Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/06/2017 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 9-CANADIAN MINES ON TRANSBOUNDARY RIVERS
10:03:54 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Urging the United States
government to continue to work with the government of Canada to
investigate the long-term, region-wide downstream effects of
proposed and existing industrial development and to develop
measures to ensure that state resources are not harmed by
upstream development in British Columbia.
10:04:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 9, Version 30-LS030\D, Nauman, 2/14/17,
as the working document.
10:04:38 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:04:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, presented
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 9, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
House Joint Resolution 9 declares the Alaska State
Legislature's support for measures the U.S. Congress
and the U.S. State Department can take to ensure that
Alaskans have their voice heard in relationship to
transboundary mining issues.
As British Columbia continues to expand their mining
industry, Alaskans deserve to know how mining
development affects our transboundary rivers, and if
necessary, to have mechanisms and precautions to
protect our watersheds.
HJR 9 urges the federal government to continue working
with the Canadian government to investigate downstream
effects of industrial development and to develop
measures to ensure the safety of our state resources.
We have heard support for this issue from all sides:
thousands of Alaskans have expressed their concern for
our watersheds, our Governor and Lt. Governor have
been vocal on the issue, and now Senators Murkowski
and Sullivan are pushing for reform at the federal
level. It is time for the Alaska Legislature to join
their ranks.
10:07:58 AM
CAROLINE HAMP, Staff, Representative Dan Ortiz, Alaska State
Legislature, provided the proposed, Version D changes, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 14
Insert "and operating" to clarify that the effected
mines include both operating and proposed mines
Page 2, Line 1
Insert "Brucejack Mine" to update the list of proposed
mines
Page 2, Line 2
Delete "headwaters of the" and insert "Watershed" as a
technical clarification
Page 2, Line 11
Insert "2016 B.C. Auditor General's Report" as
additional resource and proof
Page 2, Line 16
Insert a Whereas Clause regarding the Statement of
Cooperation on Protection of Transboundary Waters
signed by the State of Alaska and the Province of
British Columbia on October 6, 2016 as an additional
resource and reference
Page 2, Line 20
Insert a Whereas Clause regarding the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909 as an additional resource and reference
10:09:25 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection, and without further
objection, Version D was before the committee.
10:10:50 AM
CHRIS ZIMMER, Campaign Director, Rivers Without Borders, stated
support for HJR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
This is not an environmental issue. It is one of
protecting Alaska jobs and resources from a cross
border threat. In contrast to other resource issues in
Southeast Alaska, this has united people across the
region, not divided them.
2. Let's look at the transboundary issue through the
lens of Tulsequah Chief
Alaska fishermen and leaders began raising water
quality and fisheries concerns related to the
Tulsequah Chief mine nearly 20 years ago, calling for
federal intervention through the Boundary Waters
Treaty (BWT) and the associated International Joint
Commission (IJC).
The History:
Abandoned in 1957 without any reclamation.
Two companies have tried to re-open the mine, with
each going bankrupt, one in 2009 and one in 2016
Repeated inspections found acid mine drainage into
salmon habitat in violation of mine permits, water
quality standards and the Canadian Fisheries Act. Yet
little was done to stop the pollution.
BC repeatedly said its mine permitting process would
halt the pollution, it did not.
Now, instead of enforcing the law and being a
responsible upstream neighbor, BC is A) still counting
on some new company to buy the mine and then be
responsible for cleanup and B) claiming the situation
is not an "emergency." So we have an ongoing discharge
of toxic acid mine drainage into salmon habitat, which
violates BC water quality standards, Canadian
Fisheries Act, BC mine permits, possibly BWT, and no
clear commitment to clean it up. Re-opening the mine
is not a cleanup plan; it is a recipe for another
bankruptcy and further inaction from BC.
Alaskans were encouraged by Minister Bennett's
reaction to his visit to the Tulsequah Chief in August
2015, after which he pledged to fix the problem sooner
rather than later. However, he has backtracked on that
commitment. Bennett has downplayed the pollution,
claiming there was "no contamination in the river"
despite direct evidence to the contrary. He admitted
the mine discharge "exceeds water quality standards"
but said the situation was not an "emergency."
Bennett ignores the fact that very low levels of heavy
metals (a few ppb) in acid mine drainage can degrade a
salmon's ability to smell, locate spawning grounds,
find food, and detect predators, and inhibit growth,
breathing and heart function.
If B.C. isn't going to enforce water quality standards
then what good are the standards? Is the new standard
no action unless there is an emergency? Isn't it then
too late? If B.C. can't (or won't) solve the pollution
problem here at this relatively small mine, what can
we expect at much larger mines such as KSM in the Unuk
and Red Chris in the Stikine?
3. Implications for overall Transboundary region
Insufficient bonding
Polluter pays doesn't work when company goes bankrupt
and bond is inadequate
Weak enforcement
Trust but verify, we need more than just a handshake
agreement, we need binding and enforceable protections
The SOC process is doing little to pressure BC into
cleaning up the mine. SOC provides no meaningful
recourse for Alaska. TCM is example of what to expect
in future if approach is solely based on SC.
This should be a lesson and a warning to us…and a
reason to be very vigilant across the transboundary.
4. Joint state/federal approach under authority of
Boundary Waters Treaty
We in Alaska are responsible for protecting our own
interests. Instead of expecting/hoping that B.C. will
do the right thing, we must obtain real guarantees,
enforceable policies, and other binding commitments to
ensure our resources will not be threatened by
upstream development in B.C.
A coordinated state/federal approach utilizing the
BWT, is reasonable, has the support of thousands of
Alaskans, including businesses, fishermen, leaders,
tribes and our congressional delegation, and will
better respond to concerns than an approach based
solely on the nonbinding and unfunded SOC. Why would
we not want to use the most powerful tools to protect
our resources and jobs?
10:15:07 AM
FREDERICK OLSON, JR., Tribal Vice President, Organized Village
of Kasaan, Chair, United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group,
stated support for HJR 9, drawing attention to submitted
testimony in the committee packet; a resolution from the village
of Kasaan. An international issue needs international
resolutions, he said. The CS provides additional encompassing
language that is important. He emphasized the need to urge
involvement of the federal government, and said that on behalf
of Alaska's tribal interests, it would be good to include the
Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) of 1909. He suggested the addition
of a "Whereas" to include BWT Article 4, which addresses harm or
potential harm that one country might do to another. The
committee could go further to include BWT Article 9, which
states that from time to time the treaty could be revisited, an
opportunity that has never been exercised. It is an important
option that should be looked at and which could make the
resolution stronger, he opined. However, the resolution does
ask for the federal involvement that has been sought, and he
thanked the committee for introducing the measure.
10:21:42 AM
DAVID CHAMBERS, PhD, President, Center for Science in Public
Participation, stated support for HJR 9. He referred to the
committee handout, titled, "Deficiencies in Post-Mt Polley
Reclamation Changes: BC Financial Surety for Mines; BC Mine
Reclamation Code Changes," to review how these focus points have
been addressed since the Mt. Polley mine disaster of 2014. He
reported that British Columbia (BC), Canada, has an outstanding,
unfunded total reclamation liability for existing mines of $1.2
billion. These actual closure reclamation funds have not been
collected and only a discounted total is in the bank. The lack
of surety represents a risk for Alaska being downstream from a
BC mining failure. The government of BC would need to provide
the balance of closure funds needed, or allow the environmental
impacts to continue, unmitigated. He said, "This [amount]
doesn't speak to compensating businesses, or individuals, or
organizations, or companies that might be hurt from a mine
failure or closure situation." The province has expressed a
desire to reduce, but not eliminate, this liability over the
next eight years. Further, BC intends to continue to utilize a
risk-based approach, which means that mining companies aren't
required to have the entire amount of the surety necessary for
closure and that part of the surety is provided via corporate
guarantee, which equals a piece of paper promising to close the
mine properly. He stressed that BC retains no financial surety
for a catastrophic failure such as occurred at Mt Polley. One
of the things that the Mt. Polley Expert Panel predicted is that
BC will experience 2 mine failures every 10 years, pending
significant policy changes.
10:26:42 AM
DR. CHAMBERS reported that BC has posed the need accept the
corporate guarantees in order to remain competitive. However,
in reality it creates a competitive advantage for mining
companies that operate in the province. Alaska requires a 100
percent guarantee. Further, much of the world is moving toward
requiring a 100 percent reclamation surety, at the time of
mining, he said, and offered findings from informal research
that he conducted, to wit:
Canadian Provinces:
Alberta - risk based; unfunded liability of $19.3
billion
Manitoba - based on financial strength
Nova Scotia - minister has wide discretion
Ontario - based on financial strength
Saskatchewan - corporate guarantees
Quebec - 100% 2-yr payment period
Yukon - 100%
Nunavut - 100% (DIAND)
Northwest Territories - 100% (DIAND)
Australia:
Western Australia - rehabilitation fund contribution,
optional bond
Victoria - risk based, moving to 100%
Northern Territories - 100%
New South Wales - coal (no info available)
Queensland - minister has wide discretion
South Australia - rehabilitation fund contribution,
optional bond
Tasmania - minister has wide discretion
US:
BLM/USFS - 100%
Most states - 100%
Alaska & Nevada - can use corporate guarantees
DR. CHAMBERS opined that corporate guarantees are not an
assurance to the public, are considered unacceptable, and
are being phased out in most locales. Quoting from the Mt.
Polley Expert Panel report regarding dam safety, he said,
"Safety attributes should be evaluated separately from
economic considerations, and cost should not be the
determining factor." The system being used in BC allows
cost to be the determining factor, particularly in the
construction of dams, he said.
10:30:10 AM
DR. CHAMBERS stressed that BC has not prioritized safety,
as evidenced by the prevalent use of cheaper center-line
dams, versus more effective downstream dams, which cost
slightly more. Emphasis has not been placed on dry
closures and the wet closures have a history of failure.
Hence, failures on the scale of Mt. Polley can be expected
or recur, due to the continued use of wet closures, he
predicted. The Mt. Polley Expert Panel recommended the
elimination of surface water from the impoundment, but code
has not been revised to minimize water in the tailings
enclosure. All of the BC sulfide-mines currently
operating, or proposed, in the transboundary region utilize
wet closures, he emphasized. The code guidance document
has not been changed regardless of the multitude of public
comments that were lodged with province officials, nor in
response to the Mt. Polley Expert Panel recommendations.
The Red Chris mine received a final operating permit, on
2/28/17, under the identical code. The Red Chris mine is
run by the same company as Mt. Polley and will be designed
in the same manner. The tailings dam will be constructed
with the same engineering design, and the financial surety
received was only $12 million, which he estimated to be
four times under actual closure costs. Thus, a discount
has been extended to allow the same company to operate that
has had a dam fail, and the BC government stating that it
"is worth the risk to the public." Additionally, the KSM
mine has been proposed and permitted. He reported that the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the KSM project
indicates that the copper and lead level discharges could
exceed allowable levels where the Unuk River enters Alaska.
The action effectively makes the entire Canadian aspect of
the Unuk River a mixing zone for copper and lead, he
underscored. The mine will require post-closure treatment
of 171 million gallons of water per day, which would cost
approximately $1.2 billion. He summarized that the BC
practice of allowing companies to operate based on
corporate guarantees, to issue permits for damns built as
wet closures, and by prioritizing costs considerations over
safety, is business as usual for the province, and contrary
to the recommendations from the Mt. Polley Expert Panel
report, which states, "The Panel firmly rejects any notion
that business as usual can continue."
10:37:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the $1.2 billion unfunded,
reclamation costs for the Mt. Polley disaster that will be paid
out over the next eight years to mitigate the damage, and asked
about further environmental damage that may occur during that
time period, by not addressing the problem more quickly.
DR. CHAMBERS clarified that the $1.2 billion represents the gap
in the amount calculated, for reclamation closure for all of the
mines in BC, and the amount that has actually been banked for
that purpose. He explained that the money available for a
failure at a given mine are the funds specifically held for that
mine. For example, if the Red Chris mine goes bankrupt and the
province closes it, the province would be required to fund the
closure at the cost of an additional $12-$48 million, as Red
Chris has only been required to deposit $12 million in the bank.
Alaska, however, requires all of the money necessary for
closure. Thus, the Red Dog mine has a current closure surety of
over $500 million.
10:39:55 AM
LINDSEY BLOOM, Project Manager, Salmon Habitat Information
Program, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), stated support for
HJR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) is a statewide
commercial fishing trade association composed of 35
commercial fishing organizations representing
fishermen who participate in fisheries in both state
and federal waters.
Our southeast members and member groups include troll,
gillnet, seine and non-salmon fishermen who are all
highly concerned about the threat of impacts from
large-scale mineral development upstream.
This resolution urges the United States federal
government to investigate the long-term, region-wide
downstream effects of proposed and existing B.C.
industrial development in these transboundary
watersheds, as well as to develop with the Canadian
federal government enforceable measures and financial
assurances to protect Alaskans' livelihoods and way of
life from the potential negative impacts of large-
scale transboundary mining.
We remain convinced that a binding agreement between
the United States and Canada is the only way to ensure
Alaska's interests are adequately protected.
Impacts to water quality, which is an all too common
side-effect of large scale hard-rock mining projects,
could hurt fisheries and fishing jobs in Alaska.
Canadians and mining companies are receiving all of
the economic benefits from these projects while
Alaskans, and particularly fishermen, are left to
carry the downstream impacts and risks.
Commercial Fishing in Southeast Alaska is worth $1
billion per year
In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the
responsiveness and leadership that has been shown on
this issue from Rep. Ortiz, Rep. Stutes and other
members of the Alaska legislature. Also, the Alaska
delegation in DC. Senator Murkowski in particular who
has brought this issue before the State Department and
most recently Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau.
Passage of HJR if passed shows the kind of leadership
Alaskans are looking for from this body and will go a
long way to shore up the efforts of our
representatives at the Federal Level. I encourage
this committee to move HJR 9 today so that its message
to the Federal Government will be heard loud and clear
in the near future. Time is of the essence on this
issue.
10:42:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether concern needs to be afforded
other fish species, outside of salmon.
MS. BLOOM offered that water quality in estuary zones is
important and deferred further response to a biologist.
10:44:27 AM
KIRSTEN SHELTON WALKER, Project Manager, McDowell Group,
directed attention to the committee handout, titled, "Economic
Impacts of Southeast Alaska Transboundary Watersheds," April 6,
2017, and said that Salmon State contracted with the group to
analyze the economic impacts of three transboundary watersheds
of the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk rivers. A request for a
preliminary analysis of the Nass and Skeena rivers was also part
of the request. Although neither the Nass nor the Skeena rivers
flow into Alaskan waters, the fish pass through during their
migration. The economic impacts of the watersheds were
determined by reviewing the following points: jobs and labor
income for employees of watershed-related businesses; indirect
impacts, such as spending by watershed-related businesses;
induced impacts, which includes spending in communities and
statewide by employees; visitor spending; tax benefits of
properties located in the watershed; and the present value of
the perpetual benefits from the renewable resources. She said
the economics of a healthy river system will generate jobs that
include the following sectors: commercial fishing, sport
fishing, personal use, hunting and trapping, visitor industry,
and recreation activity. Unmeasurable, intangible benefits also
exist that can't be statistically included in the study, she
stressed. In the interest of time, she offered to provide a
broad-brush report on the findings that are further detailed in
the complete report. She summarized the Taku river watershed
findings as: $32.9 million total economic spending; $12.8
million labor income; and 260 annual jobs. If the current
activities are continued at the present level for the next 30
years, a projected economic value of $650 million will be
realized. She summarized the Stikine river watershed findings
as: $13 million total economic spending; $6 million labor
income; and 117 annual jobs. The projected, 30 year economic
value for this system is $250 million. She summarized the Unuk
river watershed findings as: $2.5 million total economic
spending; $1.2 million labor income; 24 annual jobs; and a
projected 30 year economic value of $50 million. A combined
summary of all the systems shows an average total of 400 jobs
supported, and an economic impact total of approximately $48
million. The projection for the present economic value,
extrapolated to 50 years, indicates that an economic value of
over $1.2 billion will be realized. She stressed that these are
valuable watersheds and can provide benefits to the state in
perpetuity.
10:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the economic values being
reported have a focus on tourism, and fisheries. He asked
whether the economics of the mining industry were taken into
account.
MS. WALKER reported that no mines were operating in southeast,
at the time of the study.
10:49:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked what seafood species were reported on
to arrive at the exvessel value.
MS. WALKER answered that all species within the watershed were
considered but not beyond the mouth of a given river.
10:50:26 AM
HEATHER HARDCASTLE, Salmon Beyond Borders, stated support for
HJR 9, and said the campaign is driven by a multitude of
concerned entities, which include: fishermen, community
leaders, tourism and recreation business owners, and concerned
citizens. Salmon Beyond Borders was established three a half
years ago to work towards seeking solutions to the brewing,
international, transboundary situation, with a focus on the
Stikine, Taku, and Unuk river watersheds. By supporting HJR 9,
the committee will join tens of thousands of Alaskans who are
asking for an international mechanism to protect their way of
life, and ensure the resource viability of the watersheds.
Alaska's congressional delegation is fully supportive and have
expressed interest in receiving a resolution, such as HJR 9, to
aide their efforts in establishing protections for these shared
interests. The Salmon Beyond Borders group recently joined with
a delegation from Montana to visit officials in Washington D.C.,
she reported. The stories that Montana shared were compelling
and landed with a "thud," before the Alaska Congressional
Delegation, as well as the State Department. She explained that
Montana has the same transboundary issues as Alaska and has been
working with Canada, for a lengthy period of time, to protect
its shared waterways from the upstream, detrimental effects
caused by BC coal mines. The transboundary Flathead river
watershed is still intact, having received International Joint
Commission attention beginning in the 1980's. However, the
neighboring Elk and Kootenai river watersheds, are severely
impaired and compromised for use by Montana residents. Although
Montana has been working for many years to have the federal
government push for protections, the effort has been to no
avail. A state/provincial memorandum of understanding (MOU) has
been the only agreement in place. Today, the Canadian aspect of
the Elk River is hosting fish kills, and deformed fish, and the
Kootenai River [aka Kootenay River] enters Montana in violation
of state selenium water quality standards. The state faces
having an impaired watershed forever, she reported. Ms.
Hardcastle referred to the committee packet and the document
titled, "Summary of Brief; Canadian Mines on Transboundary
Rivers, The Need for Financial Assurances; prepared by Robyn
Allan, Independent Economist, in support of House Joint
Resolution 9, March 16, 2017," paraphrasing from page 1,
paragraphs 4-6, and page 4, the closing paragraph, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
[page 1]
The environmental assessment, monitoring, compliance,
and financial assurances regime in British Columbia is
dysfunctional.
The environment and the public on both sides of the
Canadian and US borders face serious long term risk,
loss and cost.
Assurances from the government of British Columbia
that these risks are being addressed are without
substance.
The laudable goals of the recently signed Statement of
Cooperation cannot be achieved under BC's current
regulatory regime.
[page 2]
The Province of British Columbia refuses to assume
responsibility to adequately protect downstream
interests threatened by upstream mining activity by
introducing much needed reforms to the regulation of
mining activities in the Province, particularly as
they relate to the introduction of a fulsome and
effective financial assurances regime. Therefore,
House Joint Resolution 9 requesting that the Canadian
and US governments work together to investigate the
current and long-term impacts of mining in British
Columbia and develop measures to ensure downstream
resources are not harmed, is timely and necessary.
10:56:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what information is available
showing that the Canadian DEC actions are ineffective.
MS. HARDCASTLE pointed out that several statements have been
issued, addressing vital aspects of the mining sector, including
a compelling report from the BC Auditor General, 5/20/16, which
is included in the committee packet. The auditor's report is
scathing, as the review of every measure of success,
productivity, compliance, and enforcement, resulted in a failing
grade.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that it would be interesting to
hear what Alaska's DEC has to say about the transboundary
watersheds, the agencies consideration of the water quality,
management of the systems, and how interaction with Canada is
handled.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
10:59:30 AM
MIKE SATRE, Vice President, Alaska Miners Association, testified
with opposition to HJR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I was born and raised here in Southeast Alaska and
Juneau is my home. I am the manager of government and
community relations at the Hecla Greens Creek Mine, am
the president of the Council of Alaska Producers and
VP of the Alaska Miners Association. I have been a
member of Lt. Governor Mallott's ad-hoc citizens
working group on Transboundary issues representing the
Alaska Miners Association and am here on the behalf of
AMA today.
Industrial development in the transboundary is not
experiencing unprecedented or rapid expansion however
we do support the rights of Alaskans to raise concerns
regarding upstream development, especially when
"upstream" is located in another country.
Unfortunately this resolution disregards the
significant efforts made by the Walker/Mallott
administration to foster collaboration and encourage
responsible development balanced with water and
habitat protections. The mining industry has fully
supported these efforts as they are the only realistic
manner by which our regulatory agencies can have
meaningful engagement in the permitting process of a
foreign country. BC and Montana have successfully
managed transboundary issues in the Flathead River
Basin through a MOU since 2010 and there is no reason
we can't have the same success.
We would encourage the committee to add language to
the resolution that supports the MOU and SOC that are
currently in place. By not supporting the
administration in their efforts, the Legislature would
be sending a clear message to British Columbia that we
do not want to engage.
We would also like to address the fallacy in asking
for federal engagement on this issue. It seems like
there is hardly a day that goes by here in the capital
that there isn't a resolution or floor speech that
complains bitterly of "federal overreach" and lauds
the ability of Alaskans to solve our own
problems...but suddenly, when it comes to this issue
this is not the case.
Not only is federal intervention not needed here, but
quite frankly the Legislature should realize the
futility of invoking the Boundary Waters treaty and
the International Joint Commission. The Boundary
waters treaty specifically excludes from its authority
those waters that cross borders...the treaty is meant
for waters that lay parallel to borders such as the
Great Lakes. There is a caveat that neither country
shall pollute waters flowing into the other so there
is already a legal mechanism for an aggrieved party on
either side of the border to seek compensation should
a problem occur.
That being said, even if the Boundary Waters treaty is
invoked, and an IJC reference from both countries
proceeds, it will take years, even decades for any
recommendation to be made. And the recommendation is
just that...a non-binding recommendation that would
still require approval and implementation by both
countries. So, by involving the federal government,
Alaska would potentially have to wait for decades for
a non-binding result, instead of utilizing a state to
province agreement that is already in place. This
makes no sense. This is why we have to support the
Lt. Governor and the process outlined in the MOU/SOC.
It is important that the Legislature make its opinion
known on issues like transboundary development. It is
important that legacy problems like Tulsequah Chief
are dealt with immediately. However, the new version
of HJR9 has multiple problems and needs significant
amendments before it moves forwards. The Council of
Alaska Producers and the Alaska Miners Association
will be submitting detailed amendments to this
resolution in the hopes that we can all support this
moving forward.
11:03:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the legal mechanism
being referred to.
MR. SATRE responded that the Boundary Waters Treaty, Article 4,
states that waters that flow across a border shall not be
polluted. Thus, there is a treaty mechanism for aggrieved
parties to seek relieve.
11:04:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted the lack of financial resources for
Alaska to deal with any situation that may transgress the
boundary waters, and stressed that the congressional delegation
is supportive of federal involvement.
MR. SATRE said that the disagreement is how the congressional
delegation should be engaged. There are reimbursable service
agreements that can be worked with, via BC officials as
described in the Statement of Cooperation (SOC). He stressed
that a viable process exists.
11:06:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the Alaska mining industry
support other associated industries, as well as overlap with
Canadian mining companies, and whether there is an economic
interplay to consider.
MR. SATRE responded that there are two producing mines in the
Juneau area, and it could be helpful to look for benefits and
trade opportunities across the border. He suggested the
congressional delegation could prove helpful in such an
endeavor.
11:07:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the congressional and state
approaches could be pursued simultaneously.
MR. SATRE deferred further comment to the applicable state
agencies.
11:09:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN restated his question regarding the
department's ability to monitor the water quality of the
southeast watersheds, and whether the agency has any current
concerns regarding pollutants in the tributaries coming into
Alaska.
11:09:42 AM
MICHELLE HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Conservation (DEC), said the agency has a limited ability to
monitor the southeast watersheds, and the Alaska Monitoring and
Assessment Program (AKMAP) will focus on this area for the next
five years. However, the funding for the program is tenuous and
partnerships are being formed with Native organizations and
federal agencies in order to build a comprehensive database.
The agency is working in concert with BC counterparts to comply
with the SOC.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that testimony has been
offered highlighting the existence of pollutants in the waters
and asked whether she's familiar with any mining effluents, in
the named watersheds.
MS. HALE responded that permits authorize pollutants to be
discharged, with specific dilution expectations that are handled
via mixing zone requirements, which must be met. Certainly
polluted waters exist, and some are considered impaired.
Abandoned mine pollution is occurring in the state, as well as
entering from the Canadian, Tulsequah Chief mine flowing into
the BC aspect of the Taku River. The department is continually
monitoring the Alaska aspect to identify pollutant levels.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the department enjoys a good
working relationship with Canada.
MS. HALE opined that DEC has a very good working relationship
with Canadian counterparts.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what level of confidence the
director holds regarding the levels of protection provided by
the Canadian Government.
MS. HALE said an adequate framework appears to be in place but
it is something that will require an ongoing conversation.
11:16:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR acknowledged that it is helpful to have a
good and open working relationship, as described; however, that
doesn't create anything binding and there is nothing that the
state can do to force the BC provincial government to take
specific measures. She asked if the federal government would be
required to possibly intervene and work with the Canadian
government, given the rise of an actionable situation.
MS. HALE agreed that the understanding being worked under is not
binding, and deferred further comment.
11:18:15 AM
KAREN MATTHIAS, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), stated opposition to HJR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I'm the Executive Director of the Council of Alaska
Producers (CAP), a state-wide business association
that represents the large metal mines and some
advanced projects in Alaska. Among other things, the
CAP promotes economic opportunity and environmentally
sound mining practices. I also represent CAP on the
Lt. Governor's citizens working group on transboundary
issues. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
HJR9.
Recognizing the need to protect and enhance the shared
environment, CAP fully supports collaboration and
dialogue between the State of Alaska and the Province
of British Columbia on development in British Columbia
along rivers that flow from Canada into Alaska. This
collaboration is the most appropriate means of
ensuring that the interests of both jurisdictions and
their citizens are understood and protected
For more than two years, Lt. Governor Mallott has
shown great leadership in deepening the existing
levels of communication and cooperation between the
State of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia
on this issue. This work has included an unprecedented
level of outreach to stakeholder groups.
The 2015 Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation
between the State of Alaska and the Province of
British Columbia and the 2016 Statement of Cooperation
on Protection of Transboundary Waters are both the
results of this effort and the starting point for
greater collaboration between the province and the
state. In fact, the technical work has already begun.
The Technical Working Group has been tasked with
establishing a reliable and adequate process for the
collecting and distributing of baseline and project-
specific water quality data and actively engaging with
all stakeholders in developing this process. I would
encourage you to ask for an update from DEC, DNR and
DF&G on this important work.
The State of Alaska and the Province of British
Columbia are the jurisdictions responsible for
managing natural resources under the laws of the
United States and Canada, respectively. As such, the
state and province are the appropriate governmental
entities to address transboundary natural resource
issues. Seeking federal involvement through the
Boundary Waters Treaty would be contrary to the
primary jurisdiction of Alaska and British Columbia
over natural resources and would unnecessarily burden
the cooperative relationship formalized in the
Memorandum of Understanding and the Statement of
Cooperation.
I urge you not to pass this resolution as currently
drafted and instead consider amendments that would
recognize the value of the Statement of Cooperation,
the work of the technical groups and the efforts of
the Lt. Governor and the State of Alaska to ensure
that our state regulators can have meaningful access
and input into the regulatory process in British
Columbia.
11:21:16 AM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Alaska Miners Association (AMA), testified
with opposition to HJR 9, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I will note that AMA has a letter on the record in
response to the first version of HJR9 that points to
the collaboration between the State of Alaska and the
Province of British Columbia lead by Lt. Governor
Mallott. We point to the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) and the Statement of Cooperation (SOC) agreed
upon by both the State and Province, and the technical
work that has already begun to further this
collaboration. At that time we suggested the
resolution reflect those important advancements in
addressing any concerns regarding Transboundary
mining.
However, when Version D of this resolution was
released, it included new language that insists on
federal government intervention in the current
collaboration being led by the Lt. Governor. It is
surprising to us that the Legislature would be eager
to request federal overreach into the proper
management of Alaska's natural resources and
regulatory management of those resources. The
Legislature should support the efforts on behalf of
the Lt. Governor, and support the regulatory mission
of our agencies charged with oversight of development
and resources, rather than encouraging federal
intervention and potentially compromising the
cooperative relationship formalized in the
Alaska/British Columbia agreements.
The Lt. Governor's efforts to establish the
Transboundary Working Group has resulted in
significant achievements such as the State
participation on the Mine Review Committee for the
Brucejack Gold Project and the KSM Project. These
kind of results demonstrate that the State of Alaska
and the Province of British Columbia are working
effectively to address their common interests in
protecting the waters and fisheries that are vital to
the citizens of both jurisdictions.
We should ensure that we aren't doing anything to
compromise the State of Alaska's ongoing collaborative
efforts to protect our resources. Asking for federal
involvement is not only unnecessary, but it cedes
Alaska's rightful authority to manage its resources to
the federal government. AMA encourages you to vote no
on HJR9, and instead focus energies on supporting Lt.
Governor Mallott in collaborating with our neighbors.
11:23:50 AM
JILL WEITZ, Salmon Beyond Borders, stated support for HJR 9 and
said that, regarding the Boundary Waters Treaty, it does in fact
apply to waters crossing the border and can be used as a
preventative tool to establish financial securities for projects
encompassing more than mining failures or abandoned mines. She
reported that while in Juneau, to meet with Governor Bill
Walker, the BC Energy Minister, Bill Bennett, suggested that the
federal government would need to be involved in order to secure
financial assurances. Although the SOC is helpful, it doesn't
establish binding protections. However, it does clarify that
neither the state nor the province will allocate funds towards
the efforts of baseline, water quality studies or securement of
long term monitoring. Additionally, the DEC technical working
group has estimated that it will take about five years to gather
the data necessary to establish a meaningful, water quality
baseline.
11:26:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the Boundary Waters
Treaty to ask what steps are required from the federal
government to bring it into play, particularly as necessary to
address the current pollution being emitted from the Tulsequah
Chief Mine.
MS. WEITZ responded that the treaty can be initiated by the
actions of one of the countries, by bringing an International
Joint Conference (IJC) reference issue to the table. It should
be noted that, in practice, the treaty has only been successful
when both countries agreed on the need to review an issue. The
resolution is a prime example of what the Alaska Congressional
Delegation is required to bring to the table in order to elevate
the issue to a level that will be recognized by the Canadian
government as requiring consideration.
11:28:26 AM
MELANIE BROWN, Organizer, Salmon Beyond Borders, stated support
for HJR 9, and said the MOU and SOC are good intentions.
However, the MOU and SOC process that Montana invoked with BC
was also well intended; however, the agreement did not prevent
selenium from flowing downstream and causing generations of
malformed fish that will continue into the foreseeable future.
Too much stock cannot be placed on the MOU and SOC, she
stressed.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony.
11:32:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said many of the statements in the
committee packet are from organizations reporting that bi-
lateral agreements with BC aren't working. He asked what degree
of accord Alaska department officials are achieving through
working with their BC counterparts.
11:33:35 AM
DAVID SCHADE, Manager, Water Resources Section, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
reported that disputes are handled via the State Department,
thus, conflicts are routinely elevated to the federal level.
However, the agency does have the ability to engage in
protecting Alaska border issues. The department has technical
staff that works directly with BC counterparts. He provided an
example of requesting a water analysis of the Stikine River and
the cooperation that took place around the task.
11:37:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ commended the accord reached in arriving at
the MOU and SOC; however, the resolution is necessary to provide
binding protections on a level required to safeguard the
interests of the state.
11:38:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the process may need to be
changed, and questioned what outcome is being sought.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said that the MOU and SOC should be
continued without reduction or reversal. He provided an example
to indicate what more is needed, recalling that a gentleman
asked what Alaska could do if an event occurred in BC that would
have a negative impact on the traditional, cultural activities
tied to the three rivers in question. Under the current
situation, there is nothing that could be done. The intent of
the resolution is to put into place actionable steps that can be
taken to protect the watersheds, and establish financial
safeguards, as well.
11:41:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0303\D.1, Nauman, 3/17/17, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "Columbia":
Insert "; and urging the United States government to
continue to work with the government of Canada to
support the efforts of the state and British Columbia
to collaborate on proposed and existing industrial
upstream development in British Columbia"
Page 2, following line 17:
Insert new resolution sections to read:
"WHEREAS, on November 25, 2015, Governor Bill Walker
and British Columbia Premier Christy Clark signed a
Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation
recognizing and formalizing "the mutual commitment of
Alaska and British Columbia to sustaining our
environment for the benefit of all, including
transboundary rivers, watersheds, and fisheries"; and
WHEREAS, in the Memorandum of Understanding and
Cooperation, the state and British Columbia agreed "to
establish and oversee a joint process to develop and
implement a joint water quality monitoring program for
transboundary waters, ensuring that data are publicly
available"; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2016, Lieutenant Governor Byron
Mallott signed a Statement of Cooperation on
Protection of Transboundary Waters, in which a
bilateral working group consisting of the
commissioners of environmental conservation, fish and
game, and natural resources and British Columbia's
deputy ministers of energy and mines and environment
was established; and
WHEREAS, in the October 6, 2016, Statement of
Cooperation, a technical working group on monitoring,
consisting of water quality experts from resource
regulatory agencies in the state and British Columbia
was established to develop procedures for reporting
between the two jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding
and Statement of Cooperation are currently being
implemented, and significant progress is being made
toward enhanced collaboration and effective input by
the state into British Columbia's regulatory
processes; and"
Page 3, line 5, following "Columbia":
Insert "; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
strongly urges the United States government to
continue to work with the government of Canada to
support the efforts of the state and British Columbia
to collaborate on proposed and existing industrial
upstream development in British Columbia"
11:41:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT explained Amendment 1, paraphrasing from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The State of Alaska has consistently and assertively
resisted overreach into the proper management of
Alaska's natural resources and regulatory management
of those resources.
In response to events in Canada and concerns expressed
by Alaskans, Lt. Governor Mallott established the
Transboundary Working Group to improve the States'
involvement in activities proposed in B.C. that could
impact Alaska waters and fish.
Lt. Gov. Mallott contacted B.C. Minister of Mines
Bennett, who came to Alaska to meet with a variety of
individuals, groups, and Alaska officials. As a
result of these meetings, the State and the Province
developed a Memorandum of Understanding, signed in
November 2015.
A Statement of Cooperation on the Protection of
Transboundary Waters implementing the MOU was signed
by Alaska and British Columbia in October 2016. As
contemplated by the Statement of Cooperation, a Bi-
Lateral Working Group has been formed and the
Technical Working Group on water monitoring has
developed a plan for monitoring water quality in the
Transboundary rivers.
In January 2017, Minister Bennett reported that the
Province had begun work at the Tulsequah Chief Mine;
storing and properly securing all chemicals identified
on site in December 2016. Minister Bennett also
reported that all the field work necessary to prepare
an Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment had been
completed and that a draft report was expected in
early 2017. The assessment will determine whether or
to what extent mine effluent may be impacting
environment and provide a foundation for next steps.
These results demonstrate that the State of Alaska and
the Province of British Columbia are working
effectively to address their common interests in
protecting the waters and fisheries that are vital to
the citizens of both jurisdictions.
Article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
provides that "neither country will pollute boundary
waters, or waters that flow across the boundary, to an
extent that would cause injury to health or property
in the other country." Alaskans have a commitment
that Canada will not allow activity in Canada to
pollute waters that flow into Alaska and cause injury
to Alaskans health or property.
We should be supporting the State and the Province by
making sure they have what they need to accomplish the
objectives of the MOU and Statement of Cooperation.
We should also ensure that we aren't doing anything to
compromise the State of Alaska's ongoing collaborative
efforts to protect our resources. Asking for Federal
involvement not only is not necessary, but it cedes
Alaska's rightful authority to manage its resources to
the federal government.
11:44:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that the governor's office
has not provided comments on the resolution. There may be
things that the federal government may need to address, but
relinquishing state power is a cause for concern, he opined.
11:45:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said that there is nothing in the resolution
that would intercede what is being done under the MOU and SOC.
She stated opposition to Amendment 1.
11:45:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS concurred with Representative
Tarr's comments, and expressed opposition to Amendment 1.
11:46:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated support for Amendment 1, and said
it sounds as though Alaska is working well with the Canadian
Government, and the effort should continue. The MOU and SOC are
recent documents and should be given a chance to work, he
opined.
11:47:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated opposition to Amendment 1 and stressed the
need to have an avenue to enforce the responsibilities that are
held, and relied upon, by the Canadian Government. The Alaska
Congressional Delegation has asked for this resolution and for a
show of state support.
11:48:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that a contrast exists and one
country can't force another country to do something. Diplomacy
mechanisms are the only way to solve disputes. He expressed
support for continuing the status quo in working with the
Canadian Government via the MOU and SOC.
11:52:07 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Chenault, Neuman,
and Eastman voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Tarr, Fansler, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Stutes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
11:52:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved to report the proposed CS for HJR
9, Version 30-LS030\D, Nauman, 2/14/17 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
11:53:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
11:53:12 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr, Fansler,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and Stutes voted in favor of the proposed CS.
Representatives Chenault, Neuman, and Eastman voted against it.
Therefore, CSHJR 9(FSH), was reported out of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR009 Supporting Document - Chris Zimmer.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Amendment #1 Chenault.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Amendment #1 -Appendix 1-Memorandum of Understanding.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Amendment #1 -Memorandum of Understanding.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Amendment #1-Lt. Gov. Transboundary Relations.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Additional Document Dr. Dave Chambers Presentation.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Additional Document Robin Allan Financial Assurances FULL BRIEF.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Additional Document Financial Assurances by Robyn Allan.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Supporting Document - Children of the Taku.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |
| HJR009 Supporting Document - Tasha Elizarde.pdf |
HFSH 4/6/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 9 |