Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/30/2019 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 | |
| Presentation: an Overview of British Columbia Mining in Shared Transboundary Watersheds | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 30, 2019
10:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Mark Neuman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: AN OVERVIEW OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINING IN SHARED
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERSHEDS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JILL WEITZ, Director
Salmon Beyond Borders (SBB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the overview of British Columbia
mining in shared transboundary watersheds, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Alaska - British Columbia Transboundary
Watersheds."
TIS PETERMAN, Coordinator
Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview of British
Columbia mining in shared transboundary watersheds.
CHRIS SERGEANT, Research Scientist
Flathead Lake Bio Station
University of Montana
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the overview of British Columbia
mining in shared transboundary watersheds, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Assessing mining impacts on our shared
Alaska-British Columbia rivers."
DAVID LANDIS, Mayor
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview of British
Columbia mining in shared transboundary watersheds.
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview of British
Columbia mining in shared transboundary watersheds.
NIKKI SKUCE, Director
Northern Confluence
Smithers, British Columbia, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview of British
Columbia mining in shared transboundary watersheds.
ROBYN ALLAN, Independent Economist
Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview of British
Columbia mining in shared transboundary watersheds.
JASON DION, Lead Researcher
Canada's Ecofiscal Commission
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: During the overview of British Columbia
mining in shared transboundary watersheds, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Financial assurance for mining in British
Columbia."
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:09:15 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:09 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Vance, and Stutes.
Representative Tarr arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: An Overview of British Columbia Mining in Shared
Transboundary Watersheds
Presentation: An Overview of British Columbia Mining in Shared
Transboundary Watersheds
10:09:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
an overview of British Columbia mining in shared transboundary
watersheds provided by a variety of witnesses from Alaska and
Canada.
CHAIR STUTES stated that this is a very important issue to the
future health of Alaska's fisheries. It is an issue that has
brought many stakeholders together from both sides of the border
to work towards a common goal of holding mining activities in
British Columbia (BC) on the rivers shared by Alaska and BC
accountable for safe practices. Today's presenters were invited
to educate the committee on the nature of the issue, the past
work that has been done between stakeholders, the legislature,
and the Alaska Congressional Delegation, as well as the ultimate
goal of putting a binding international framework in place to
ensure accountable and responsible mining operations.
10:11:05 AM
JILL WEITZ, Director, Salmon Beyond Borders (SBB), provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "Alaska - British Columbia
Transboundary Watersheds." She began by recognizing the letter
to Governor Dunleavy, dated 4/9/19, that was signed by 22
members of the Alaska State Legislature. The letter urges the
Dunleavy Administration to continue the work that thousands of
Alaskans, 15 of the 19 federally recognized tribes in Southeast
Alaska, and the Alaska Delegation have been pushing for,
including the securing of binding and enforceable protections
for transboundary watersheds.
MS. WEITZ said she has been working on the Salmon Beyond Borders
campaign for five years, since its inception in 2014. Prior to
that she served as a compliance and enforcement officer for the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) under the Parnell
Administration, where she was tasked with regulating mines,
seafood processing plants, large-scale construction projects,
and water and wastewater treatment facilities.
MS. WEITZ turned to slide 2 of her presentation and explained
that Salmon Beyond Borders is a campaign that is driven by
commercial and sport fishing groups, local businesses, tour
operators, and concerned citizens, in collaboration with tribes
and First Nations in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. The
goal is to defend and sustain the transboundary rivers, jobs,
and way of life. She moved to slide 4 and acknowledged that
this region is in the traditional lands of the Taku Kwaan. The
watersheds being focused on are the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk. At
roughly 30,000 square miles, these are some of the largest
producing salmon rivers in the state of Alaska and the largest
in Southeast Alaska, producing 80 percent of Southeast Alaska's
king salmon.
MS. WEITZ displayed slide 5 and explained that the focus is on
these transboundary watersheds because of their productivity and
because within these watersheds on the British Columbia side of
the political border there are more than 12 large-scale open-pit
mines in various stages of abandonment, advanced exploration,
and development. Attention is being given to these projects
because of their proximity as well as their scale and scope.
Some of the projects rival the size of the proposed Pebble Mine
in Bristol Bay. These open pit mines are at the headwaters of
these shared watersheds, so the resources within these
watersheds are shared by both British Columbian and Alaska.
These projects are massive and nearly all of them have tailings
dams or earthen dams that are backing toxic waste, making them
ticking time bombs for Southeast Alaska's multi-billion dollar
[salmon and] visitor economies.
10:15:30 AM
MS. WEITZ reviewed the timeline outlined on slide 6. She said
the Tulsequah Chief Mine (TCM) in British Columbia has been
abandoned since 1957, and the Tulsequah River is a tributary of
the Taku River watershed. This abandoned mine has been raising
concerns for commercial fishermen for the last few decades and
is continuing to generate attention from fishermen and
governments on both sides of the border. In 2014 a transmission
line was completed, bringing power to Northwest British
Columbia. That led to the development of the permitting process
for the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) Project in the Unuk River
watershed 19 miles from the border with Alaska. The Unuk River
drains into the Misty Fjords National Monument and if the KSM
Mine is built as proposed it will be the largest open pit mine
in North American and fifth largest in the world. The process
and speed in which these projects were coming online came to the
attention of nongovernment (NGO) organizations, tribes, local
municipalities, and business owners. They recognized that they
needed to learn more about what was happening and to organize as
to what could be done to be engaged and to determine how these
shared watersheds are managed. That was the evolution of the
Salmon Beyond Borders campaign and the Southeast Indigenous
Transboundary Commission, which is comprised of 15 of the 19
federally recognized tribes in Southeast Alaska.
MS. WEITZ related that in 2014 the Mount Polley Mine tailings
dam disaster in the Fraser River watershed dumped 6.6 billion
gallons of toxins into the Fraser River just as the salmon were
returning. More is being learned about the BC regulatory
process and its inefficiencies. Letters and resolutions have
been garnered from dozens of municipalities and tribes in
Southeast Alaska and letters from legislators, which garnered
attention from the state's administration and members of
Congress. U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator Dan
Sullivan, and U.S. Congressman Don Young have been champions on
this issue since these efforts began. In 2015 the State of
Alaska signed an amended memorandum of understanding (MOU), with
a subsequent statement of cooperation (SOC), that established
opportunities for transparency between the State of Alaska and
British Columbia. This is an important piece of work so that
transparency is shared, but it does not secure binding and
enforceable protections or financial assurances to protect
Alaskan interests.
MS. WEITZ said a push is continuing for a federal engagement and
a federal process that will lead to those binding protections.
This has led to continued pressure at the Department of State,
the agency that would maintain these efforts with its
counterparts in Canada, namely Global Affairs Canada, to
establish the management of these transboundary watersheds. It
also kickstarted the Interagency Working Group at the federal
level, which is comprised of the Department of State, Department
of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That
group is working to address the gaps and limitations of the MOU
with Alaska and British Columbia as well as the other bordering
states of Washington, Idaho, and Montana, all of which have
various issues regarding transboundary impacts from BC mining
into shared watersheds.
MS. WEITZ noted that work is ongoing for increased funding for
monitoring from the U.S. federal government. Just this year
through U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, the U.S. Congress passed
$1.5 million for the installation of super gauges that monitor
water quantity and water quality. Those gauges will go in the
transboundary watershed shared between the U.S. and Canada.
10:20:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired what the $1.5 million
will do and whether it will get part of the way or all the way
toward the need for water monitoring.
MS. WEITZ replied that since fiscal year (FY) 2017, [the U.S.]
has gone from a $300,000 appropriation to reinstitute a stream
gauge in the Unuk watershed to $1.5 million for the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) to prioritize transboundary watersheds
that need bolstered data. To establish defensible data, which
means the U.S. knows the current water quality so that impacts
can be identified when they occur, three to five years of
baseline data are needed, and these stream gauges will be very
helpful in determining that data.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the USGS is the
operative agency in gathering this data and whether other
federal agencies are involved. He further asked whether state
agencies should be involved.
MS. WEITZ responded that for fiscal year 2020, an appropriations
request has been submitted for EPA to be further engaged to
supplement what the USGS is doing. In addition to the funding,
report language within the bill in Congress requires that the
USGS coordinate with state agencies in Alaska as well as tribes
and local entities that are already on the ground doing water
quality monitoring work.
10:22:52 AM
MS. WEITZ resumed her presentation. She displayed slide 7 and
pointed out the problems. She explained that deregulation under
the various administrations in British Columbia and Canada has
made it very hard to establish platforms that provide for
adequate transboundary governance and the determination of these
shared resources. Salmon Beyond Borders and many of its
partners are advocating that there become a platform for both
the province and the state to discuss these issues, as well as
to bring in the federal governments, the tribes, and First
Nations, and that they be very integral in determining the
management. Such a platform would help in discussing concerns
and advocating for protections because Alaska has everything to
lose and nothing to gain from projects in British Columbia.
MS. WEITZ moved to slide 8 and discussed the proposed solution
of establishing a binding international framework. She related
that the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada
is an already existing tool. The adjudicating body of the
Boundary Waters Treaty, which was set to resolve and prevent
disputes among transboundary watershed users, is the
International Joint Commission (IJC). Salmon Beyond Borders has
been working with various local, state, and congressional
elected officials in pushing for an International Joint
Commission referral. A referral would bring together the U.S.
and Canada to review what it means to obtain consent from
indigenous First Nations and tribes in traditional territories,
what it means to analyze data, what it means to assess
cumulative impacts through an adequate risk assessment, and to
determine what is needed for near term monitoring and long term
monitoring of these projects, most of which require perpetual
treatment. This ultimately will lead into the best ways of
determining that liability and accountability for British
Columbia as well as the mining companies themselves and the
industry as whole.
10:25:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that during his freshman
year as a legislator he was in Washington, D.C., when the issue
of KSM and transboundary mines was just gaining steam and he met
with the IJC to talk about that. He was told by both IJC and
Department of State staff that, in so many words, good luck in
getting them to engage and that there is no incentive for IJC to
stand up for the interests of Alaska and the U.S. So, while the
IJC exists, it doesn't have teeth or put its teeth into
anything. He requested Ms. Weitz to speak to the strategy that
Alaska and the U.S. might have in trying to get IJC to mediate
the concerns of the U.S. in this issue. He also inquired
whether there are examples from other transboundary watersheds
in recent history in which IJC has involved itself and helped to
mediate the different interests between the U.S. and Canada.
MS. WEITZ answered, "We've been on that same path ... as far as
knowing this tool exists and kind of being tossed around as far
as its effectiveness and whether or not it actually seems
plausible." The IJC has been engaged to address transboundary
concerns, most recently in Vermont and Quebec and $20 million
was appropriated to do this type of review to address how
management of shared watersheds should be managed. In the 1980s
in the Flathead Valley of Montana and British Columbia the
Flathead River was the product of an IJC review because there
were proposed coal mines in the headwaters of the Flathead
River. The IJC determined that if the coal operation could not
prove that it would have no impact to the endangered bull trout,
it could not be authorized to begin operation. So, that
watershed remains protected without development. An adjacent
watershed, the Elk and Kootenai that originates in BC and flows
into Montana and Idaho and then back into BC, has not had a
federal review or engagement and existing pollution is wiping
out fisheries and deformities are being seen in fish and birds.
MS. WEITZ continued her answer, explaining that for the Alaska-
British Columbia situation, walls are being run into in that
Canada is not going to want to come to the table because this is
an opportunity for BC to develop in these northern watersheds
and there will be reluctancy from the industry. Not only is
this an issue in Alaska that is now garnering more and more
attention from members of Congress, but there is the possibility
of development in the headwaters of the Skagit watershed, a
river originating in BC and flowing into Washington that is
Puget Sound's largest salmon producing river. Salmon Beyond
Borders has come together with its partners in Washington,
Idaho, and Montana and built power in numbers so that the IJC
process now being sought is an assessment of what transboundary
watershed management needs to look like in these mineral rich
resource areas. More progress has been made during the current
U.S. administration than the former, and in a recent trip to
Washington, D.C., to meet with the Department of State, she
gleaned that things are closer than before towards getting that
multi-state IJC referral. So, it's critical that Alaska's
Congressional Delegation continue pushing for it. As the letter
from legislators to Governor Dunleavy alluded to and encouraged,
there is support from the executive offices in these states, as
well, in pushing for those binding protections, which would be a
result of a review such as this.
10:31:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether Salmon Beyond Borders has
looked at the Great Lakes [Water Quality Agreement] as a
possible framework for international cooperation. She noted she
worked on this as a college student.
MS. WEITZ replied that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
is an excellent example of an authorized appropriation and that
is what Salmon Beyond Borders is working for in FY 2021 with
members of Congress and the various agencies. That type of
platform has been effective and is something SBB is open to
considering because it involves tribes and stakeholders and
First Nations as well as the appropriate government entities.
CHAIR STUTES requested Ms. Weitz to elaborate about the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
MS. WEITZ responded that the agreement is an opportunity for
experts, primarily in the technical sense. So, it is scientists
coming together to determine water quality levels and standards
that need to be worked towards. It brings together the various
state and federal agencies and tribes to work towards management
of these watersheds, be it monitoring and the permitting of
potential development for current and future operations.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that her work on that issue was
impactful because political boundaries are meaningless when
talking about resource management. It was an important learning
experience through which she learned that pollution in Lake
Superior takes 60 years to make its way into the St. Lawrence
seaway. She grew up in the Akron-Cleveland area, called the
cancer belt as a result of heavy industry, and where the
Cuyahoga River spontaneously caught on fire [on 6/22/1969]
because of pollution. Much great work has now been done and
this example of success should be looked at, as well as why this
work was necessary in the first place.
10:33:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that in
the IJC process, Canada's commissioners on the IJC must
acquiesce to an IJC finding or agreement. He inquired about
what motivated Canada politically to acquiesce and effectively
give up ground on its interests in the Flathead watershed.
MS. WEITZ answered that folks and tribes in Montana and Idaho
and folks in British Columbia, raised so much stink about the
potential of the pollution to the Flathead. It was right around
the time of the Vancouver Olympics, so lawmakers in BC wanted to
make this go away by giving them what they wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that he wonders what
leverage the State of Alaska might have with British Columbia.
10:35:30 AM
TIS PETERMAN, Coordinator, Southeast Alaska Indigenous
Transboundary Commission (SEITC), pointed out that SEITC
represents 15 federally recognized tribes in the region on the
issue of transboundary mining. The mission of SEITC is to
protect the tribal lands and waterways for future generations.
The organization's message to the committee is to encourage
[Alaska's] current administration to continue to work with
British Columbia through the MOU that was started under the
previous administration. The State of Alaska also needs to
continue to support the leadership of Alaska's Congressional
Delegation on this issue and their push for international
protections and financial assurances in shared watersheds.
MS. PETERMAN stated that [on 12/5/18] SEITC presented the Human
Rights Petition to the Inter-American [Commission on Human
Rights] which states that the transboundary mines are
threatening the tribes' way of life. The Red Chris Mine on the
Stikine River has a tailings dam that was engineered in the same
way as the Mount Polley Dam that breached in 2014. Through the
efforts of SEITC and American Rivers, the Stikine was recently
designated as one of the top ten most endangered rivers in the
U.S. She related that SEITC met with First Nations in British
Columbia this past year and created a Unity Statement that the
tribes will support each other on transboundary mining issues.
A second meeting is scheduled for this fall that will include
tribes from Washington, Montana, and Idaho and that will
continue to build on this relationship to protect the tribes'
way of life from the threat of transboundary mining. Much work
has been done with British Columbia First Nations and this work
continues today.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she is unfamiliar with the Inter-
American [Commission on Human Rights] and requested Ms. Peterman
to elaborate regarding this commission and SEITC's work with
this commission.
MS. PETERMAN replied that the Inter-American [Commission on
Human Rights] hears international petitions, which are non-
binding, but which provide a spotlight on SEITC's issue of
transboundary mining. The statements in the petition are
investigated by the commission and it usually takes anywhere
from two to seven years for the commission's decision.
10:39:00 AM
CHRIS SERGEANT, Research Scientist, Flathead Lake Bio Station,
University of Montana, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"Assessing mining impacts on our shared Alaska-British Columbia
rivers." He said his research currently focuses on assessing
how mining in the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk rivers affects the
health of their freshwater ecosystems and includes three major
near-term goals. The first goal is to inventory and synthesize
existing data from these rivers. The second goal is to identify
knowledge gaps and prioritize future research to fill those
gaps. The third goal is to help create a larger collaborative
network of scientists interested in this issue and working on
research related to it.
MR. SERGEANT turned to the map on slide 2 depicting the three
transboundary rivers. He noted the map also includes the Nass
River which is not transboundary but fully included in British
Columbia. He explained that the KSM Mine would impact both the
Unuk and the Nass watersheds if the mine is built as proposed.
The three transboundary watersheds make up over 72,000 square
kilometers of drainage area. A [2016] McDowell Group report
demonstrated that activities taking place in these watersheds
raise about $48 million annually and almost half of those can be
attributed to fisheries-related activities. Nearly 90 percent
of households in Southeast Alaska use salmon to some extent.
MR. SERGEANT moved to slide 3 and stated that together these
three critically important watersheds produce about 80 percent
of Southeast Alaska's wild chinook salmon. From 2007-2018 the
runs have averaged about 55,000 chinook salmon per year.
Displaying slide 4, he noted that these biologically rich
watersheds are also rich in mineral resources. He pointed out
that the orange dots and yellow crosses on the map represent
mining projects in various stages of past production,
exploration, development, or current operation. He added that
these symbols represent only projects where he was able to
extract basic information on mine location, operations, and
primary mineral resources. There are additional places, but the
information cannot easily be found.
10:42:17 AM
MR SERGEANT explained that the map on slide 5 includes an
overlay of all the active mining claims and leases in British
Columbia, which are represented by the black and white shading.
Overall across the three focal watersheds, 19 percent of the
drainage area is covered in mining tenures of some kind. The
Unuk River has about 59 percent coverage. When it comes to
ensuring the sustained health of Alaska's shared rivers with
British Columbia and their valuable ecosystem services, such as
clean water and abundant salmon, the map shows how mining
impacts must be carefully considered in close collaboration with
Canada and continue to stress the need for consistency in
scientific methods used on both sides of the border.
MR. SERGEANT displayed slide 6 and stated he believes there are
several immediately apparent messages to pass on where science
can be improved to better aid decision makers. First is better
monitoring, such as increased frequency of measurement. Many
projects only measure important chemicals such as mercury or
selenium on a monthly or quarterly timestep. But, in general,
this is nowhere nearly frequent enough to detect increasing or
decreasing trends in these chemicals over time. It is important
to create a solid baseline of information before a project
begins by doing more years of monitoring and more frequent
measurements to properly assess the potential impacts of
proposed mining projects.
10:44:02 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Mr. Sergeant is currently seeing
any adverse effects from these mines on these rivers.
MR. SERGEANT replied that in a lot of cases it is difficult to
even assess. For example, there are annual monitoring reports
on the Red Chris Mine on the Stikine River, and while they are
extensive, they are confusingly structured and do not follow
normal scientific conventions for writing reports. In some
cases, data is missing and not yet available. There is evidence
that there could be adverse effects, but it is hard to assess at
this time until [scientists] get more information. For the
Tulsequah Chief Mine on the Taku River, there are demonstrated
effects over time of acid mine drainage in the river affecting
water quality and fish populations.
CHAIR STUTES asked how long the Red Chris Mine has been
operational.
MR. SERGEANT responded that the Red Chris Mine has operated in
the headwaters of the Stikine River since 2014.
CHAIR STUTES inquired about the Tulsequah Chief Mine.
MR. SERGEANT answered that the Tulsequah Chief Mine ended
operations in 1957. A series of owners have purchased the mine
and attempted to restart it but have gone subsequently bankrupt.
Currently, British Columbia has contracted a remediation plan
for the mine that is now being actively worked on and hopefully
it will lead to full reclamation of the site. Responding
further, he said the Tulsequah Chief Mine has not been
operational for over six decades.
10:45:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, regarding circumstances where the damage is
done, asked whether Mr. Sergeant's work is evaluating other
infrastructure or modifications that could be done for
remediation.
MR. SERGEANT confirmed he is in the early stages. He said there
are places like Tulsequah Chief that are extremely important to
clean up. However, he continued, most of the mines depicted in
orange on the map are proposed projects. There is an urgent
need to get the baseline data that is not yet had to assess
their impacts and to see what can be done on the Alaska side to
collect better scientific data consistently and be able to
answer questions about what the impacts would be if the mines
are built as proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there are "midway"
opportunities that could be done, such as structural
modifications, to improve the overall outlook for potential
damage.
MR. SERGEANT replied yes. He qualified that he is not an
engineering expert, but that there are people who have proposed
different types of tailings dam constructions that would lower
the risk for major impacts in the future. These include
improvements such as dry tailings and different types of earthen
dam construction that are more structurally sound than what is
seen today.
10:47:52 AM
CHAIR STUTES recalled seeing a presentation several years ago by
professors from the University of Montana. The presentation
pertained to a mine in Canada causing detrimental effects on a
river going into Glacier National Park from a chemical that no
one knew existed and a wastewater treatment plant built by the
mining company has had no effect on that specific chemical.
MR. SERGEANT offered his belief that the presentation may have
been provided by Rick Hauer or a colleague of his at the
University of Montana and was about the coal mining happening on
the Elk River. Selenium was the element of interest because it
was unknown that it was going to be such a negative pollutant on
the system.
CHAIR STUTES remarked that she found it very alarming because
there was no idea at the time as to what even to look for.
10:49:26 AM
MR. SERGEANT returned to his review of slide 6 and said [the
second way] science could better aid decision makers is by
improving data quality and transparency. For example, many of
the mining reports or environmental assessments he has reviewed
are overly long and structured in a confusing manner that
doesn't follow usual scientific conventions, which makes it
difficult for experts to review and confidently assess the
presented data. Often data collection methods are not described
in enough detail to assess whether they were collected in a
defensible manner. In general, there is a need for a greater
use of independent third-party environmental science experts to
conduct research and monitoring activities for these projects.
MR. SERGEANT said the third way that science can be improved to
better aid decision makers is cumulative impact analysis. He
noted that the Iskut River is the largest tributary to the
Stikine River and multiple projects are taking place on this
tributary. But, he continued, during the environmental
assessment project, typically only the single project impacts
are looked at. The question needs to be asked - What do five or
six projects happening in an adjacent area do to a river or
drainage area and how can those be assessed cumulatively? This
is what is done in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process in the U.S.
10:50:52 AM
MR. SERGEANT concluded his presentation by visualizing what low-
grade ore mining looks like for a mine such as the KSM. Showing
slide 7, he said environmental reports related to the KSM Mine
state that the average yield per metric ton, or 2,200 pounds, of
mined rock is 0.5 grams, or 0.02 ounces, of gold. Using a
standard sea salt grinder purchased from a store, he
demonstrated that 0.02 ounces of salt would be about two twists
of the saltshaker and said that since salt is much lighter than
gold it would be even less gold. Turning to slide 8, he drew
attention to his wedding ring and reported that it would take
about 23,520 pounds of rock to produce the 6 grams of gold in
his ring and another 23,520 pounds for the 6 grams in his wife's
matching ring. These tradeoffs need to be considered when
talking about low-grade ore mining, which is associated with
large open pits. He urged the committee to continue its support
for the pursuit of rigorous, objective, and consistently applied
science on both sides of the border to help protect the precious
ecosystems that people depend on.
10:53:14 AM
DAVID LANDIS, Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, testified that
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough by resolution has repeatedly urged
the State of Alaska and federal government to work with the
Canadian government to ensure that Alaskan resources are not
harmed by upstream mining development in British Columbia. The
borough also requested that the concerns of salmon advocacy
groups on these issues be heard and considered. These are
significant issues for the coastal communities of Southeast
Alaska given the region's local economies are deeply rooted in
the seafood industry. Commercial fishing, processing, and
marine support services directly comprise a large portion of the
region's economies and virtually every business benefits from
these commercial fishing dollars. Tourism is another large part
of Southeast Alaska's economy that is connected to the region's
pristine waters. As well there is the recreational, personal
use, and subsistence way of life that the region's residents
have enjoyed for many generations.
MAYOR LANDIS related that the Ketchikan Gateway Borough believes
the State of Alaska must seek enforceable protections through a
binding framework between the U.S. and Canada. Alaska needs to
do everything it can to protect Alaskans from the risks of
potential contamination from the Canadian mines upstream. Since
2014 Canada has allowed two mines in transboundary river
watersheds to begin operation - the Red Chris Mine in the
Stikine watershed and the Bruce Jack Mine in the Unuk River
watershed. In addition, the Canadian federal government is in
the planning and permitting stages of several other projects in
these watersheds, including the Taku. Alaskans deserve to be
confident that there are enforceable measures in place to
prevent the contamination of shared Alaska-British Columbia
transboundary watersheds. Alaskans also need to know that
emergency response plans and financial assurances to compensate
fishermen and communities are in place if the waters do suffer
damage. These enforceable protections and financial assurances
can only be secured through a binding international framework.
MAYOR LANDIS added that in his professional career he has
conducted several risk assessments for companies and programs as
part of their best business practices and therefore tends to
view many issues through that lens. He requested committee
members to imagine an X-Y axis graph with one axis being the
likelihood of occurrence and the other axis being the severity
of the impact. If something has a very low likelihood of
occurrence and a low impact, then those activities could be
viewed as having acceptable risk. At the other end of the
spectrum are issues which have a high likelihood of happening
and severe impact, and those are the highest risk areas that
should be addressed with the highest priorities. The other
quadrants, then, of this graph are risks that need to be
addressed with various degrees of management and monitoring
efforts. The transboundary mine development, he submitted, is
squarely in the categories with very severe impact and a
moderate likelihood for that occurrence. While he would like to
say that there is a low likelihood for having problems, the
evidence does not bear that out. Given a risk profile such as
this, it would be appropriate to secure enforceable protections
and financial assurances through a binding international
framework.
10:57:48 AM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), related that UFA is a statewide commercial fishing trade
organization representing 36 commercial fishing groups and
hundreds of fishermen and crew members throughout Alaska. Since
2012 UFA has been involved in transboundary issues in Southeast
Alaska. Thirteen of UFA's member group organizations represent
fishermen who fish for salmon, shrimp, crab, and other species
in the waters of Southeast Alaska. Southeast fishermen employ
hand troll, power troll, driftnet, purse seine, longline, pots,
and dive gear to harvest their catch. United Fishermen of
Alaska is increasingly concerned with the potential impacts to
fish habitat in water resources from at least 12 large-scale
open pit and underground metal mines in British Columbia that
are abandoned, permitted, or operating in the headwaters of
transboundary rivers that flow downstream into Southeast Alaska.
The transboundary Taku, Stikine, and Unuk rivers are world class
salmon producing rivers contributing $48 million to Alaska's
economy and producing 80 percent of Southeast Alaska's king
salmon. These rivers are integral to the overall $1 billion
annual salmon fishing industry and the $1 billion annual visitor
industry in Southeast Alaska.
MS. LEACH stated UFA strongly urges that [Alaska's] government
officials work with the government of British Columbia to ensure
that substantial and appropriate financial assurances, impact
assessments, and long-term monitoring plans are established and
funded prior to the issuance of permits for mining projects.
Financial assurances must include provisions to compensate fully
the State of Alaska and its fishing industry in the face of
catastrophic or accumulative impacts. The State of Alaska has
previously requested that British Columbia require companies
operating mines within the transboundary watershed to post a
full reclamation bond prior to permitting as the State of Alaska
currently requires. United Fishermen of Alaska continues to
support this request to ensure that the state's resources are
not harmed by Canadian large-scale mining developments in the
headwaters of transboundary salmon rivers. United Fishermen of
Alaska asks that this work continue, and this important message
carried forward in future engagements with British Columbia.
11:00:36 AM
NIKKI SKUCE, Director, Northern Confluence, stated that Northern
Confluence is an initiative whose mission is to conserve the
salmon watersheds that sustain communities, economies, and
shared futures. To do that, Northern Confluence is working on
things like modernizing the Federal Fisheries Act and trying to
create better mining policies for this region because many mines
are operating, proposed, or under exploration in Northwest
British Columbia. Mining has a long history in BC and continues
to play an important role in many BC communities. However,
mining can also cause catastrophic and long-lasting impacts to
fish, water, wildlife, and human health. The industry can also
impose massive economic liabilities on taxpayers if mining laws
are not strong enough.
MS. SKUCE said mines in British Columbia need careful regulation
to ensure that mining companies adopt sound environmental
practices and pay for their position costs. Nongovernmental
organizations, academics, and community organizations have
identified that British Columbia's regulatory system for mining
needs comprehensive reform. This is supported by a growing
volume of evidence for systemic failures in the current system,
starting with the 2014 Mount Polley Mine disaster, which
deposited about 10,000 Olympic sized swimming pools' worth of
mine waste into one of the most productive salmon systems in the
Fraser watershed. It has resulted in zero fines or charges
against the company and no compensation to impacted communities.
MS. SKUCE related that a 2016 report by the auditor general
found British Columbia's enforcement and compliance regime for
mining to be woefully inadequate. It is also known that there
is taxpayer liability of more than $1 billion in mine cleanup
costs across British Columbia. A hiker recently discovered that
the government has not inspected a closed Jordan River mine for
over 20 years, allowing the unprotected ongoing destruction of
the once-productive salmon river. Public awareness is growing
about potential impacts that mining can have on fisheries in
British Columbia's watersheds, as well as ongoing permitting of
wastewater into lakes and river systems.
MS. SKUCE said many mining conflicts arise because [British
Columbia's] mineral tender system allows for claims to go on
private property or to go through without First Nations Free
Prior Informed Consent and often ignores land use plans. The
Tulsequah Chief Mine's legacy is decades of ongoing acid mine
leakage into the Taku River system. There is selenium leaching
in the Elk Valley, as well as others. Growing evidence shows
the serious systemic shortcomings of British Columbia's mining
regulatory regime that undermines public confidence in
government's ability to protect the public interest and to
assure that companies pay the cost of their pollution.
11:04:10 AM
MS. SKUCE announced the impending launch of the BC Mining Law
Reform [Network] comprised of academics, NGOs, and community-
based groups, which will include releasing a platform of several
mining law reform briefs. The network has identified three main
priorities that it will push for change. The first priority is
to encourage the British Columbia government to enforce and
reform its laws to make sure that mining companies and their
shareholders pay for cleaning up all the environmental damage
they cause. Mining reclamation policy is a commitment that was
made post-Mount Polley and there is some progress that is likely
to come in the next couple months and pressure is being applied
now to hopefully ensure that it raises the bar. The second
priority is to look at an industry fund for victims of mine
pollution disasters and insufficiently cleaned up sites. It is
thought that this could also be a potential opportunity that
would include states and regions beyond British Columbia. The
third priority is to look at ensuring that mineral exploration
laws shift to respect modern values so that no-go zones are
respected, and Free Prior Informed Consent of indigenous people
is required. The third priority is about getting more
protection for BC's waters and communities from mining waste.
MS. SKUCE noted that there are different ways of mining and the
Mount Polley recommendations push for encouraging backfill,
dewatering, and/or dry stack tailings. However, the needle has
not been moved much in this regard. While some minerals and
resources mined in BC are going to be needed to transition to a
better energy future, the task is to do it right, and Alaskans
should be concerned with the state of BC's mining laws and
enforcement in the shared salmon watersheds. She expressed her
hope that everyone can help create the conditions for positive
change to move toward more responsible mining in BC.
11:06:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether Smithers' remoteness affects
Ms. Skuce's ability to have political influence with her work.
MS. SKUCE replied that the sparse populations of Southeast
Alaska and British Columbia are part of their beauty and value
that allow these ecosystems to live. However, she allowed, it
does make organizing a lot harder. She said Smithers is along
the Highway 16 corridor and has lots of ongoing mining, which
gives her a unique perspective to ground things in reality and
to hear from people working in the industry. Smithers is
represented by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural
Resource Operations and Rural Development, which is helpful in
terms of political influence. But, creating greater influence
or pushing for change requires allying with others and that was
part of the motivation in forming the mining law coalition
comprised of people from throughout the province.
11:09:00 AM
ROBYN ALLAN, Independent Economist, specified she has a 40-year
career in senior executive positions in the public and private
sectors and her expertise is in risk management, insurance,
public policy, and energy economics. She was the president and
CEO of the largest auto insurer in Canada and she authored the
2016 report, "Toward Financial Responsibility in British
Columbia's Mining Industry." She cautioned that the State of
Alaska cannot rely upon the Province of British Columbia to
protect downstream interests threatened by upstream mining
activity. The environmental assessment, monitoring, compliance,
and financial assurances regime in British Columbia is
effectively dysfunctional. The environment and the public on
both sides of the Canadian and U.S. border face serious long-
term risk, loss, and cost because of BC's substandard system.
MS. ALLAN said her focus today is on full funding of liabilities
as a key feature of an environmentally and commercially
responsible regime. For a financial assurances regime to work
there are three steps. The first step is to ensure mine
reclamation estimates, the estimate that is made to calculate
the cost of returning the environment to the state it was before
the mining permit was granted. Mine reclamation estimates must
be accurate and reliable - this is not the case in British
Columbia. The second step is to ensure that reclamation
liabilities are fully funded - this is not the case in British
Columbia. Finally, the risk of unintended events, such as a
tailings pond breach, must be evaluated upfront and the mine
operator required to prove access to financial resources to
respond and compensate for unintended damage - this is not the
case in British Columbia. British Columbia's financial
assurances regime fails on all three accounts.
11:11:26 AM
MS. ALLAN stated that mine reclamation liabilities in BC are
underestimated and most mining companies are not required to
provide full funding for the reclamation obligations that are
estimated. For example, Teck Resources is BC's single largest
mining owner with more than a dozen mines. This is where the
selenium issue identified by Chair Stutes comes in and it is
very relevant. Teck Resources has selenium discharge challenges
and because the company doesn't understand how to deal with it
the company doesn't estimate it in the liability requirement.
"You can't price what you don't see and that's the first major
problem we're dealing with in BC," she said. She pointed out
that Teck Resources owns the Red Dog Mine in Alaska. Red Dog is
expected to require water treatment in perpetuity. Water
treatment costs are incorporated in its reclamation estimate.
Teck has fully funded the $563 million obligation at Red Dog by
posting a bond with the State of Alaska. Teck's reclamation
liability for its more than a dozen BC mines totals $1.7
billion, but BC requires only $789 million in funding. Teck's
underestimated and unfunded obligation is almost $1 billion and
that is what can be seen. This funding gap puts taxpayers at
risk and incentivizes business decisions that fall short of best
practices.
MS. ALLAN advised that the Province of British Columbia would
only need to adopt the Alaskan model that requires full funding
of reclamation to bring its system more in line with a
comprehensive and robust approach. British Columbia already has
the regulatory authority to do so since funding requirements are
at the discretion of the Chief Inspector of Mines. Why is BC
dragging its heels? If there were one step that the State of
Alaska could take to protect its environment and therefore its
economy, it would be to work to ensure that BC introduces a
financial assurances program on par with Alaska's; that BC
require full funding of accurately estimated reclamation
liabilities throughout the lifecycle of every existing and
future mine.
CHAIR STUTES thanked Ms. Allan for her very enlightening
testimony.
11:13:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether financial assurance means the
comprehensive financial responsibility for all the upfront items
for any risk, the full reclamation, and ongoing monitoring.
MS. ALLAN replied, "Yes, absolutely." For example, in Alaska
the analysis in perpetuity is done with a discounted cash flow
formula and therefore the money is expected to be there to meet
the obligations - forever. British Columbia doesn't have that
system. It is full funding of obligations that are permitted,
so it is the intended harm that occurs when mining activities
take place - that is estimated and must be fully funded upfront.
Through the lifecycle of the mine there can be reclamation
undertaken and therefore maybe obligations fall, but the money
is always in reserve so that taxpayers and the environment
aren't left on the hook. When it comes to unintended results
like the Mount Polley event, the first thing to be understood is
that if there is full funding of reclamation obligations,
businesses make better decisions to avoid those kinds of events
from happening in the first place. If best practices are
followed, the likelihood of accidents or unintended harm is much
lower. Secondly, by having a best practices program in place an
estimate is made as to the likelihood of unintended events even
if all the best decisions possible have been made. Upfront
needs to be assurance or other mechanisms in place to make sure
that financial resources are there if those accidents happen.
That was not the case with Mount Polley. So, it is through the
lifecycle and for both intended and unintended harm.
11:16:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that a criticism of Alaska's system is
that the state's bond amounts are too low, so not enough is in
place to fully cover the cost of reclamation and full recovery.
She asked whether Ms. Allan thinks Alaska could be successful in
getting the financial assurances for the full amount.
MS. ALLAN responded that that speaks to the need for rigorous
liability estimated frameworks. She said there is no question
that the estimation of the liabilities could be enhanced. For
example, in BC the full funding is not had, which is a double-
stage problem. When estimation processes are more rigorous and
the bonding requirements go up because all parties agree in the
polluter pay principle, if the financial resources couldn't be
put in place then the mining activity shouldn't take place
because the long term cost/benefit suggests it is going to cost
the economy, the environment, and the communities more than it's
worth. She said she absolutely endorses more rigorous
estimation processes, but the very first step and significant
benefit would be if there was a level playing field with the
bonding first at the least, even if that is in the process of
also looking at estimation.
11:18:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referenced a previous slide that showed one
of the areas was 59 percent covered with mining leases. She
further recalled a previous committee hearing about [aquaculture
farms] and that [an aquaculture farm] cannot take up more than
one-third of the area of a bay to ensure access to other users
of the bay. She inquired whether there is something like this
for mining in a region, such that there would be limitations on
the scale.
CHAIR STUTES stated it might be a difficult thing to get through
and she doesn't know if anything like that exists.
MS. ALLAN pointed out that Representative Vance's question is
speaking to the cumulative impact analysis, which is not
rigorous enough to recognize that eventually if the model is
taken to the extreme there is nothing left in terms of the land
base. She said the cumulative impacts that were spoken to
earlier today would help to address the problem identified by
Representative Vance.
MS. WEITZ added that cumulative impacts are not a requirement
for the environmental assessment process in BC. So, when an
exploration permit or development permit is applied for, British
Columbia looks at it on a project-by-project basis rather than a
watershed scale. That is absolutely one of the things that
Salmon Beyond Borders finds inadequate within that process and
one in which SBB is working with partners to get improved.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired whether Alaska's process includes
the practices of cumulative effects.
MS. WEITZ answered yes.
11:21:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the map provided by Mr. Sergeant
that depicted the past producers, exploratory mines, and
developing mines using orange circles and yellow crosses. She
asked whether something occurred politically that so many mines
are happening right now.
MS. WEITZ replied that completion of the Northwest Transmission
Line in 2014 brought power to this region. There are about
2,000 people in Northwest British Columbia, whereas there are
75,000 people in Southeast Alaska. Thus, power is generating to
a very mineral rich region where there aren't many people to
organize and have a voice, and there is the productivity shown
on that map.
11:23:22 AM
JASON DION, Lead Researcher, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission,
provided a presentation titled "Financial assurance for mining
in British Columbia." Addressing slide 3, he explained that
Canada's Ecofiscal Commission is a policy thinktank in Canada
comprised of experienced, policy-minded economists from across
Canada. The commission focuses on environmental issues of all
types, but particularly those where there is the scope for
taxes, or pricing, or markets to deliver solutions that make
sense for both the environment and the economy. The commission
provides advice to governments of all stripes and is a fully
independent not-for-profit organization.
MR. DION turned to slide 4 and said the commission released a
report last year titled "Responsible Risk" for which he was the
lead researcher. The report focused on risks to the environment
from economic activity and how they can be managed and
addressed. Mining was looked at as a case study and approaches
to it in five Canadian jurisdictions. In particular, the tool
of financial assurance was looked at as a way of putting a price
on risk as a way of managing it. He is currently engaged on a
new report, "Mining Risk and Responsibility: How Putting a Price
on Risk Can Help BC Manage Disasters," which focuses on British
Columbia's policy.
MR. DION moved to slide 5 and stated there are two types of
environmental risk that are different problems that call for
different solutions: 1) the risk of non-remediation of a mine,
and 2) the risk of disasters. Showing slide 6, he elaborated
that when it comes to remediation the likelihood is very high,
or 100 percent, of some degree of environmental damage. It is
known that harm will occur, and the risk is who will pay for it,
how large it will be, and whether it gets cleaned up. But it is
different with a disaster where the disaster is not expected to
occur but is probabilistic. The two types of risk also differ
in the severity of costs. Remediation can be a broad spectrum
of costs from small to very large, while disasters tend to be
much more severe when they do occur. However, these two types
of risk are treated quite differently in financial assurance
policy in British Columbia: remediation is covered, although
there are shortcomings, and disasters are completely uncovered.
While that is quite common when it comes to different
jurisdictions' approach to mining sector polity, it is very
uncommon when it comes to sectors that pose a risk of
environmental disaster. Sectors like offshore oil and gas,
pipelines, nuclear power, and tanker traffic typically must
provide some degree of financial assurance. So, it is quite
unusual that that doesn't occur in the mining sector.
11:26:30 AM
MR. DION displayed slide 7 and stated that policy focused on
environmental risk is made complicated because there are three
separate and competing goals at play. Finance assurance policy
is no different, he added. The first goal is deterrence.
Policy makers want to create incentives for companies to reduce
the risk they might pose to the environment. The second goal is
compensation. Should harm occur, policy makers want to make
sure that the public doesn't get stuck with the bill. The third
goal is economic activity. Policy makers want to encourage
production investment in order to benefit from the jobs and
income it creates. The tension is that these three goals can
sometimes be at odds with each other.
MR. DION showed slide 8 and defined financial assurance as any
requirements where firms must promise or commit funds against
their environmental liabilities, whether those are expected or
potential environmental liabilities. The importance of this is
that it gives companies a financial incentive to reduce risk to
the environment. The commission's report breaks financial
assurance into five main types: 1) Hard firm-level assurance
where companies provide cash or bonds that are held in trust
against a risk; 2) Soft firm-level assurance where companies
pledge assets or guarantees, which aren't as certain or stable
in value and can become unavailable in certain conditions; 3)
Pooling instruments, or third party assurance, where insurers,
banks, or other lenders or capital providers are brought in to
provide insurance, letters of credit, or surety bonds; 4)
Sector-level assurance where the sector comes together as a
whole to pool their risks through mutual insurance or using
industry funds; and 5) Public assurance where public insurance
or public funds are used. He noted that public assurance has
the potential to pool risk not only within a sector but across
several sectors.
11:28:31 AM
MR. DION turned to slide 9 and addressed the effects of the five
types of financial assurance on the three policy goals. He
advised that none of the financial assurances provide strong
outcomes across all three policy goals and therefore, when
pursuing financial assurance policy, it is always a matter of
striking a balance across these competing priorities.
MR. DION moved to slide 10 and discussed British Columbia's
current approach to mining sector financial assurance policy.
He said the Chief Inspector of Mines in BC has broad authority
to require financial assurance from mining firms; BC has a
"polluter-pay" policy in place; and in BC mining companies are
required to provide financial assurance against the risk of non-
remediation, but not against disasters. On paper, he continued,
those three points taken together suggest there is a scope for
British Columbia to have some stringent and meaningful financial
assurance. However, the problem as highlighted by the Auditor
General of British Columbia [in 2016] is that in practice the
stringency tends to be limited, largely due to the province's
practice of phasing in financial assurance requirements over a
mine's life. Earlier in a mine's life it might be providing
those softer forms of assurance, such as good credit and good
standing of a company, which isn't necessarily as reliable as
holding a bond or other types of security.
MR. DION displayed slide 11 and said two conclusions can be
drawn about British Columbia's current approach to mining sector
financial assurance policy. First, when it comes to mine
remediation in BC, there is no guarantee that the polluter will
pay, despite the polluter-pay policy that is in place. Second,
if a Mount Polley-like disaster were to occur again in BC and
the responsible company was bankrupted, a large share of those
costs would likely fall to the public. The problem with these
two findings is that when a company knows it might not bear all
the costs of a risk it poses in terms of the harm it might
cause, the company has less of an economic incentive to reduce
that risk, which is a very important shortcoming.
11:30:36 AM
MR. DION moved to slide 13 and stated that the commission's
recommendation regarding financial assurance policy for mine
remediation is that British Columbia should require hard
assurance - full bonding - from firms. He said the province of
Quebec is a strong example of the way that this can be done.
Following some mining sector reforms in 2013 that were quite
broad in scope, changes were also made to Quebec's financial
assurance policy where firms must put up bonds within two years
of commencing operations that are the full value of potential
remediation costs. No distinction is made for financial risk,
so big and small companies alike must provide that full bonding.
Important about Quebec's example is that despite an initial dip
Quebec has continued since then to rank strongly on economic
activity indicators for mining. This shows that there is a
clear precedent in Quebec for having more stringent financial
assurance policy that doesn't necessarily have to be at odds
with British Columbia's economic activity goals in this sector.
MR. DION turned to slide 14 and reviewed the commission's
recommendation regarding financial assurance policy for mine
disasters, which is that British Columbia should implement a
"tiered" scheme. This is where different types of financial
assurance are brought in in tranches to cover against that risk.
The firm itself might provide a measure of assurance against it.
Beyond this, third party coverage would kick in, say, insurance
coverage, that would eventually cap out at a certain level. And
then beyond this, it could escalate to, say, industry funds or a
public fund. Important about these higher tranches is that they
can offer a way of covering "fat-tailed" - high severe cost
potential events - that might be uninsurable in private schemes.
Public instruments can provide an opportunity for pooling risk
across sectors, the U.S. Superfund being an example. Valuable
about this approach is that it can be built piece by piece, so
all the tiers don't necessarily have to be in place in order to
get something like this off the ground. From the commission's
perspective the introduction of any tier would be an improvement
from what is in place now. This kind of policy would address an
important policy gap in British Columbia and such a policy would
acknowledge that the risk of disaster can be uncertain and hard
to insure.
11:33:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there is potential
for federal action in terms of instituting these reforms or
whether it is a province-by-province process.
MR. DION replied that in Canada natural resources are the domain
of a province, so it is up to British Columbia to choose what to
do on this front. At the same time, when it comes to the
instrument of pooling risk for disasters, there is a potential
for provinces in Canada to come together to provide that broad
pool that could lower the cost of coverage for members. The
other advantage of provincial members coming together in that
way, which would have to be voluntary under Canada's
constitution, is that it can provide a way of covering these
risks and lowering costs, but at the same time it creates an
incentive for those provinces to harmonize their regulatory
regimes and their broader financial assurance regimes and avoid
that risk of a race to the bottom in requirements and
regulations that can be a factor in trying to draw in mining
investment internationally. While there are upsides to coming
together, it would have to be voluntary and therefore he thinks
it exists with the provinces in terms of taking initiative.
CHAIR STUTES thanked Mr. Dion for his enlightening presentation.
MS. WEITZ pointed out that each person who gave testimony today
is available by phone to provide further information to
committee members.
11:36:22 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed the meeting by stating it is her sincerest
hope that the Dunleavy Administration will engage with Alaskans,
the legislature, and Alaska's Congressional Delegation in the
same way or better than the previous administration. She said
this will be part of the ask of this committee. This effort has
nothing to do with mining companies in Alaska, it is not about
resource development versus conservation. Alaska is simply
asking its neighbor across the border to adhere to best and safe
practices when mining in shared watersheds, which is clearly
something [that British Columbia] has a poor track record with.
This is about Alaskan families and Alaskan sport, commercial,
and subsistence users. Chair Stutes further pointed the
committee, the public, and the administration to the April 9,
2019, letter written to Governor Dunleavy from 22 legislators
urging the administration to join in this effort in engaging
with the federal government and the Province of British Columbia
to help defend Alaska's transboundary watersheds. She said she
is now on record officially asking as the chair of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries that the administration engage
wholeheartedly in this effort, continue the discussion and good
work that was started by the previous administration on behalf
of all Alaskans, and to produce some firm commitments to work on
this issue. She noted her intention to follow up this request
with a letter on behalf of the committee that her committee aide
will provide to committee members.
11:38:17 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:38
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| #2 Alaska Delegation Letter to Secretary Pompeo on Transboundary Mining.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |
|
| #1 Chris Sergeant Presentation for House Fisheries 04.30.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |
|
| #3 Letter from Legislators to Gov. Dunealvy 04.09.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |
|
| #4 Robyn Allan - 2017 Report.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |
|
| #5 Ecofiscal Commission - Financial assurance - House Fisheries Committee Transboundary Hearing.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |
|
| SBB 2019 Overview PDF.pdf |
HFSH 4/30/2019 10:00:00 AM |