Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/01/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR10 | |
| Presentation(s): Pebble Project Status and Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ISSUEDALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2019
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Supporting development of the road belt electrical transmission line;
and urging members of the Alaska delegation in Congress to pursue the
development of this high- voltage electrical line in the interior of
the state.
- MOVED CSHJR 10(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION(S): PEBBLE PROJECT STATUS AND UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 10
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING ROAD BELT ELECTRICAL LINE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TALERICO
03/04/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/19 (H) ENE, RES
03/14/19 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM CAPITOL 17
03/14/19 (H) Moved CSHJR 10(ENE) Out of Committee
03/14/19 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/15/19 (H) ENE RPT CS(ENE) 4DP 2NR
03/15/19 (H) DP: RAUSCHER, PRUITT, FIELDS, SPOHNHOLZ
03/15/19 (H) NR: ZULKOSKY, HOPKINS
03/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/29/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GAYLA HOSETH, Second Chief
Curyung Tribal Council; Director
Natural Resources
Bristol Bay Native Association
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Pebble Project status and
update presentation and answered questions.
NORM VAN VACTOR, President/CEO
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Pebble Project status and
update presentation and answered questions.
JASON METROKIN, President/CEO
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Pebble Project
status and update presentation.
DANIEL SCHINDLER, PhD
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"Bristol Bay fisheries and water quality: does the Pebble DEIS
adequately assess risks?", during the Pebble Project status and update
presentation, and answered questions.
CAMERON WOBUS, PhD
Senior Scientist
Lynker
Boulder, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"Risks and Impacts from a Tailings Dam Failure at the Proposed Pebble
Mine," dated 4/1/19, during the Pebble Project status and update
presentation, and answered questions.
RICK HALFORD, Consultant
Bristol Bay Coalition
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition during the Pebble Project
status and update presentation and answered a question.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:59 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Tuck, Hannan, Talerico,
Spohnholz, and Tarr were present at the call to order.
Representatives Hopkins, Rasmussen, and Rauscher arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Ortiz was also in attendance.
HJR 10-SUPPORTING ROAD BELT ELECTRICAL LINE
1:05:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Supporting development of the road belt
electrical transmission line; and urging members of the Alaska
delegation in Congress to pursue the development of this high- voltage
electrical line in the interior of the state.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 10(ENE), reported out of the House
Special Committee on Energy on 3/15/19.]
1:06:05 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-LS0596\U.1,
Fisher, 3/19/19.
Page 2, following line 15:
Insert new material to read:
"WHEREAS development of the road belt electrical
transmission line would benefit the agricultural industry
in the Delta Junction area by allowing the industry to
become more cost effective and competitive and by
increasing the industry's ability to expand; and"
Page 2, line 28, following "Interior,":
Insert "the Honorable Sonny Perdue, United States
Secretary of Agriculture;"
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR explained Amendment 1 relates to the agricultural
opportunities that could be expanded by the intertie project within
CSHJR 10(ENE). She said the amendment is supported by the bill
sponsor.
1:06:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed appreciation for the committee's
consideration of the bill.
1:07:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report CSHJR 10(ENE), labeled 31-
LS0596\U, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no further objection,
CSHJR 10(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
1:08:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:08 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): PEBBLE PROJECT STATUS AND UPDATE
PRESENTATION(S): PEBBLE PROJECT STATUS AND UPDATE
1:10:35 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final order of business would be
presentations related to the Pebble Project status and update.
1:12:25 PM
GAYLA HOSETH, Second Chief, Curyung Tribal Council and Director,
Natural Resources, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), paraphrased
from the following written statement [original punctuation provided]:
Good morning, my name is Gayla Hoseth, I am the 2nd Chief
of Curyung Tribal Council and the Director of Natural
Resources for Bristol Bay Native Association in Dillingham,
AK.
My colleagues and I have travelled from our homes in
Bristol Bay and beyond because Bristol Bay's communities,
businesses, culture, and subsistence way of life are under
looming threat from the irresponsible and unacceptable
Pebble Mine project. Not only is Bristol Bay my home that
sustains our regions subsistence way of life, but it's the
state's largest and most valuable salmon fishing industry
for commercial and sport fishers. We are here today
because the US Federal government is pushing this project
forward with an inadequate Draft EIS that's based on a
false mine plan, an incomplete permit application, and a
politically driven timeline that is silencing the voices
and concerns of Alaskans.
The Environmental Impact Statement produced by the Army
Corps of Engineers for Pebble utterly fails the people of
Bristol Bay and all Alaskans. In the EIS, the Corps
blatantly ignores well-documented science, potentially
catastrophic risks, and the health and well-being of our
people. Since Day 1, the Army Corps has made it clear that
they fully intend to push forward a mine that Alaskans have
said time and time again we don't want. They are more
interested in doing favors for the Pebble Partnership than
ground-truthing Pebble's false claims and incomplete data.
That's NOT how our permitting process should work.
Most importantly we are here today to urge our state and
national elected-officials - who were elected by Alaskans -
to represent Alaskans, not Outside corporations that want
to make every dime that they can from our resources. We
need Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan,
Congressman Don Young and Governor Mike Dunleavy to stand
up and do what is best for the people who elected them.
To my fellow Alaskans, please don't be fooled by Pebble's
shiny marketing and promises of jobs and a "smaller" fish-
friendly mine. Their lies are based on profit and will be
at the expense of you, your family, and our state's future.
The draft EIS, even in its current state, makes it crystal
clear that the massive, phase-one Pebble mine, and
expansion and additional mines that would follow, would
cause wide-spread, irreversible harm to the health of our
people, our pristine waters, our renewable natural
resources, and the communities and businesses of Bristol
Bay. As an example of the attitude the dEIS approaches us
with is consider how they discuss local spills. In the
dEIS chapter 4-27 page 110, the spill risk chapter, local
spills are described as local job opportunities to clean up
their messes. This is an absolute slap in the face.
We must protect Bristol Bay now more than ever for this
generation and most importantly for the future generations
to come. There is no other place in the world like Bristol
Bay and let me remind everyone again Bristol Bay is the
home of the World's Last Largest Wild Sockeye Salmon Run!
Let's not make the same mistakes in other places of the
world and say NO Pebble mine NO Action Alternative.
Thank you.
1:16:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether Ms. Hoseth is aware of written
support for the Pebble project from local villages or governments in
the region.
MS. HOSETH said BBNA has issued a resolution in opposition to the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS restated his question.
MS. HOSETH said there are some in favor of the project.
1:17:38 PM
NORM VAN VACTOR, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation (BBEDC), paraphrased from the following written statement
[original punctuation provided]:
Co-Chair Lincoln, Co-Chair Tarr, House Resources Committee
and Staff. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this
afternoon and to testify on what I feel is one of the most
important issues if the the most important issue of my life
time and career. Sad to say but this single issue has been
driving and burning within me for the last 18 years. And
sadly it's no April Fool's Joke! My name is Norman Van
Vactor and I live in Bristol Bay. I am the CEO of Bristol
Bay Economic Development Corporation which is wholly owned
and operated by 17 Coastal Communities from the region and
we have our corporate offices in Dillingham Alaska. Bristol
Bay means business. We are a major cornerstone of Alaska's
seafood industry.
? At a time when many salmon populations around Alaska are
experiencing record-low returns, Bristol Bay remains the
exception with record-high returns. One could say we are
buoying the entire Alaska seafood industry right now.
? Bristol Bay is an economic engine .
48 percent of Alaska's total salmon ex-vessel value in
2018
43M fish harvested in Bristol Bay in 2018; 38 percent of
Alaska's total number of salmon harvested
Directly employs 14,765 people Generates $658 Million in
total labor income/year Regional subsistence fisheries
provide 99 lbs. of salmon per capita;without that renewable
"free" protein, many people who call Bristol Bay would be
hard pressed to afford alternative protein. Subsistence
foods are core to so many.The Fishery on average generates
$14.7 M in revenue for local government entities (2013-17);
it more than pays for itself when it comes to management
expenses
? Bristol Bay's salmon fishery is still thriving after 135
years; and will continue to do so if we make sure the fish
have what they need to survive: access to healthy habitat,
clean, free-flowing water. We have seen in Lower 48 and
around the world what happens when salmon don't have those
things...Alaska has the advantage of learning from history.
We can't pretend that we don't know any better.
? Bristol Bay's salmon fishery is such a success because
it's managed by SCIENCE and rigorous regulations. Science
drives the decision-making, not industry speculation,
fantasies, or good intentions. Why are we not approaching
our mineral development the same way? Alaska should be
upholding strong standards and science-based permitting in
ALL industries, not just some.
? If Pebble goes in, the Bristol Bay Sockeye brand and the
entire Alaska Seafood brand will be tarnished. The State of
Alaska has invested $ Millions into building these brands
and establishing Alaska as a premium brand in the
marketplace. That brand is based on pristine habitat,
sustainability, and high quality - not open-pit mining
districts and acid mine drainage. The Pebble Partnership
hasn't proven that their mine pencils out on paper - and
can't because it doesn't.
1:22:24 PM
MR. VAN VACTOR continued:
? Pebble has failed to provide an economic feasibility
analysis to support its proposed 20 year mine plan. It is
common industry practice for a mining company to first
produce a pre-feasibility study to analyze the economic
viability of the proposed project. The Pebble Proposal is
the only large mine proposal in Alaska in the last 20 years
not to have a pre-feasibility study.
? The pre-feasibility study serves dual purposes. First, it
is used to help the company and investors understand
whether the project is financially viable and to comply
with financial auditing requirements of the Canadian and US
stock exchanges. It also helps define the scope of a
"realistic" mine project to inform the NEPA process and the
environmental impacts analysis.
? We don't even know if Pebble is financially feasible, and
yet we are spending precious state dollars and resources
reviewing a plan that doesn't pencil out.
? Neither the DEIS nor Pebble have proven that this project
is financially feasible and when asked about financial
feasibility they refuse to answer questions or provide
information. And yet, they want us to risk a renewable
economic engine that employs thousands of Alaskans and
generates hundreds of millions in annual income every year?
? Financial feasibility is important because it gives a
realistic scope of the project. This is what should drive
any analysis of impacts, risk avoidance and mitigation.
? There is no closure and mitigation plan in the Army
Corps' DEIS. Why? Because Pebble knows this small mine is
not feasible and they don't plan to close the mine after 20
years. Why would they? If Pebble closed down after 20 years
they would leave 88 percent of the ore body in the ground.
They need the open pit to expand to the underground mining
option.
? The lack of financial information compromises the value
of any environmental impact analysis and calls into
question the validity of the process.
? Richard Borden a very senior Former Rio Tinto executive
has recently expressed serious concerns about The Pebble
Partnerships claims. As noted in a letter he prepared on
March 28, 2019, and I quote "...the technical rigor of the
EIS process may be compromised if no cost data are
available to help select the "least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative."
? Mr. Borden's economic assessment shows a likely "$3
billion dollar loss" given the economic realities of the 20
year mine plan.
? As noted by Mr. Borden, "[i]f the base case mine plan
assumed for the EIS is not economic, then the entire
permitting process risks being compromised because the
impacts and risks being evaluated are much smaller than
those required for a full-scale economically viable
project. In other words, the EIS is not evaluating the
"least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
This is the standard required under the Clean Water Act.
? He went on to say, [t]o help ensure the integrity of the
EIS process, and in fairness to local communities, the
State of Alaska and to shareholders, I believe the Pebble
Partnership is obligated to publicly release a new
preliminary economic assessment for the proposed smaller
and lower-grade mine that the Army Corps of Engineers is
currently reviewing?" SEE RICHARD BORDEN LETTER, MARCH 28,
2019 A permitting process is only so good as the public's
confidence in the process.
? BBEDC has no confidence in the Army Corps conducting a
rigorous, science-based process for the Pebble Mine. We
have not seen anything from them that gives us confidence
that they are looking out for what's best for Bristol Bay's
salmon and the people and businesses that depend on
them.
? We have one shot to do this permitting process right. To
allow Pebble to drive this permitting process makes no
sense and defeats the purpose of a permitting process in
the first place. This process should be testing Pebble's
assumptions and promises, not taking Pebble at its word.
? What's the message that we want to send to the rest of
the country and world?... That we are a boom and bust state
willing to sacrifice our children's future so that a few
mining executives can make a few bucks? Or that we are a
free-thinking, resilient state that is committed to
protecting what we value and doing things better? All of
you here will determine the answer to that question?
Bristol Bay supports the greatest wild salmon fishery left
on earth and impacts thousands of Alaskans. As such it
deserves a rigorous permitting process with adequate
opportunities for the public/Alaskans to weigh in. This
permitting process is happening under your watchit's your
job (yes our job) to ensure that our state is not cheated
by phony mine and a corrupt permitting process.
MR. VAN VACTOR added BBEDC represents 17 coastal communities located
within 50 nautical miles of the shoreline, all of which oppose the
project.
1:27:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN related she has constituents who have
migrated to her district from the Bristol Bay area because of closing
schools and a lack of opportunities. She questioned whether
infrastructure provided by the Pebble project would be a benefit to
the region.
MR. VAN VACTOR explained migration is attributed to many reasons:
youth are attracted by movies and malls; however, if given the
opportunity to explore, many return home or are successful elsewhere.
The development phase of the project is short and would be built by a
migrant workforce of technical and specialized individuals. He opined
the concept that a significant portion of the workforce would be
comprised of residents is unrealistic.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN suggested the project could follow the
success of the regional hire program at Red Dog mine.
MR. VAN VACTOR cautioned a comparison of Red Dog mine [with the Pebble
project] is not a fair comparison due to the project's location and
operations.
1:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER compared the price of Copper River salmon to
that of Bristol Bay salmon and noted there is mining in the Copper
River area.
MR. VAN VACTOR pointed out the scale of the mining in the Copper River
basin and its proximity to the spawning beds cannot be compared to the
proposed project. Bristol Bay seeks to increase the value of Bristol
Bay salmon; historically, a high percentage of Bristol Bay salmon were
canned for the market in Europe; now, most of the salmon are frozen,
and the cost differential with Copper River salmon is closing.
1:32:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled conflicting testimony about whether an
economic study is part of "a normal" environmental impact statement
(EIS) process.
MR. VAN VACTOR explained for a project of this magnitude, one expects
to see financial viability proposals and feasibility studies for the
benefit of stockholders and investors. Previous work on the project
by Rio Tinto and other large-scale mining companies included financial
feasibility studies; as a result, the previous participants decided
the project was not financially viable. Although at this time,
[financial] information is lacking, the project has released estimates
of tax revenue that the project would generate.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for BBEDC's membership.
1:35:33 PM
MR. VAN VACTOR said Togiak, Twin Hills, Manokotak, Aleknagik, Portage
Creek, Clarks Point, Ekwok, Port Heiden, Pilot Point, Ugashik, South
Naknek, Naknek, King Salmon, Levelock, and Ekuk.
1:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how many Tribal members are enrolled in
BBNA.
MS. HOSETH estimated 31-32 Tribes.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled BBEDC seeks to return [commercial fishing]
permits back to ownership by local residents.
1:37:34 PM
MR. VAN VACTOR acknowledged a major issue in the region is the loss of
permits; in fact, BBEDC has a grant program with the goal to
repatriate ownership of Alaska fishing permits to residents of Bristol
Bay and the state. However, BBEDC, due to present time and budget
constraints, has set aside this goal.
MS. HOSETH addressed the issue of outward migration. She expressed
her concern about closing schools and related a personal story of
choosing to send her daughter to Anchorage for high school; although
Bristol Bay residents enjoy living outdoors and a subsistence
lifestyle, extracurricular school activities are important. She
assured the committee residents of Bristol Bay always come home from
urban areas in the summer for commercial fishing and subsistence
hunting. Ms. Hoseth stressed the importance of protecting resources
because our people live off the land.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked how many Alaskans from the Bristol Bay
region hold fishing permits.
MR. VAN VACTOR said between the gillnet fleet and the setnet fleet,
approximately 45-46 percent of the active participants in the Bristol
Bay salmon fishery are Alaska residents.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how the size of the Bristol Bay fishery
compares to that of other fisheries in the state.
MR. VAN VACTOR said Copper River is smaller than any of the river
systems that compose Bristol Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ discussed the statistics associated with the
Bristol Bay fishery, noting the fishery supports 14,000 direct jobs as
compared to 750 jobs generated by the proposed project.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK posed questions related to access to affected
Tribal lands, the ownership of affected lands, and subsurface mineral
rights.
1:45:33 PM
JASON METROKIN, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC),
advised BBNC owns approximately 3 million acres of subsurface estate
throughout the region, in and around the mine site, and spread out
along the river systems and lake areas. Around the proposed project,
much of the land is owned by the state and most of the subsurface
rights around the communities are owned by BBNC: the surface land is
owned by the respective village corporations. Mr. Metrokin said there
are five village corporations around the Lake Iliamna area that are
nearby or adjacent to the proposed mine and its infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the new proposed 20-year [mine] plan
would require partnerships with any of the five village corporations.
MR. METROKIN acknowledged surface and subsurface owners of the acreage
would be impacted; he noted the proposed mine has several alternatives
for a transportation system, most of which would cross surface estate
land of the village corporations and subsurface land owned by BBNC.
He expressed his understanding the primary and alternative
transportation corridors would require the landowners to grant a
right-of-way.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether the rights-of-way would be
granted.
MR. METROKIN said BBNC is opposed to the project and would not grant
the use of its Native subsurface land. In further response to
Representative Tuck, he said the project and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) are aware of BBNC's refusal.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for clarification of the impact of
transportation corridors to subsurface land.
MR. METROKIN explained BBNC owns some surface acreage; if a permit is
granted for a transportation corridor, BBNC believes it would be
impossible to develop a transportation route without impacts to the
subsurface estate.
1:50:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR referred to concerns about the new plan that has
[ferries crossing Lake Iliamna] and trucks transporting ore, and their
impact on local residents.
MR. VAN VACTOR pointed out the land transportation corridor entails
hundreds of stream and river crossings. Many residents who live on
Lake Iliamna have noted the size and magnitude of the lake and how the
lake is significantly affected by wind and weather conditions.
MS. HOSETH added there are many fish, mammals, land animals, and birds
that occupy the lake and the region who require clean water and air.
In response to an earlier question, she said BBNA has 31 federally
recognized Tribes in the Bristol Bay region.
1:54:16 PM
DANIEL SCHINDLER, PhD, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington (UW), provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Bristol Bay fisheries and water quality: does the Pebble
DEIS adequately assess risks?" Dr. Schindler informed the committee
UW's Alaska Salmon Program was initiated in 1946 and participants in
the program spend three to four months each year in the Bristol Bay
watersheds and elsewhere in Western Alaska. The information presented
is based upon over 70 years of study of Bristol Bay fish habitat.
Slide 2 was an illustration of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon returns from
1963-2018; despite 125 years of intense commercial fishing, and
thousands of years of subsistence harvest, present returns are the
largest recorded and provide economic and cultural opportunities for
the residents of the region. Dr. Schindler directed attention to the
following six inadequacies of the draft environmental impact study
(DEIS) [issued 2/20/19 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
the proposed Pebble Project] and cautioned Alaskans should be dismayed
and outraged because the report is not credible science (slide 3):
• 1.) The timeframe is based on 70-75 years; however, acid mine
drainage is composed of sulfuric acid and toxic metals that must
be stored and contained for centuries, thus a risk analysis has
to account for long-term potential risks of the mine beyond 20 to
70 years. Also, ecological risks take decades or longer to be
revealed, therefore, the timeframe is too short and
underestimates the indicators of risk (slide 4).
• 2.) The fish habitat assessments were based on two years of fish
abundance in tributaries; as known by UW research, a two- to
three-year timeframe is a poor indicator of a stream's long-term
potential, and he provided two examples (slide 5).
1:59:44 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked how the impacts of different aspects of habitat,
such as water quality, are assessed.
DR. SCHINDLER said some factors such as water temperature and flow are
monitored; however, the fish count is primary.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN referred to slide 5 and observed [salmon
escapement] from Pick Creek appears fairly stable. She surmised 20
years is a reliable long-term indication.
DR. SCHINDLER agreed some streams are more stable and others are not;
in fact, the research program seeks to understand the basis for
variabilities, which is unknown. He explained early high numbers in
Pick Creek were attributed to the natural dewatering of an upstream
pond.
DR. SCHINDLER returned to the fish habitat assessments, noting Bristol
Bay tributaries throughout the river networks may be more important in
some years, thus he characterized salmon habitat in Bristol Bay as a
portfolio of habitat, which stabilizes the aggregate. In addition,
the fish are caught in the estuary, so it is hard to determine where
in the watershed they were produced (slide 6). Slide 7 pictured an
otolith, the ear stone of a fish, and he described how a sample of an
otolith can be used to determine where a fish was born. Also pictured
was a heat map of salmon production in tributaries of the Nushagak
River in 2011. He compared slide 7 to slide 8, which pictured a heat
map of salmon production in tributaries of the Nushagak River in 2014
and pointed out areas of highest production are a mosaic of habitat
that constantly shift through time. Dr. Schindler said, "So, the
Nushagak River operates at a large spatial scale; the individual
tributaries contribute to the long-term stability of it."
2:05:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Dr. Schindler to describe the lifecycle of
Chinook and sockeye salmon in freshwater.
DR. SCHINDLER said both king (Chinook) and sockeye salmon return to
spawn in midsummer to late summer; in August or September, eggs are
deposited in gravel and fry emerge into the stream in May. Sockeye
swim to a lake for two to three years and leave as smolt, spend two or
three years in saltwater, and return to freshwater. Chinook eggs
spend one year in gravel, grow one year in the river system, and leave
as smolt after one year. After two-five years in the ocean, Chinook
return to freshwater. Both species return to their natal habitat,
navigating by a sense of smell, which is [negatively] affected by
heavy metals such as copper.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled previous committee discussion related to
interference with a salmon's ability to smell caused by discharge from
cruise ships. He asked about the effect from the Copper River.
2:09:17 PM
DR. SCHINDLER explained the interference with a salmon's sense of
smell is not an acute response but more like one "having a cold."
Although there are copper deposits in the Copper River, concentrations
are very low. He said decades of research indicate salmon can make
local adaptations to conditions such as water temperature and water
chemistry; however, it is unknown whether salmon have adapted to
tolerate copper. For example, studies in urban centers are clear that
in the short-term, copper is a devasting toxin to fish.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER observed the Copper River has large deposits
of copper that are known to exist because of the color of the river,
and thus the fish may have been affected by other factors such as
global warming.
DR. SCHINDLER advised the color of the water is not from copper, but
is from dissolved organic carbon, a naturally occurring phenomenon of
organic compounds. In further response to Representative Rauscher, he
explained any body of water in Alaska has copper in low
concentrations, which can be measured. He offered to provide
documentation on the copper levels found in the Copper River.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how much time a sockeye spends in the
Copper River before swimming to the ocean.
2:14:21 PM
DR. SCHINDLER said two years: one year in gravel and one year
swimming in lakes and rivers as fry. In further response to
Representative Hannan, he said he would not speculate on the size and
water quality of lakes adjacent to the Copper River. Dr. Schindler
continued to the third inadequacy (slide 3):
• 3.) A standard component of an IES is cumulative risk because any
development project has a series of risks, such as a loss of
water or leaking contaminants; however, the DEIS assumes each
risk occurs independently of another, which is wrong. Although
DEIS does assume [independent] cumulative effects, these are the
effects over time. The omission of cumulative risks that
interact with each other leads to a massive underestimation of
potential risks.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether [the underestimation of risks]
is common to all DEISs.
DR. SCHINDLER acknowledged in general EISs tend to deemphasize
cumulative risks, which belies that interacting stressors are where
ecological damage is done. He stated for 30 years peer-review
academic literature has reported cumulative risks are typically
multiplicative, but the Pebble DEIS assumes stressors to be
independent in the current isolation. Dr. Schindler continued to the
fourth, fifth, and sixth inadequacies (slides 12-14):
• 4.) There is little discussion of the long-term treatment of
wastes even though the project data states some of the rock will
not start generating acid mine drainage for two decades; however,
the waste must be maintained, stored, and retained for centuries.
The risk of long-term treatment of waste [should] also include
seismic and climate related risks such as floods, which are not
addressed in the DEIS.
• 5.) Climate change is a reality and Western Alaska is affected,
thus climate change risks should be multiplied by the risks
associated with development. The reason the fisheries in Western
Alaska have not been affected by climate change up to now "is
because the habitat is intact; habitat is the insurance to
climate change, you start eroding the habitat, you lose your
insurance to changing climate."
• 6.) Scientists rely on previous publications; however, the DEIS
includes selective and inappropriate use of existing scientific
literature and he cited two examples (slides 14 and 15).
2:23:28 PM
DR. SCHINDLER concluded the DEIS is a farce and lacks scientific
credibility in the following aspects (slide 16): underestimates
risks; assumes tenuous assumptions; assumes no cumulative risks;
assumes no effects from climate change; contains an inappropriate
timeframe; contains inappropriate fish habitat assessments;
misrepresents published scientific results.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked who hired Dr. Schindler to do the
study.
DR. SCHINDLER said SalmonState paid for his transportation and lunch.
He disclosed [UW's Alaska Salmon Program] has been funded by a variety
of sources since the 1940s and is a partner with the fishing industry.
Most of the program's funding comes from the National Science
Foundation through competitive grants to pursue science related
projects and have not addressed "Pebble's specific issues"; in fact,
his conclusions are based on the program's general studies of salmon
habitat. Funding has also been received from the Bristol Bay Economic
Development Council, foundations, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior. He stated he was not paid to
produce the assessment that was presented. In response to Co-Chair
Tarr, he clarified the program exists to study salmon and watersheds
under all conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the program is part of the School
of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, UW.
DR. SCHINDLER explained the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences is
an academic unit of UW; the program is a research organization within
that unit. In further response to Representative Hopkins, he said the
leadership of the Alaska Salmon Program is comprised of professors who
are state employees through UW.
2:28:40 PM
CAMERON WOBUS, PhD, Senior Scientist, Lynker, provided a PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Risks and Impacts from a Tailings Dam Failure
at the Proposed Pebble Mine" and informed the committee he has been
studying issues related to the Pebble mine for about 10 years. Dr.
Wobus directed attention to one issue the DEIS "pretty much glosses
over": cumulative impacts if there were a tailings dam failure at the
proposed Pebble mine. He read from an overview of the presentation
(slide 1).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the human lives at risk referred
to on slide 1 are residents living in downstream communities.
DR. WOBUS said yes. He reviewed a recent tailings dam failure at an
iron mine in Brazil that killed approximately 300 people, noting that
the failed tailings dam is 68 times smaller than the tailings dam
proposed by the Pebble project 20-year mine plan (slide 2). In 2014,
there was a tailings dam failure at the Mount Polley mine in British
Columbia, Canada; the tailings storage facility was 11 times smaller
than the proposed facility at the Pebble mine, and the breach was
reported to be a failure of design related to the sub-glacial and pre-
glacial geological environment associated with the foundation of the
facility (slide 3).
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN expressed her understanding the design of the
proposed facility at Pebble is quite different than the aforementioned
examples.
2:33:16 PM
DR. WOBUS said in the DEIS the construction of the tailings dam is
proposed to be by a centerline construction method; the Mount Polley
facility was constructed by a modified centerline construction method.
Also, in the DEIS, is that the tailings dam is designed to be a flow-
through dam, however, there are no details on how the tailings would
drain. He opined there is not enough information in the DEIS to
determine the safety of the dam.
2:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN, noting the aforementioned lack of detail,
questioned why Dr. Wobus is comparing [the failed] dams to the dams
proposed by the Pebble project.
DR. WOBUS said he was providing examples of tailings dam failures;
data used in models comes from site specific information provided by
the project such as the size of the dam, the physical properties of
the tailings, and the topography of the region.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired as to the similarities between the
examples and the proposed project.
DR. WOBUS explained the tailings from Mount Polly drained into a lake
- which limited the impact - thus the topography is different. In
terms of the rheology, or the physical properties of the tailings, the
model used a report based upon Pebble mine tailings and he described
the modeling process related to the rheology of the tailings and the
topography of the mine site.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated his question as to whether there are
similarities.
DR. WOBUS said yes. He pointed out the report that describes all the
details of the modeling is available.
2:37:07 PM
DR. WOBUS further explained as described by the current 20-year mine
plan, there are two tailings storage facilities: a bulk tailings
facility and a potential acid generating tailings facility. The bulk
tailings facility dam is approximately 545 feet high with the capacity
to hold approximately 328,000 Olympic swimming pools of mine waste,
ground rock, and water (slide 4). He read from slide 5, which
contained two sentences from the DEIS, that he characterized as a
decision to not build the safer dam (slide 5). Furthermore, Dr. Wobus
opined the DEIS is misleading because in the supporting documentation
a tailings dam failure is assessed to be extremely low during the 20-
year operational life of the mine; however, this limitation is not
found in the executive summary or in the body of the DEIS, and the
tailings dam will exist for hundreds of years (slide 6). Slide 6 also
illustrated a graph of increasing probability of failure over
increasing periods of time. Dr. Wobus raised the issue of a "full
mine buildout" after 20 years, noting there then would be four
tailings dams; in addition, continuing mine operations would prevent
potential acid generating tailings from being placed back in the open
pit for safety. He said this issue arises because the DEIS mine plan
of 20 years is likely to have a negative net present value (slide 7).
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to the structural integrity of mine
facilities.
DR. WOBUS said tailings dams can be designed for known current climate
conditions such as an extreme rainfall event; however, with climate
change, there could be unforeseen climate events, and the DEIS does
not reflect the risk of climate change.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how long the proposed dam is designed to
last.
2:43:02 PM
DR. WOBUS advised the DEIS does not include a dam design, but has a
conceptual design, which describes a dam that water will drain through
- without details - thus he could not answer. Dr. Wobus informed the
committee the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process
requires an agency to review the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts of a proposed project, including low probability events that
would have a high consequence. He explained in detail slide 8, which
was a scatterplot of 28 tailings dam failures, and which reached the
conclusion that, on average, between 30 percent and 45 percent of the
tailings are released in the event of a tailings dam failure.
Further, the graph of tailings dam volume indicated a breach of the
north tailings facility at Pebble would release 340 million cubic
meters; however, the DEIS described a tailings dam failure release of
a volume approximately 10,000 times less. He remarked:
So, in my opinion, the draft EIS does not look at a
tailings dam failure, it looks at a pipeline rupture and
that pipeline rupture, the scenario that's been developed,
is assumed to be an earthquake that is large enough to
rupture a pipeline, but somehow keeps the dam intact. ...
And in that scenario, it's still operational, and they're
able to turn that pipeline off in six hours, so we have six
hours of tailings coming out of a pipeline, not 342 million
cubic meters of material coming out of a tailings dam
breach.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN observed Dr. Wobus said the DEIS lacks
information, therefore, she questioned upon what this every exact
presentation is based.
DR. WOBUS acknowledged the dam design is unknown related to how the
water will drain and the construction of the dam. However, the study
has compiled available data from previous tailings dam failures, thus,
using the known data on the size and volume of the proposed tailings
dam, the report can estimate the volume of a release. He offered to
provide the report. Dr. Wobus continued to slide 9, which was a view
of the Bristol Bay watershed, noting one study area covered
approximately 50 river miles downstream of the tailings impoundment
and an extended model covered 85 miles downstream.
A video was shown from 2:49:19 p.m. to 2:49:49 p.m.
DR. WOBUS urged the committee to review news reports of the tailings
dam failure at the Brumadinho dam in Brazil.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised [the video simulation] is of a breach releasing
for 24 hours prior to containment.
DR. WOBUS said indications from previous failures are that the
releases happen quickly, and all the material would be released within
24 hours. His study included sensitivity analysis on various factors;
slide 11 illustrated sensitivity of the impacts relative to the total
volumes of material released, showing a breach of 10 percent to 60
percent would spread tailings across the valley bottom, into channels,
and onto the landscape.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if the modeled tailings release is based
on the DEIS project and not on the potential full buildout.
DR. WOBUS said yes, the model is based on a release from the north
bulk tailings storage facility. He returned to slide 12, which
illustrated the tailings flow, most likely all the way to Bristol Bay
through the Nushagak River system. Slide 13 was an overlay
illustrating that the tailings would directly impact approximately 219
miles of anadromous waters. Slide 14 illustrated tailings flow impact
to salmon habitat waters; slide 15 illustrated tailings flow impact to
Native allotments of land and suggested there is a risk to human life
not addressed by the DEIS. Slide 16 was a quote from the DEIS; slide
17 provided a link to the full report.
2:56:15 PM
RICK HALFORD, Consultant, Bristol Bay Coalition, advised the committee
the Pebble project should not be located in "a fisheries place" of
alternative resources. He informed the committee of his previous
involvement in support of mining interests and economic development in
rural Alaska; therefore, his opposition to the Pebble project is not
based on opposition to mining copper or other minerals. However,
areas suitable for mining copper are not incredible watersheds with
high sulfur content. Mr. Halford recalled previous testimony when two
large and reputable [mining] companies invested over $100 million on
environmental baseline data. He referred to information presented
from 2012 to 2014, that indicated a very large deposit, and he read
from a document from 2011, that listed the environmental overview; the
NEPA process; the draft project description; the permit applications;
federal, state and agency reviews; 67 major permits; public comments;
final EIS [document not provided]. He pointed out the developers were
going to apply for applications on an expansive project; however, [the
current] proposal does not include certain aspects [document not
provided]. Mr. Halford provided a slide entitled, "The Mineral
Resource," and stressed there is a huge deposit one mile underground
in a saddle between the two watersheds of the greatest salmon fishery
left on the Earth. In fact, the deposit starts 1,000 feet above sea
level and continues down to over 4,000 feet [below sea level].
However, the proposed project now is a small mine; furthermore, the
EIS process is "very flexible" in that after filing, the developers
increased the size of the first phase by 25 percent. Subsequently,
after criticism, the closure documents were changed so that the open
pit will be filled with the acid generating tailings and covered over.
He characterized the proposal as a flexible fantasy.
3:03:31 PM
MR. HALFORD referred to an "executive summary" from Anglo American and
said promises made by the proposed mine are impossible [document not
provided]. He read, "the Pebble deposit area straddles the watershed
boundary between the South Fork of the Koktuli River and Upper Talarik
Creek," hence the deposit is sitting beneath both of the watersheds.
Further, the document refers to the underground exchange between the
watersheds, and he read, "normally 95 percent of the groundwater
recharges and discharges within the same drainage basin, there's one
notable exception: between the South Fork of the Koktuli as it heads
downstream from the deposit and Upper Talarik Creek" [document not
provided]. Mr. Halford advised, from his personal experience, the
upwelling keeps the [salmon] eggs from freezing and is part of the
productive system of interconnected water. He provided a picture and
stressed that with a hole 1,500-1,700 feet deep at the edge of another
drainage, surrounded by fractured bedrock, water will run into the
hole, dewatering Upper Talarik Creek. After dewatering, gravity will
refill the drainage with poisoned water and create [another Berkeley
Pit, former open pit copper mine and federal Superfund environmental
cleanup site]. Mr. Halford questioned how USACE could prepare a
report with no economic analysis, no transportation system analysis,
no closure, and no wetlands analysis. He pointed out large mining
companies have invested and lost hundreds of millions of dollars and
the project is left to a "promotion company" that doesn't have an
investor but seeks to permit the project, with a net worth of less
than $200 million. Mr. Halford said the net present value of the
project is less than zero, although the state could be left with an
astronomical liability. For example, the Red Dog mine bond has risen
to [$500 million] for reclamation. He cautioned the legislature is
listening to a company "on political life support," seeking to build a
project that is an uneconomic liability. He provided a slide
entitled, "Bristol Bay Salmon Resources," which illustrated the two
biggest drainages of the Bristol Bay system. He provided an untitled
photograph of Berkeley Pit. He provided two untitled photographs of a
Pebble mine site that the project said was not wetlands but that
showed a drill rig pad before and after the drill rig sank into the
wetlands. He said this is example of why 70-80 percent of the
residents of Bristol Bay are concerned.
3:10:45 PM
MR. HALFORD concluded there are good mines and nothing wrong with
copper unless powdered and mixed with sulfur as proposed. Further,
the foregoing is not an anti-copper, or anti-economics discussion; in
fact, BBEDC seeks to encourage the growth of the fishing industry. He
stressed in this region, fish are life, heart, and food, and should be
protected. He restated the proposal is really an 11 billion ton mine
that has been advertised to investors [but] concealed from regulators.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for the location of the Berkeley Pit.
MR. HALFORD said the Berkeley Pit is in Montana and requires perpetual
remediation.
3:12:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 10 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Version U.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting doc Alaska Intertie Project Presentation Duhamel.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Presentation Jason Hoke RBIT.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Support List.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR10 Supporting Document - 2019 Support Exploration of Road Belt Electrical Line 3.28.19.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Tanana Chiefs Conference.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Northway Traditional Council.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Map 2 .pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Golden Valley Electrical Association .pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Copper Valley Electrical Association Resolution.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Copper Valley Devlopment Association.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Chitna Electric Inc.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Chickaloon Village Tradition Council.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Documents Alaska Federation of Natives.docx.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| 2019-03-07 - Alaska Power Association Support for HJR10.pdf |
HENE 3/14/2019 10:15:00 AM HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM SCRA 5/7/2019 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Amendment U.1.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |
| HRES Schindler testimony Pebble April 1 2019.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
Pebble |
| HRES Wobus Presentation Pebble April 1, 2019.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
Pebble |
| HRES Halford Presentation Pebble April 1, 2019.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
Pebble |
| HJR10 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 3.28.19.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 10 |