lake, about 90 kilometers - 60 miles - south of the Yukon
Territory border.
Number 0609
JOAN JACK, Nakina Center for Aboriginal Learning and Living
(C.A.L.L.), came forward. From Atlin, B.C., she informed members
that Nakina C.A.L.L. is a nonprofit organization formed by Tlingit
people within the Canadian portion of the Taku watershed. She
stated:
It's difficult to know what to say in a situation like this.
I don't pretend to understand your politics, or - as one of
the men has alluded - what good would an IJC do, anyway? ...
I don't know. All I know is that somebody very powerful
within your country thinks that he needs to do that.
And we have very serious concerns about what's been going on
within the province of British Columbia. ... [To
Representative Joule] You had some concerns about the First
Nations issues. And I personally believe that the resolution,
as presented, is misleading. ... The "WHEREASes" within the
resolution imply that everything has gone well within the
environmental assessment legislative process of the province.
If it had gone well, the First Nation people affected by this
issue would not be in court.
We did participate, as Mr. Ringstad indicated. He said that
in a way to kind of get you to believe - or he made me feel
that way, anyway - to get you to believe that everything was
okay. We participated right through. We did our best,
under-resourced, and gone $170,000 in debt, I might add, to
participate. We participated, and the Taku River Tlingit
First Nation filed a formal dissent to the ... project review
committee's decision to approve that project certificate. And
that dissent is available; I can submit that at a later time
to you, for your consideration.
We did our own review of the project. ... The man who
introduced this resolution seemed to be implying - maybe I'm
paranoid today - but he seemed to be implying that the First
Nations issues had to do with larger issues. Well, I felt
like saying, "Well, you're darn right they do!" But that
aside, we have raised concerns based on Western science, ...
on your way of doing things. We have hired technicians, and
we have raised those concerns that the work that's been done
on this project doesn't even meet the standards of sound
science.
They're proposing grizzly bear monitoring, to be done as we
go. I live in the valley with my husband. I live with the
grizzly bears. I don't know one grizzly bear that's going to
be around once you start bulldozing down trees. So, the
baseline data for these protection mechanisms is not going to
be there. Any self-respecting moose or grizzly is going to be
long-gone because of the noise. ... They will acclimatize to
the intervention, over maybe a 20-year period; they get used
to it, it's easy-access travel, whatever. But the baseline
data is not there. The province hasn't done the work. ...
I'm also a nonpracticing lawyer, called to the bar in
Manitoba, so I do have a legal background. ... [I] wouldn't be
able to give any legal opinions here, but I do understand this
situation both traditionally, culturally and in terms of the
White law, to a certain degree. And I'd be happy to take some
questions, if there were any.
Number 0297
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that he serves in the Minority
party, where they try to make the best difference that they can, as
legislation moves along. He said he was wondering if that was the
case in terms of the involvement of the First Nations people in
this issue.
MS. JACK said she'd found it interesting that day that several
Alaskans pointed out that HCR 4 in a way supports a Canadian
company and a Canadian government. She stated, "No matter what you
want to say about the province's track record, ... we're in court
with them, so we're not very happy." She said she honestly doesn't
understand the benefit of going to the IJC, except that it is an
international regulatory body that would ensure, for all parties
involved, that things were done to the best of everyone's
abilities. "And I don't feel, as one person who lives in that
place - I live there - that the provincial government is meeting
our needs or protecting anything," she concluded.
TAPE 99-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
BRYAN JACK, Taku River Tlingit from Atlin, British Columbia, came
forward next, expressing full support for IJC review of the road.
He told members he has a hard time when government officials come
into communities and disrupt the structure put in place by the
people. The road itself is not a "Redfern issue" but is clearly a
government issue, as the government wants this road to go through.
MR. JACK stated: "Now, this road goes right through the heart of
our traditional territory. We have a treaty in place that has
never been acknowledged. The assessment has never acknowledged us.
The only time we were ever, ever, ever acknowledged was when it was
beneficial to Redfern issues. I have a hard time with it because
I've sat down with government officials and talked with them. I've
sat down with Redfern a number of times to talk with them. I've
sat down with Norm Ringstad. I've sat down with the president."
MR. JACK emphasized that the whole area is a migratory area. He
lives on the land, walks the land, and knows the animals there.
There is a place with canyons on each side, for example, where the
proposed road goes through but which is a potential area for
migratory animals. In addition, from Kuthai Lake to the Taku
River, about 50 miles, it is a downgrade. Any spill would go down
to the river, where the salmon, bears and moose are. Furthermore,
the area has a potential for slides, all the way down. "I know
it," he said. "I walk that area. My trail goes right on the side,
where the road goes. It touches a migratory trail all the way
down."
MR. JACK restated support for an IJC review, in order to "filter it
in any way possible." He added, "I don't think that I have any
support from the government, and I'm saying that as an individual,
as a Taku River Tlingit that is sitting at a treaty table, that is
not acknowledged."
Number 0380
MS. JACK informed Co-Chair Ogan, who was about to take testimony
via teleconference, that they had also brought an elder with them,
Mr. William Campbell.
Number 0475
ROGER BURGGRAF testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HCR 4. A Fairbanks resident, he told members he has
lived and worked in Southeast Alaska, both in the mining industry
and in "fish and wildlife." He cannot support the Governor's
position on the mine, and he believes that the Governor has been
misinformed by environmental groups and other special groups with
regard to the mine and the permitting process. He also believes
that with the present permitting tools that are in place, and with
cooperation between Canada and the United States, this mine can be
developed in an environmentally sound manner.
MR. BURGGRAF stated, "I feel that there's been a lot of fear
tactics that have been used here today. I do understand the
concerns, but I've seen many mines - recent mines that have been
developed - that ... have been done ... in an environmentally sound
manner, and I feel that this can be done, and that we're sending
some bad messages in trying to stop this from occurring. We do not
need to go to the International Joint Commission under the Boundary
Waters Treaty, and I feel it can be handled adequately between
Alaska and Canada."
Number 0656
MARY NORDALE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HCR 4. She said it appears from the language of HCR 4 that the
IJC would have nothing to decide, and that there are no
transboundary impacts; if the assurances of the B.C. government are
correct, then Alaska and the U.S. would have no interest in the
project. She stated:
I think that the people who speak in favor of the
International Joint Commission believe that its jurisdiction
is far wider than it truly is, but it really is just a
commission to reconcile differences between the two nations.
The Tulsequah Chief project is important for a couple of
reasons. One, of course, is that it is a mine, and historic,
and capable of sound - environmentally sound - development.
The other is that it's very important to keep the Taku River
open as a transboundary water upon which commerce can take
place, even if the commerce is something where the
(indisc.--poor sound quality). But there are a lot of people
who live or have summer homes along the Taku, and if we turn
down the ... Tulsequah Chief, we will be adding one more brick
in the wall that will prevent people from accessing the Taku
River for fishing, for sport, for recreation, for whatever.
And I would urge that the House pass the resolution as quickly
as possible.
Number 0837
WILLIAM CAMPBELL, Taku River Tlingit from Atlin, B.C., came forward
to testify, noting that he was raised by his grandparents in
Juneau. He said he doesn't want the road to come in. Emphasizing
the impact on game, he cited the Dempster Highway as an example;
since that road went in near the Peel River, the game left the
area, whereas before that there were sometimes 5,000 or 10,000
caribou at a time. Mr. Campbell figures that the proposed road
will affect his area similarly. Furthermore, he doesn't want the
mine to be opened because it will ruin all the fishing spots.
Number 1095
CLAY FRICK from Port Alexander came forward next to speak on behalf
of his wife, Anissa Berry-Frick, and himself. He said some
legislators are wantonly putting Alaska and its resources at risk
with HCR 4 and SCR 7. He asked: How can Alaskans know that the
Tulsequah Chief Mine is an environmentally sound venture? He said
that what Canada does not admit to will be self-evident when the
Taku River fisheries are put at risk due to contamination from
tailings deposits and the effects of road building. The health of
the Taku River, which ends up in Alaska waters, could be
compromised if this mine is opened. Mr. Frick stated:
Because we share this important waterway, the largest unroaded
protected watershed on the West Coast of North America, our
fish and game, and wildlife and other federal agencies, need
... to be ... included in the review of the mine. Let's let
the International Joint Commission be the venue of our
resolution to our concerns. It is the only way we can
mitigate future problems with our neighbors upstream. Why do
our [legislators] feel it is so important to go out of their
way to pressure the Governor's stance on this issue? Do we
Alaskans really feel so much compassion for Canada's natural
resource depletion, when it cannot even [manage] its own
fisheries and blames Alaska for its fisheries problems? I'm
sorry, but ... we ... are not ready to roll out the red carpet
for the Canadian mine upriver.
MR. FRICK closed by saying he is almost embarrassed that Alaska is
addressing this issue, especially after hearing about the Native
issues in Canada right now. Furthermore, in light of the blockade
of the Alaska Marine Highway System ferry, as well as Premier
Clark's administration at that time, this sticking up for Premier
Clark in terms of pushing the mine he also finds rather
embarrassing.
Number 1259
JOEL BENNETT came forward to testify on his own behalf as a 30-year
Juneau resident who has been an active sport fisherman for that
long. He pointed out that silver and king salmon from the Taku
River are target species for sport fishing anglers in Juneau, who
contribute quite a bit of money - which he estimates at more than
$2 million per year - to the Juneau economy. He has had personal
experience with the Taku River, an area of immense value as far as
the salmon resources. Mr. Bennett stated:
I support Governor Knowles' position to recognize the
outstanding worth and contribution of these resources, and the
potential risk to them from improper resource development.
This would include roading in sensitive areas, storage of mine
byproducts in riparian areas, and problems relating to mixing
zones.
The key part of the Governor's position is further IJC review.
Parenthetically, I would note that ... Governor Knowles has
been a friend in general to mining; the Red Dog and Greens
Creek Mines are two examples. Accordingly, the highest
standard of permitting, I believe, should apply to this
project, at least as rigorous as our own in Alaska, with all
aspects of the project being reviewed before final go-ahead is
authorized.
Since this does not appear to be the case for the B.C. permit
process, I would urge that Alaska support the International
Joint Commission review of the mine project and its impact on
the Taku River watershed. Without provision for this review,
I would oppose HCR [4] at this time.
Number 1439
PHILLIP GRAY came forward on his own behalf. Formerly employed by
the ADF&G for more than 20 years, he worked in coho salmon research
for about 18 years. Mr. Gray stated that he is opposed to HCR 4
and favors Governor Knowles' proposal regarding IJC review to
protect the habitat for coho salmon, as well as other species, to
the maximum degree possible. The Taku River is one of the major
producers of coho salmon in Southeast Alaska, and the area of the
mine is apparently particularly susceptible to damage.
MR. GRAY reminded members that the Columbia River, "the greatest
salmon river on earth," only has 3 percent of its salmon runs left,
having lost 97 percent in spite of fish hatcheries. "We don't want
that to happen in Alaska," he cautioned. He told members that he
has talked to a lot of the biologists from the Lower 48, especially
from Oregon and Washington, who have warned of the need to be
particularly careful of our coho salmon habitat up here, because
once it is lost, it is too expensive to replace it. Mr. Gray
concluded, "So, you want to protect your habitat to the maximum
degree possible and prevent the damage from occurring. We can have
the mine, I think, but I think this International Joint Commission
is the best way to go to protect the fish."
Number 1559
NEIL MacKINNON came forward, specifying that he is a Juneau
resident. He stated:
Five generations of my family have used the Taku River for
hunting, fishing and access ... to the early gold fields of
Fortymile, Circle City and Atlin; and I might add that my
great-grandfather was one of the discoverers ... of Atlin. My
family has had a cabin on the banks of the Taku for over 40
years.
I am not concerned by the mine. I am not concerned by the
road. I am very concerned by the new attention ... the
environmental industry has taken in the Taku River. Saving
the Taku is the new cause the "enviro-elite" can use to
justify their existence and funding.
This is no pristine area, as the environmentalists are trying
to portray. I can remember as a youth the operating mine that
Redfern is attempting to open. This mine and road will not
harm the Taku, its wildlife, its fish or our lifestyle on the
river. What will harm the Taku is the environmental lobby and
its tactics they will use to save us.
The coordinated campaign strategy to save the Taku River - and
... if you have not seen a copy of that, I can provide one to
you - is quite clear about the aims of the environmental
groups, that is, and I quote, "To stop the immediate threats
to this area and to establish a plan for the longer-term
protection of its environmental values and the people in the
region." The campaign's further goal and objective is, "To
stop the mine in such a way that it ensures a developmental
moratorium on the Taku watershed."
They do not want a better project. They want to kill it.
They do not want to save the Taku. They want to lock it up.
They are using the Taku as the next cause to entice funds from
large foundations and perpetual their existence. I agree with
the "enviro-elitist" that the Taku is unique, and its
uniqueness deserves to be preserved.
But contrary to the environmental view, its uniqueness is
because the Taku is the last river on the border between
Alaska and Canada not encumbered by a park, wilderness, or
wild and scenic river, or other restrictive designation. The
freedom to use and access the last unencumbered trans-border
river must be preserved. I applaud the legislature for taking
the initiative to keep the Taku (indisc.--papers shuffling).
Number 1731
WAYNE WEIHING, Tongass Conservation Society, testified via
teleconference from Ketchikan in support of the Governor's position
on IJC review. He referred to the Pacific Northwest fisheries and
the currently listings of endangered species; he said he believes
we can avoid some of those fisheries problems by protecting our
habitat. However, the proposed mine cannot ensure that fisheries
habitat can be protected. There is concern in southern Southeast
Alaska that if fisheries decrease as a whole because of habitat
loss on the Taku River, it would put more pressure on southern
Southeast Alaska fisheries. Mr. Weihing emphasized the need to
refer this problem to the IJC, concluding that we don't want to
damage something and then try to repair it later.
Number 1802
MIKE SALLEE testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. Born in
Ketchikan, he is a commercial fisherman and harvest diver who also
operates a small sawmill. Although his commercial fishing doesn't
involve salmon, he has an intense interest, he said. As a deck
hand on a fish-packing boat traveling through the Inside Passage in
the 1960s and early 1970s, he saw what the Canadians did to
Vancouver Island, "when they logged the thing from the shoreline up
to the tops of the mountains." Mr. Sallee told members he is not
impressed with the Canadians' environmental practices. Although he
is not advocating for environmental groups that receive funding
from the East Coast, he is concerned about his own back yard. Mr.
Sallee said he knows nothing about the IJC, but he does support
anything that gets this issue looked at as much as possible. "I'm
currently not real enthused with House [Concurrent] Resolution
Number 4," he concluded. "It sounds like they're trying to
side-step getting this thing thoroughly looked at."
Number 1879
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
closed public testimony. He invited Robert Bosworth, Deputy
Commissioner of the ADF&G, to provide the Administration's position
and answer questions.
Number 1904
MR. BOSWORTH stated his understanding that John Katz was on the
line, waiting to make a few comments after he himself spoke. He
told members he would speaking to the biological and economic
contexts for the project; noting that some of that had been
addressed that day, he indicated he would edit his comments
accordingly. Mr. Bosworth stated:
We do have concerns about the Tulsequah Chief Mine, and those
concerns are related to salmon and salmon habitat. The Taku
is the largest salmon producer in the region; it produces up
to two million salmon annually. This compares to many of the
state's largest salmon spawning systems: the Copper River,
the Susitna, the Yukon in some years. All these rivers
produce ... at the approximate level of the Taku.
Our concerns about the effects of mine development on the Taku
River salmon habitat and salmon production are the same
concerns we would have if a mine were proposed for any one of
these other large salmon producers in Alaska. If this were
the Copper River, you can be sure we'd be asking the same
questions and seeking the same assurances about water quality,
tailings disposal and road development.
The economic value of the Taku River salmon resource to
Alaskans is very large. For example, the commercial gillnet
fishery ... for sockeyes alone is worth about $2.8 million to
about 100 permit holders. You can add to that the value of
the commercial troll harvest of cohos, about another million
dollars.
As I've mentioned, the Taku regularly produces the largest
salmon run in the region. Sport fisheries take tremendous
advantage of that. We estimate that in 1997 over 32,200
anglers participated in the Juneau sport fisheries, and they
fished over 140,000 angler days. To cut this short, I'll just
say that about 40 percent of that harvest came from the Taku
- that's cohos and kings. ...
Number 2022
The reason the state is particularly concerned about the
Tulsequah Chief project has to do with its location. You've
heard about ... the road ... and the issues related to the
road; I won't reiterate that except to say, regardless of
whether it's a private road ... and it has a specified
lifetime or goes on into the future, the road will be used to
transport toxic chemicals and ore concentrates alongside many
miles of salmon habitat.
You know that the site is adjacent to the largest salmon
rearing area on the river - that's Flannigan Slough, and,
again, it's on the largest salmon-producing river system in
Southeast Alaska. ... The largest Taku stock of cohos spawns
immediately below the project location.
Siting a project of this type in the floodplain of a major
salmon-producing river system presents special risks and
challenges. We believe there is, quite simply, a risk of
catastrophic loss of salmon production. We think it's
reasonable to hold to very high standards any project proposed
for such a location. We also think it's reasonable that
critically important concerns be resolved prior to permitting,
yet the Canadian process does not require this.
Consistent with our perspective, we found baseline scientific
studies, necessary to resolve key issues up front, to be
inadequate or lacking.
Number 2083
I want to reiterate that while we have numerous concerns
regarding water quality, road building and tailings disposal,
we do think these concerns are resolvable. Our Canadian
technical counterparts have agreed our concerns are legitimate
ones, and we're making progress with the Canadians. In our
discussions with Canada, we have begun to agree on reasonable
mine development standards, a major advance; and this has
happened ... in the 11 months that Mr. Ringstad spoke of, an
11-month period, I might add, that we do not think would have
been available to us had we not approached the possibility of
the IJC referral. That did get the attention of the
Canadians, and I think we've all benefited, including the
Canadians, from that referral and from the discussions we've
had since then.
Number 2133
In summary, Alaska has an enormous economic interest in this
watershed. We're proud of the fact that our salmon stocks are
healthy, including the Taku River stocks, and we want to keep
them that way. The bottom line is that when we look at the
costs and the benefits of the Tulsequah Chief Mine, it appears
that the risks are all on our side of the border, and the
benefits are on the Canadian side.
Having said that, we've never said "no" to a mine. At this
point, we're working to get answers to serious questions, and
we're asking to have a specified, meaningful role in the
permit process. From my perspective, the IJC referral, as I
indicated, has helped get us to the table by emphasizing to
Canada how serious we are about the mine development issues.
An IJC referral can help keep us at the table in that
meaningful role. With that introduction, I'll pass off to
John Katz to elaborate; I think he'll pay particular attention
to these diplomatic issues.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Katz was available; however, Mr.
Katz was participating in the Senate Resources Committee hearing on
the same subject (SCR 7) via teleconference.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked when Governor Knowles had petitioned to
have this go to the IJC.
MR. BOSWORTH said April 1998.
Number 2215
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked what recourse the state has if the Canadians
don't live up to their promises. For example, if a truck carrying
a load of toxic materials went off the road into the creek, what
recourse, under international law or otherwise, would the state
have?
MR. BOSWORTH replied, "We're not aware that we have any recourses."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if that means there is no recourse.
MR. BOSWORTH answered, "I'm not the expert on this topic, but I
have asked that question, and that's the answer I received." He
said he was discussing it earlier with Kerry Howard of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees the state
coordination on this project.
Number 2366
KERRY HOWARD, Project Review, Division of Governmental
Coordination, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Governor, joined Mr. Bosworth at the witness table, acknowledging
that OMB is not a legal entity. She stated, "We do not know about
whether we have any recourses. I notice that this is the same
question that was posed to Mr. Ringstad earlier, and he did not
know the answer. It's a question we would like an answer to, but
we just do not have one at this time."
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he would like an answer, perhaps from the Office
of the Attorney General. He asked Mr. Bosworth how long it would
be until the IJC would meet and make a determination.
Number 2353
MR. BOSWORTH answered that this was the topic that John Katz was
going to cover; he himself didn't have firsthand information. He
asked whether Ms. Howard could answer.
MS. HOWARD responded, "At this point, I just want to make it real
clear, too, the IJC has not accepted the project for review. It
takes a bi-national referral to do it, and Canada has not agreed at
this point. If and when a project is accepted for review by the
commission, it can take anywhere from three to five years - is what
we've been advised - for the IJC to complete its review and
findings."
CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested the Canadians aren't going to agree.
MS. HOWARD replied, "Yeah, I think that's what they would respond
if asked the question."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked: If the Canadians don't agree, why are we
here?
Number 2430
MS. HOWARD said that is a good question, then reiterated an
important point: "Even though the project has not been accepted by
the IJC for review, as Mr. Bosworth indicated, we do feel that the
Governor's request for one upped the ante on the entire review and
did compel further government-to-government diplomatic relations
that have taken place over the last 11 months, that, again, I think
both sides would agree have been very fruitful in resolving and
identifying remaining issues. So, even though there has not been
an IJC referral or acceptance, just the notion that the Governor
thought it was important enough to ask for one has given us a
further seat at the table that otherwise we do not legally have."
Number 2464
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what happens if the Canadian government
chooses not to get involved, and this doesn't go to the IJC. Can
Redfern go ahead with the project?
MS. HOWARD answered, "They are continuing with their B.C. process,
as Mr. Ringstad indicated; a project certificate has been issued by
the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. At this point in time,
the way the Canadian process works, is further review is
applicant-driven; that is, as the applicant comes in the door with
their various permit requests, the B.C. and Canadian federal
government will continue to process those. The one permit that's
come in the door thus far is for a special use permit for road
construction, and that has been in review since this past fall.
So, they are proceeding with their permitting process."
Number 2519
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Bosworth what involvement the ADF&G
and other state departments have had with the Canadian government
on this; what questions have not been answered sufficiently that
prompted the Governor to move in this direction; and what concerns
the ADF&G has.
Number 2550
MR. BOSWORTH replied that the ADF&G's concerns fall generally into
the categories of road construction and maintenance; tailings
disposal and ongoing maintenance; and general water quality
considerations. He stated:
It's fish and it's fish habit. We're concerned that the road
be built and - most important, perhaps, or equally important
- maintained to standards that provide for fish passage, and
that avoid problems such as sedimentation or siltation. The
speaker earlier was accurate in that the road does traverse
many miles of pristine spawning habitat, certainly migratory
corridors for salmon, as well as wildlife.
So, ... there are many concerns, and they're the same concerns
we have for road building in Alaska, and we would hope to
apply the same standards. Fish passage is essential. And,
you know, what does it mean to close a road? Does that mean
that bridges are taken out and fish passage is assured? Does
it mean that somehow the roadbeds are treated in such a way
that you don't get sloughing and siltation of important
spawning beds? These seem to us to be reasonable questions to
ask, and those are the kinds of things that we are asking.
And we are working with the Canadians to find answers. And I
did mention that we seem to have good agreement at this point
on standards - that's as we see it - so, step one in a rather
lengthy process, perhaps, or at least in an ongoing process,
which would then include gathering baseline data, analyzing
that data, and then discussing how that data is used ... in
permitting.
Number 2638
MR. BOSWORTH said that with regard to tailings disposal, he would
be reiterating points others had made. For example, how stable is
the tailings disposal site? Are there other sites that might be
more stable? What are the geologic and hydrologic effects on that
tailings disposal site? What is the possibility of a flooding
event causing a catastrophic failure? Or perhaps of greater
concern, what about a chronic seepage that would have a different
effect on fish than the acute toxicity studies that had been
described? Water quality is a part of all of that, whether the
problem is from sedimentation or from toxicity due to effluent
runoff or seepage.
MR. BOSWORTH pointed out one concern not mentioned, the concern
that the standards for effluent dispersal in the river be adequate
for not only high-water and mid-water events, but also for
low-water events. Noting that the river system has been described
as braided, he asked, "What about when the river channel shifts,
and suddenly the mixing zone is effectively dewatered? First of
all, is that a possibility? And if so, what is the likely effect
of that?"
Number 2714
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether his understanding is correct
that if the IJC were to accept this request, it would automatically
delay the project for three years to perhaps five or more years.
MS. HOWARD replied, "Factually, there's nothing about even the
acceptance of a project for review that would compel B.C. to stop
permitting. That would be a choice. If Canada does agree an IJC
referral is appropriate, likely they would also agree that
permitting can wait; but there's nothing that compels that,
particularly since the IJC is federal-to-federal. It's done
through our State Department and through the Canada Department of
External Affairs, and so while Canadian External Affairs is likely
consulting with the province - as the State Department is
consulting with us - that is the choice the province would make."
Number 2770
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether any protections for Alaskans
are in place between the two countries in the event of a
catastrophe.
MR. BOSWORTH offered to try to find an answer to that question.
Number 2798
CO-CHAIR OGAN agreed he would like an answer to that. He announced
that he would hold the resolution over, then thanked participants
for their patience. [HCR 4 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|