Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/26/1999 03:05 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 26, 1999
3:05 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Jerry Mackie
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Randy Phillips
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to cooperation with federal programs relating to
management of fish and game."
-MOVED CSSB 68(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Supporting the responsible development of the Tulsequah Chief Mine
through the cooperative effort of Alaska and British Columbia and
urging Governor Knowles to withdraw his request for a referral of
the Tulsequah Chief Mine to the International Joint Commission
under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 68 - See Resources minutes dated 3/17/99.
SCR 7 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Brett Huber, Aide
Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 68.
Lieutenant Howard Starbard
Division of Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
453 S. Valley Way
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 68(RES).
Mr. Myles Conway, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Ave. Ste 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT:
Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 68.
Senator Pearce
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 7.
Mr. Norm Ringstad
Project Assessment Director
British Columbia
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SCR 7.
Mr. Bob Carmichael, Vice President
Redfern Resources, Ltd.
British Columbia
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SCR 7.
Mr. Steve Borell, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
3305 Arctic
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SCR 7.
Mr. Wayne Weihing
Tongass Conservancy
P.O. Box 1193
Ward Cove, AK 99928
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Mike Sallee
P.O. Box 7603
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Errol Champion
Taku River Recreation Association (TRRA)
P.O. Box 295
Douglas, AK 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SCR 7.
Mr. Eldon Dennis
P.O. Box 20070
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Dick Myron
3320 Fritz Cove Rd.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Ms. Joan Jack
First Nations Tlingit
Nakina C.A.L.L.
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Neil MacKinnon
1114 Glacier Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SCR 7.
Mr. Rich Davis
Seafood Producers Co-op
2347 Kevin Ct.
Juneau, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Jim Becker, President
Juneau Chapter
Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association
P.O. Box 240522
Douglas, AK 99284
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Ms. Anisa Berry Frick
P.O. Box 8118
Port Alexander, AK 99836
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Micheal Dunlap
Douglas Indian Association
P.O. Box 240888
Douglas, AK 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Kerry Howard
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, AK 99811-0030
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Jev Shelton, Fisherman
1670 Evergreen
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Bryan Jack, Tlingit
Atlin, B.C., Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. William Campbell, Tlingit
Atlin, B.C., Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Don Weir
Taku Wilderness Association
P.O. Box 321
Atlin, B.C., Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Mr. Joel Bennett
15255 Pt. Louisa Rd.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Ms. Laurie Ferguson Craig, Issues Coordinator
Alaskans For Juneau
P.O. Box 22428
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
Ms. Joyce Levine
P.O. Box 21705
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SCR 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-17, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 68-COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:05 p.m. and announced SB 68 to be up for consideration.
MR. BRETT HUBER, Aide to Senator Halford, explained the new CS,
LSO35/H, and amendment, H.1, to SB 68. The intent of SB 68 is, if
the federal government takes action to preempt our state's
authority to manage fish and game resources, they need to pay the
bill. Anything else is a unfunded federal mandate. The proposed
committee substitute addresses the committee's previous concerns.
The first change on page 1, Section (a) adds a finding section that
further clarifies the intent of the bill. It recognizes the
constitutional mandate for sustained yield management and the
State's commitment to providing for subsistence uses. It recognizes
Alaskans' relationship to and dependence upon fish and game
resources and that, managed for abundance, our fish and game
resources have the capacity to satisfy multiple uses provided the
State is able to maintain its sustained yield management.
Findings in Subsection (b) recognize the State is the only entity
with the mandate of sustained yield. With the additional
inefficiency of a federal multi-agency authority jurisdiction and
regulation and their preemptive fish and game management, they
recognize the State is bearing the additional burden of providing
for a comprehensive sustained yield management scheme that
compensates for the diverse objectives of the federal agencies.
They recognize the State's ability to manage for sustained yield
and to the benefit of all users is more complicated and more costly
due to federal preemption. They recognize the benefits to the
federal agencies, through the use of State management, expertise,
data, and research. And finally, the findings recognize the
overall benefit to the management of the resources if the federal
government pays their share of costs incurred to cooperate with
their preemptive efforts. These findings, to a great degree, were
based on the previous testimony of the Department, former
Commissioner Rosier, and comments by committee members.
The next change on page 4, line 22, subsection (e) was added to
address the concern raised by the Department of Public Safety and
specifically allows DPS to provide emergency backup without prior
determinations and agreements of compensation.
The next change is on page 4, line 26 and deals with concerns
raised about the interaction of the bill with several existing
state/federal management relationships like Migratory Waterfowl and
Pacific Black Cod. Subsection (f) specifically exempts the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Act from
the federal programs the bill affects.
There was an oversight in preparing the committee substitute and
the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act and the North Pacific Halibut Act
were unintentionally omitted. Amendment H.1 adds them to the list.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute, 3/23/99
Utermohle, to SB 68. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
LIEUTENANT HOWARD STARBARD, Department of Public Safety, said the
committee substitute with the amendment address the Department's
concern with the inclusion of Subsection(e).
Number 110
MR. MYLES CONWAY, Assistant Attorney General, said, although he
hadn't seen the CS, it sounded like it would take care of their
concerns. One point, though, is that it's difficult to determine
the scope of the term "cooperate". There is question about if the
cooperation is confined to joint studies, enforcement programs or
whether it would implicate informal contact, etc.
A remaining concern the Department has is the concern over the
perception the statute might have in ongoing and future litigation
with federal government over their scope of management authority.
Legal challenges to federal management authority will always be
decided in the Ninth Circuit and our State has a very unfortunate
and inaccurate reputation with this court on subsistence issues.
There is concern they will look at this statute and be convinced
that we are not concerned with the health of the resource; that we
are only concerned about money issues. With this backdrop, they
may decide some difficult issues against us.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the latest draft includes an
extensive section on findings which is specifically aimed at
avoiding the perception problems he is concerned with. The scope
of "cooperation" is within the discretion of the commissioner of
ADF&G, the operating agency. He thought that answered the majority
of the perceived and potential problems.
MR. CONWAY responded that as he heard the findings, they would be
of some help in court, but there is the worry they will take things
out of context.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he shared those concerns and that is why there
are additional findings provisions clearly setting forth the
State's policies. Our biggest problem is that we can't get to the
Ninth Circuit unless you have someone with enough guts to stand up
and fight for this State and file a case.
Number 200
SENATOR LINCOLN said she didn't see how "discretion" was left to
the commissioner. It says, "the commissioner shall" which doesn't
leave him much discretionary authority.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that on pages two and three it says
"cooperate or not cooperate" and is followed by "unless the
commissioner finds in writing that they have an agreement to
reimburse for additional costs". It basically says the State has
to receive its fair share for its cooperation.
SENATOR LINCOLN reiterated that she didn't see where the discretion
is left up to the commissioner.
MR. GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said he had a brief opportunity to look at
the CS, but they still have major problems with the bill. The
direction of the bill leads the Department into a situation where
they will be further fragmenting our fish and game management. We
need to be able to work with federal managers where they have
authorities and we don't. He appreciated the committee's efforts
to make sure there are adequate resources provided by the federal
government to deal with some of the costs imposed on the State by
federal law.
SENATOR LINCOLN said her questions pertain to the findings in the
CS. Page 2 says "the fish and game resources of Alaska have
adequate biological and reproductive capacity to provide an
abundance of fish and game for subsistence uses as well as other
recreational, personal use, commercial...in perpetuity, provided
that the state is able to maintain its sustained yield management
of the fish and game resources." She did not think that was a fair
statement to make.
Also, on page 1, line 9 it says, "The State has made a commitment
to provide a preference for subsistence uses of fish and game."
She certainly didn't agree with that either.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if we didn't have a general state law that
provides that subsistence is the highest and best use of wild food
resources.
SENATOR LINCOLN responded they are discussing whether the
preference complies with federal law. She wanted to hear Mr.
Bruce's response.
MR. BRUCE said that it is difficult to talk about Alaska's fish and
game resources as a total because there's so much variety. Some
species, like salmon, are extremely abundant across the state as a
whole. That doesn't mean that there aren't places where runs are
low and need rebuilding. The environment and conditions vary and
use patterns vary. Some wildlife populations are smaller like the
ones close to the road systems. He thought those factors would
have to be considered in evaluating a finding like that.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to respond to page 2, line 20 where
"federal agencies reap a significant cost savings through the use
of State management, expertise, data, and research..." She asked if
that was a true statement and if we also reap any benefits from the
federal government on their data and research, etc.
MR. BRUCE responded that estimates in an early document
accompanying the proposed regulations for federal subsistence
fishing said from around $11 million to around $30 million. There
are examples of information being provided by both governments. In
the history of fish and wildlife management in the State of Alaska,
there has been a lot of cooperation between the State and the
federal government. Programs have been developed to compliment one
another in many instances.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 68(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected to say that
there is no other committee of referral. They had just heard ADF&G
say they had not had an opportunity to look at it to analyze the
impact and determine a fiscal note. Since this is the Resources
Committee, she thought it right to hear from the Department on
those issues.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that there were several large fiscal notes
attached to the bill now and he assumed that legally it would have
to go through finance.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked for those in favor to raise their hands.
SENATORS TAYLOR, PARNELL, GREEN, and HALFORD voted yes. SENATOR
LINCOLN voted no; and the bill moved from committee.
SCR 7-TULSEQUAH CHIEF MINE
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SCR 7 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR PEARCE, sponsor, said SCR 7 resolves that the legislature
recommends continuing the cooperative effort between the two
governments toward the environmentally responsible development of
the Tulsequah Chief Mine. It further resolves that we respectfully
urge Governor Knowles withdraw the request for referral of the mine
project to the International Joint Commission over the Boundary
Waters Treaty.
After one of our state ferries was held hostage in B.C., she and
Senator Taylor met with public and elected officials from Prince
Rupert and discussed the fact that the government in B.C. and local
governments needed to have a better one-on-one working relationship
with the State of Alaska. In the future, when we have concerns
between the State and the Province, we would pick up phones and
talk to one another before our concerns became international
incidents. In an effort to continue our good relationship, she
brought this resolution to the committee. Her goal is to promote
the environmentally responsible development of the Tulsequah Chief
Mine. We have to respect the government of British Columbia and
the elected officials there and the processes they have in place.
The mining question is under B.C. permitting jurisdiction. Though
the permit law was rewritten in 1995 by the Provincial Assembly,
the environmental assessment process that is used for mining
permits has been in place for over 20 years. It's not new and the
underlying regulatory scheme is also not new.
Under this process, mining projects with potential trans boundary
impacts have been permitted. They include the Snip and the Johnny
Mountain Mines on the tributaries of the Stikine River and the S.K.
Creek Mine on the Nunuk near Ketchikan. All of these trans
boundary mine projects went through the same environmental
assessment process. None of those were escalated to the
International Joint Commission. Established in 1908, it had a very
narrow scope of interest. The Commission is not elected and didn't
answer to a tribunal of any sort and are now expanding their powers
to entire watersheds. The Mine has gone through extensive permit
review and will require more in-depth review prior to issuance of
any detailed permits. They have been working on permitting the
Mine since 1994 and are now in the final 11 month process.
SENATOR PEARCE contended that an International Joint Commission
referral wouldn't solve anything. It simply makes recommendations
to the respective federal governments. The experts who would be
involved in making these recommendations are the same experts that
are already involved at the provincial and state level. An IJC
referral can only serve to delay the project and that's why she
thought the administration made the referral.
The delay causes financial difficulties for Redfern as there could
be further delays of two years.
She has been told that other points about the Taku watershed will
be brought to the Commission. One of those is the road and this is
a subterfuge, because unless the road exists to the Mine, financing
will not be in place and the opening will be unsuccessful.
There is an organized effort by environmental groups with a budget
of more than $600,000 to stop the project. The Sierra Legal
Defense Fund is the financial backer for the Tlingit First Nation
lawsuit from the Canadian side.
SENATOR PEARCE explained the reason she brought this resolution to
the Legislature is that she wanted to stop the flow of
misinformation and get the facts on the table. She is concerned
whether or not the State of Alaska should set a precedent they will
rue in years to come as we want to permit things under our
processes like exploration and development in ANWR. We should not
be telling the Canadians what kind of process they should use for
their permitting projects as long as they listen to our concerns.
She would be offended if they would tell us what kind of permitting
processes we should use. We use phasing in projects (SB 308),
because you can't always think of every possibility in the original
exploration assessments.
SENATOR PEARCE welcomed Mr. Norm Ringstad and Mr. Keith Ogilvie
from British Columbia to join the committee asking Mr. Ringstad to
explain the process the province has gone through to date on the
environmental assessment of this particular project.
MR. NORM RINGSTAD, B.C. Project Assessment Director, said he was
the Project Committee Chairman for the Tulsequah Mine review. He
is the mining sector lead in the province's environmental
assessment process. He has been involved in mine reviews for close
to 25 years.
The Tulsequah project review began in 1994 under their provincial
review process. It was also subject to a Canadian environmental
review, because of potential for trans boundary affects and the
possible need for federal permits. He entertained a joint review
so one review would satisfy the needs of both governments. As
such, the committee was composed of representatives of the federal
government and the B.C., Yukon, local First Nations, and Alaska
State/US federal agencies. Over the course of three and a half
years, they went through an iterative process with Redfern
Resources, state builder groups, and others to work towards finding
a project design that would be environmentally acceptable and
proceeded down to a permitting process. In March 1998, they
concluded their overall review met both the spirit and intent of
B.C.'s review process, as well as the Canadian federal review.
They paid particular attention to potential for adverse trans
boundary effects. They ensured that those potential effects as
well as any strategic flaws were known and known to be resolved at
the permitting level.
At the end of the review in March 1998, they did not have a full
consensus of the project committee. Issues were remaining from the
First Nations and the Alaska State/U.S. federal agency
perspectives. B.C. and Canada felt they resolved those issues
satisfactorily knowing that their permitting process would detail
out the appropriate mitigation plans to insure there would be no
significant adverse effects in a trans boundary context. In order
to further their relationship building with U.S. federal agencies,
from March, 1998 - December, 1998 BC and Canada continued to
maintain a bi-lateral communication and information exchange with
the American agencies. They had a meeting in April in Washington,
a two day meeting in Vancouver, and a one day meeting in Seattle.
In December, the extraordinary attempts they made through this
bilateral communication exchange was geared to bring a comfort
level to the U.S. agencies that their permitting process at the
end, prior to a permit being issued, could meet the standards of
environmental protection equivalent to those that would be
established in Alaska, particularly for water quality emanating
from the mine that would be subject to a waste management permit
under the B.C. Environmental Waste Management Act. He thought
those additional months were very fruitful addressing water
quality, fisheries, tailings pond design, location, performance,
etc. and gave them a more focused list of issues that would guide
the permitting agencies, once the proponent, Redfern, makes
applications for its statutory permits.
In order for the continuing relationship to be fostered of American
input into their process, in March 1998, the B.C. government
formally requested of the Alaska State and U.S. federal agencies
who participated in their review to continue to be involved in the
permit review process by becoming members of their regionally based
referral committee which is based in Smithers, NW B.C. That
committee would undertake to ensure that remaining issues would be
considered in the permit applications and that all other agencies
with a vested interest have an opportunity to be involved. The
people who will make the decisions on the statutory permits are not
politically appointed. They are bureaucrats who have legislative
responsibilities pursuant to their particular statute. They feel
this is a reasonable and adequate approach to show, in the final
analysis, that this mine can be developed in an environmentally
responsible manner, taking into consideration everyone's concerns,
and having environmental standards that meets everyone's needs.
MR. RINGSTAD said their lawyers have been able to schedule some
time for the court to hear the case in June. In the meantime, they
are keeping an open door policy to deal with Alaska/U.S. federal
agencies issues and also any remaining First Nation issues in the
spirit of trying to have a resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the potential environmental hazard of
the tailings material.
MR. RINGSTAD said information from technical experts indicate that
the milling process is a gravity flotation process producing three
ore concentrates as well as some gravity separated gold which will
come out in dory bars. The waste products from that milling
process will be of a relatively high sulfide tailings. There is
another flotation
TAPE 17, SIDE B
Number 590
cell within the system that will float the pyrite (sulfide
material) out of the tailings. That material would then be put
with cement and used as paste backfill in the underground stopes
which is a requirement for underground mining stability, anyway.
It will then be submerged in water, which is an acceptable way to
manage the potential of acid rock drainage of any high sulfide
material. For the remaining tailings, there will be an addition of
calcium carbonate from a nearby limestone quarry that would be
added to the milling surfeit to increase the carbonate content of
the remaining clean tailings to ensure that any minor sulfide left
in the tailings will not be acid generating. As such, the tailings
will be inert; there are no other chemicals or metals that would be
deleterious. Bench scale tests of effluent through the proposed
milling process passes the LC50 test with 100 percent survival.
There will be complete recycling of the mill water from the
tailings ponds. There will be no direct discharge from the
tailings ponds into the environments from the mill operations. At
the end of the mine life, the tailings pond can be covered with a
topping of vegetative material and be left in a dry state. In the
meantime, any seepage from the operation from the tailings pond
will be monitored. As a mitigation strategy, there is an option
for pumping it back into the tailings pond.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what LC 50 survival rate meant.
MR. RINGSTAD answered that it is a standard biological testing of
the toxicity of an aquatic medium on aquatic life. The standard
organisms used are either daphnia, a food source for rainbow trout,
or rainbow trout fingerlings. It tests the survival of fish in
that material over a 96 hour period. In this particular case,
there was 100 percent survival.
If there is an effluent discharge from the water treatment plant,
it will have to be managed under a waste management permit and the
Ministry of Environment staff has been working Alaska DEC staff on
effluent mixing zones and other matters related to insuring that
any discharges would meet very high standards.
Number 550
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the same aquatic medium would go into the
mixing zone or would it get treated subsequently before it gets
mixed.
MR. RINGSTAD answered that a water treatment facility mitigation
strategy would be put in place.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that even after it has met this standard, it
would still go through a subsequent treatment before going into a
mixing zone.
MR. RINGSTAD said that was his understanding; the details would be
left to the permit application review under the Waste Management
Permit under the purview of the Provincial Ministry of Environment.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked him to explain the level of design criteria
regarding the tailings impoundment. What level of flooding would
need to occur in order for the tailings pond to be "swished into
the river."
MR. RINGSTAD answered that technical experts have said that during
the EA process, particularly through the last 11 months of
bilaterals, they spent a lot of time looking at flood, debris, and
earthquake hazards that would have an effect on the stability of
the tailings dam. Nothing came out of that review that suggested
an extreme hazardous event that would take out or damage the
tailings pond dam integrity.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if that was a 10,000 year flood.
MR. RINGSTAD answered yes. He added that the actual detailed
design of the dam would be confirmed during the permitting process,
so further information on foundation stability and dam design would
be coming in. The dam will be built to the Canadian dam safety
standard code and if there are extraordinary events that occurred
in this area that aren't covered by the dam safety averages, that
could be taken into consideration.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it's his understanding that there is a time
deadline to get a permit process. He asked how many time
extensions were granted for this particular project.
MR. RINGSTAD answered there were four extensions given by the
Minister of Environment.
Number 515
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked the Canadian group for coming to her office
to discuss this issue. However, Alaskans must have concerns for
our resources and any effect from projects outside of our
boundaries. She asked if the State of Alaska and EPA have an
opportunity to review the research and the data on water quality
and the mixing zone prior to the permitting, construction, and
operation.
MR. RINGSTAD said yes, definitely; the British Columbia government
has put in writing their commitment to engage in, through further
consultation with Alaska/US federal agencies, more than an adequate
amount of consultation and input before any permit is issued either
under the Mines Act or under the Waste Management Act. This will
be by way of Alaska State/US federal agencies being able to
participate on the Regional Permitting Committee. He knows that
the Waste Management staff in Smithers has already been in touch
with the DEC staff in Juneau who has come a long way in reviewing
existing data and information and outlining additional data and
information that is required.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Alaska would have an opportunity to
discuss that information and address any concerns we may have prior
to any of those things taking place.
MR. RINGSTAD said yes.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked once the permit is in place, what is our role
with his government.
MR. RINGSTAD answered there is a monitoring program to see how
effectively the permit is being complied with. This information
can be exchanged with Alaska; the dialogue can continue as the
project proceeds through development. He believes they have
undertaken a process in which both jurisdictions can continue to
communicate and discuss concerns and have an arena for concerns to
be resolved. The process established from this point on through
the permitting process will do that.
Number 456
MR. CARMICHAEL, Vice President, Redfern Resources, Ltd., showed
slides to the committee explaining the tailings impoundment. He
said the pond was located about 14 miles upstream from the Taku
River. It's not located on the flood plain of the Taku River nor
the Tulsequah River. It's on Shazah Creek. He said there is
concern if there was a large flood coming down, the water would
flow around the impoundment. It's not the case of a dam going
across the whole valley.
The committee discussed the slides for a number of minutes at this
point.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what percentage of the mine tailings went back
into the mine, itself.
MR. RINGSTAD answered about 50 percent is returned as a paste
backfill system.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for information on correct background levels
on the Tulsequah regarding chemicals, etc.
MR. CARMICHAEL answered that he didn't have the figures for that,
but the metal concentrations in the Taku River are higher upstream
from where the Tulsequah comes in to dilute it. Shazah Creek water
is pretty standard, he said.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that he was trying to figure out if the
waters being discharged would be cleaner or dirtier than the water
that's receiving it.
MR. CARMICHAEL answered that it would be cleaner than the water in
the Tulsequah and probably about the same as water in the Shazah
Creek. The Tulsequah River is quite turbid since it is a glacial
stream.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that it was carrying 300 parts per million
of silt - you can't see bottom in a foot.
MR. CARMICHAEL said the mine would get further review before
construction whatever happens, but said the question is should it
be done with existing channels or through the International Joint
Commission. He thought the IJC would be a very extraordinary step.
A number of mines have already been permitted with the existing
process and there is nothing unique about the Tulsequah Chief mine
that would call for an IJC review.
SENATOR TAYLOR added that the Snit property sits much closer to the
Iskut River which is a larger tributary than the Tulsequah and is
much closer to the main body of the Stikine River than the mine
would be. He asked if the Iskut was a bigger volume stream.
MR. CARMICHAEL said that it was larger than the Tulsequah River.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how many other mines have been developed
using Canada's new permitting process.
MR. RINGSTAD said, in 1995, the federal Canadian government
introduced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but it wasn't
absolutely new. It was a legislative form of a previous policy-
driven federal review process called the Environmental Assessment
Review Process Guidelines. Tulsequah is about the fourth mine to
be subject to the review process.
SENATOR TAYLOR said in the last hearing on this subject ADF&G
indicated there were two other areas within the area of the mine of
significant environmental concern to them where previous
developments had taken place and been left in poor condition.
Commissioner Rue indicated that part of the condition for the
Tulsequah would be to clean up and enhance both of those other
areas.
MR. RINGSTAD explained that there are three areas from past mining
activities that have contributed to metal release into the
Tulsequah or the Taku River. There is acid rock drainage coming
out of the old workings and the Tulsequah Chief project causing
elevated metal levels. The historic Big Bull mine, which is
underground, is on the Taku River side. It has a very small, but
high level of metal, stream of water into the Taku River. On the
other side of the Tulsequah River is the old Polaris Gold Mine; and
White Water Creek, in particular, is a creek on that side which the
tailings from the previous operation were just dumped near or into.
The creek comes through those tailings now. Canarc, the owner of
the property, has done some work to show water quality effects
there. As part of the approval for the Tulsequah Chief to proceed,
their acid rock drainage they have now will be remediated through
the development of the project and removing of the water now
pouring into the river to a water treatment plant. Environment
Canada and the BC Ministry of Environment are working with Redfern
regarding the timing of that remediation as well as some longer
term plans dealing with the Big Bull.
Number 250
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Tulsequah Chief should go forward while
the problems for the other mines continue or will some of the
remediation depend upon it going forward. He thought everyone
would want to enhance the quality of that river as opposed to
turning our back on it and leaving it to degrade.
MR. RINGSTAD replied that the remediation of the Tulsequah drainage
would be accomplished by redevelopment of the project. Any other
remediation that would be undertaken in the absence of the project
would probably sterilize the mine resources, because of the nature
of the remediation strategy. B.C. understands there is to be a
well defined construction schedule beginning in 1998 - 99 and the
Project Committee had agreed to remediation starting in the fall of
last year. That was predicated on the assumption that the
proponent would be moving ahead with the beginning of its
development program.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that all the delays are just allowing the
higher acidic levels to run into the river and asked how much
longer he contemplated before moving forward and doing the
remediation on the Taku River.
MR. RINGSTAD said it depends on when the proponent makes a move
towards proceeding with this project.
MR. CARMICHAEL responded that it would be next year at the
earliest.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how big the acidic flow is now and how big
would it be when the mine is in operation.
MR. CARMICHAEL replied that it is a fairly small volume now and
there is no measurable impact at the confluence of the Tulsequah
and the Taku. The current situation isn't having a big impact on
water quality levels. As the mine goes into production, the new
levels will be zero. So it's taking something that isn't a large
problem currently and reducing it to zero.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the Governor proceeds with the IJC
referral, what would that do to the project.
MR. CARMICHAEL said there is still a big question of him being able
to convince both governments that it should go before the IJC. If
it did, it would mean a delay of at least two years which would
probably be disastrous for the company and the project.
MR. STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
said the mining industries have been following this mine for years.
Redfern Resources obtained an option on the property in 1997 and
their exploration determined that there are reserves that would
make it feasible to reopen the mine. This is polymetalic ore
containing several metals including zinc, copper, silver, gold, and
lead. The new environmental law in Canada has been heralded
throughout Canada as being very comprehensive and stringent and
based on the best science available. The new permitting process is
general approval in principal followed by detailed design, whereas
the permitting process in Alaska defines more of the details prior
to any approval. There are advantages and disadvantages to both
approaches, but they should both have the same result.
The issue is whether the IJC should be the vehicle for mediating
the differences between the two approaches and assuring the Taku
fisheries will be adequately protected. They do not feel involving
the IJC would be helpful in answering the technical questions
regarding the Tulsequah Chief project. The IJC is not primarily a
technical body, but rather an appointed body and, because of this,
two IJC members on both sides may be carrying agendas other than
technical evaluation of the project.
Second, using the IJC process will likely take two or three years
to complete.
The AMA thinks the project should be judged and evaluated on the
basis of its technical merits. They continue to recommend that all
parties stand back and take a new look at the technical aspects of
the project. Both sides should bring new faces to the table like
people with experience in permitting mines to ensure that the
projects receive the broad based technical evaluation that is
needed. People from all three departments, DNR, DEC, and ADF&G
should be involved in the process. This group should be tasked
with review of the project to insure that it is technically sound
and will not adversely affect Alaska's resources.
MR. WAYNE WEIHING, Tongass Conservancy, said he didn't know why our
state legislature would support a Canadian mining company that puts
our water quality and fisheries habitat at risk. Recent declines
of the Pacific Northwest fisheries resulting in the listing under
the Endangered Species Act has been mostly caused by loss of
habitat.
MR. MIKE SALLEE, Ketchikan, said his concern is with the 80 miles
of road that is going to be built and what effect it will have on
the fisheries and wildlife. He is not enthusiastic about the
Canadians' environmental record after traveling up and down the
Inside Passage in the 60's and saw what they did with Vancouver
Island and other places with their logging.
MR. ERROL CHAMPION, Taku River Recreation Association (TRRA), said
he is a cabin owner on the Taku River. He said there are 130 lots
on the Taku River Valley and there are approximately 70 developed
cabins. Since the ice age, the Taku River was the main access to
the interior long before power boats. It's had traditional use and
a lot of commerce on it over the years.
MR. CHAMPION said TRRA neither supports or opposes the reopening of
the Tulsequah Chief mine. It's a Canadian project and it's the
obligation of the B.C. government to review and regulate this mine.
Their main concern is through repeated communication efforts we
have failed to have a dialogue with members of Redfern or the B.C.
government.
TAPE 99-18, SIDE A
Number 001
Although it is the duty of the Canadian government to review the
mine, he called the committee's attention to what happened in
Skagway when there were not a lot of controls in place to deal with
the soil contamination on the impacts that the Anvil Mine had. He
said it would be in best interest of all Alaskans that SCR 7 be
modified to be sure there is a requirement that Redfern and the
B.C. government communicate. After contacting ADF&G, EPA and the
Office of the Governor, he found they are just as uninformed as
ATTA is. They want to be sure their interests in the lower part of
the River are protected.
MR. ELDON DENNIS, Juneau fisherman, said his family has benefited
greatly from the resources of the Taku River. They wholeheartedly
support the efforts of DEC, ADF&G, and the Governor in trying to
protect their fishery interest there. He related his first contact
with Redfern a few years ago when he was invited to a meeting here.
At that time Redfern was proposing to use barges to go up and down
Taku River complete with an operating schedule. They were asked if
they saw a problem with barges interfering with nets in the water
in the River and they didn't even realize the fishery was going on.
He didn't think Redfern did their homework very well.
The next perspective he has is in taking the word of the Canadian
government. We have been in long negotiations with Canada over
trans boundary rivers and have seen a very deliberate, misleading
campaign by the the government over interception issues and he
didn't see any reason to believe what they say now about mining
issues. He concluded by asking the committee to not pass SCR 7.
MR. DICK MYRON, 50 year resident, said he is a retired fishery
biologist and the fish are very sensitive to things in the water.
You can go above a stream where salmon are spawning and just put
your hand in the water. As soon as that water reaches the fish,
you'll see them pick up the odor. He said we are talking about
large quantities of cyanide and sulfide here.
He said IJC didn't exist when the road from Skagway to White Horse
was built. The consequences for Skagway were that they could not
be a world class destination with National Park status, because
they have wrecked the canyon and put a highway in on one side and
a railroad on the other. The long term effects were that it put
the railroad out of business and Skagway became a very poverty
stricken town. He encouraged having an international body looking
at this issue. He also commented that a 200 year flood means it
could happen any time from now on.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that the speaker said a 10,000 year flood
would not breach the proposed dam. However, that could occur
tomorrow.
MR. JEV SHELTON, Juneau commercial fisherman, said the greatest
portion of his fishing comes from stocks in the Taku River. He has
no other employment. He is also Alaska's alternate in the Pacific
Salmon Commission and a significant part of the treaty with Canada
involves the Taku River as a trans boundary river. He is not
representing the Commission here, though.
MR. SHELTON asked the committee to reconsider the wisdom of passing
this resolution. The Taku River contains a very significant and
economically viable fishery on which a large number of Southeast
Alaskans depend for their livelihoods. They are the legislature's
constituents and are the ones who have gone to the Governor
requesting some help in dealing with the proposal for the
development of the Tulsequah Chief mine. Significant risks are
posed to their economic activities and livelihoods. They, as
resource users, are not opposed to mining. They want enough of a
review to understand what the risks are and to develop a proposal
that would bring those down to acceptable levels. They do not see
that occurring in the way the Canadian review system is set up. As
a consequence, they are supporting the IJC referral.
MR. SHELTON said they hoped to "have the Legislature and the
Governor both on the same page" to get a reasonable analysis done
prior to the time there is a permit so far down the line that there
is no turning back on the consequences regarding the mine, the
tailings, and the road. Even though the Tulsequah is a minor
tributary to the Taku, it sits immediately on top of the single
most significant rearing habitat in the entire drainage. The Taku
River is the biggest coho producer, probably, in the whole State of
Alaska. There is a realistic perception of a threat to the
resource. The request is that there is enough care taken to be
sure the Legislature's constituents aren't put under duress.
Secondly, the request to the IJC has already had some fairly
significant effect, stimulating an increased degree of conversation
back and forth with the State. The way the Canadian review system
exists, it's not like you can have a whole understanding in advance
of what the effects are. In the legislative hearings he has heard
a set of assertions on how benign this project will be without
having access to data supporting that.
His group has been active in mining issues, notably the Kensington
Mine, and came to agreement to what looked like a tolerable way for
that mine to go forward without impacting fishing interests.
Similar sorts of things could happen here, but not in the manner in
which the Redfern project is being proposed. There is no base line
information that will allow a determination. It needs to be
developed.
The argument that there needs to be some speed in order to
facilitate the company's interests is probably a moot issue because
it's already in Canadian courts through the Taku Tlingit. He heard
an EPA official say that a mine located in a flood plain like this
one would probably not be permitted in this country. This disturbs
him.
If the Legislature does not want the IJC to go forward, he
suggested they at least act with the administration on being sure
that Alaskans' interests are the primary consideration, not the
economic well being of the Canadian mining company.
Number 283
MR. BRYAN JACK, Atlin Tlingit, said they have a migratory trail on
the proposed route down to the Redfern Mine. They walk this trail
every year. He has found the runoff starts at Koosai down to the
Taku River. In the seven to 10 years he has traveled this trail,
he has done his own assessment and there are potential slide areas.
The location is dead center in the middle of a migratory area for
bear and moose - all the animals going into the Taku River Valley.
There is a nine year life span for the mine and that's put up
against a life time economic structure of the Tlingit and Taku
River people. He didn't think it was worth it.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him where he lived.
MR. JACK answered that he has lived for 45 years in Atlin and that
is why he has such a hard time when government officials come
within his territory and tell him that they have assessed it. His
assessment is much different.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the Canadian government is continuing to
work with the First Nations.
MR. JACK explained they are litigating because the assessment
hasn't been done to his satisfaction.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the First Nation's land is included in the
parcel that's being discussed.
MR. JACK replied that it is on the treaty table. The proposed road
goes right through the middle of traditional territory.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if that issue had been resolved yet.
MR. JACK replied no.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the First Nations were part of the
assessment committee.
MR. JACK replied, "On and Off." They have had talks, but First
Nations issues were not recognized.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he was speaking on behalf of the First
Nations and did he represent a group.
MR. JACK replied that he is speaking as a member of the Taku River
Tlingit. He does not speak for the First Nations this time. He
did not think they had taken a position, but they are in the
litigation process.
Number 396
MR. WILLIAM CAMPBELL, B.C. Tlingit, said the land the mine is on
used to belong to the Taku River Tlingit. The government sold the
land out from under them in Atlin and moved them out to Five Mile
without even asking them. He said the natives own the land,
repeating that the Taku Tlingit own the mine, not the government.
Putting in a road will destroy the land and drive the game away.
The Tlingit elders are the government.
Number 529
MS. JOAN JACK, thanked them for listening to Mr. Campbell and
explained when he said they own the mine, he meant the minerals in
the land, not the corporation. She is glad the purpose of the
resolution is to stop the flow of misinformation, because there is
a lot of it. The provincial government representative today said
the environmental issues had been identified and addressed to a
satisfactory level, but she wanted them to ask themselves to whose
satisfaction. That kind of rhetoric is irresponsible. The First
Nation has taken the perspective that there is insufficient base
line data to proceed. They haven't decided whether they want the
mine or not.
She lives at Canoe Landing and walks five days to get there. She
urged them to walk through the country to see how a road would
affect it. The trail through the pass Mr. Jack talked about is not
only the pass the Tlingit chose for their permanent migratory
trail, but it's the only pass for the animals to go through as
well. She said there are swans that nest on the Shazah Slough and
may or may not be trumpeter, but those are on the Endangered
Species list.
Her personal opinion is that the watershed is a whole and the issue
is access to it on a scale that has never been seen before. In
reference to comments that this is not pristine territory, some
pieces have been wrecked, but if you walk between Knuthi Lake and
Canoe Landing, it's pretty pristine. Placer miners have staked
every creek all along the road now. The road is now supposed to be
single use with a manned gate; and everyone knows how ineffective
that will be against illegal access. The larger issue is what will
be done with the mines that will come in the future. The committee
is talking about "busting it wide open" and they had best be sure
what they are doing.
TAPE 99-18, SIDE B
Number 590
She agreed with the Governor that the IJC is a good idea, because
she doesn't really know what to do about it.
MS. JACK commented if tailings are inert, why is there such a big
problem about the tailings pond. She concluded saying that there
are lots of comments about the environmentalists and their
receiving money from down east. Last time she checked, Redfern was
a publicly held company and who knows where they are receiving
their money from. "So what?" She thought it was a good thing that
some people in New York were concerned about the Taku.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there was a position by the Taku Tlingit
people on this project.
MS. JACK replied that her government (Tlingit) hasn't taken a
position on this mine, because they have been overwhelmed by it.
Their position is that they are in court, because they are
challenging the project review certificate. Most of the suit
involves breaches of their own process (due process) and the
environmental concerns.
MR. NEIL MACKINNON, Juneau resident, said that for five
generations, his family has used the Taku River for hunting,
fishing, and access to and from the early gold fields of Forty
Mile, Circle City, and Atlin. His family has had a cabin on the
banks of the Taku for over 40 years and he is not concerned about
the mine or the road. He is concerned about the new attention from
the environmental industry. This is no pristine area as the
environmentalists are trying to portray. Their goal is to stop the
mine in such a way that insures a developmental moratorium on the
watershed. They do not want a better project; they want to kill
it. The Taku's uniqueness, contrary to the enviro-elitist view,
deserves to be preserved, but it is unique because the Taku is the
last river on the border between Alaska and Canada not encumbered
by a park, wilderness, wild and scenic river, or other restricted
designation. He applauded the Legislature for taking the
initiative to keep the Taku free.
MR. RICH DAVIS, Seafood Producers Co-op., said he and his wife are
totally dependent upon commercial fisheries in Southeast Alaska.
Both the troll and gillnet fishery harvest salmon from the Taku
River system. Water quality and mining issues are not new to them.
The Tulsequah Chief mine project has not answered the questions nor
assuaged the concerns of Alaska's resource agencies who have our
interests and concerns in mind. The Canadians need to prove they
have a good mine upstream with adequate safeguards by proving it
with good science and thorough planning that satisfies the concerns
of our resource agencies.
Our neighboring government degraded its waterways and exploited its
salmon resources to the point that its commercial fisheries no
longer are sustainable. Rather than face the reality of their
irresponsibility in relationship to salmon over the years, they
blamed Alaska's commercial fishermen for their problems. Their
government is not his government. He doesn't trust them and they
don't elect this legislature. He opposes this resolution until the
mine's proponents convince Alaska's resource agencies that the
water quality and fish habitat concerns of the Taku River fish are
addressed.
Number 487
MR. JIM BECKER, President, Juneau Chapter, Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters, said they are an organization of men and women who
make their living fishing in Southeast Alaska. He encouraged the
committee to support the administration's efforts to have the issue
of the Tulsequah Chief Mine resolved by the IJC. To date, the
process has been totally inadequate in addressing the impact of the
mine on Alaskan Taku sports and subsistence issues. The extent of
their involvement was one public hearing at the Baranof Hotel in
1997. Redfern presented a complete overview of the proposed mine.
However, many questions from the audience raised serious doubts as
to the thoroughness of Redfern's application and raised concerns
about other potential developments using the road built by the
Tulsequah Chief mine. After the meeting, they accepted Redfern's
offer to get on their mailing list to continue to dialogue about
unresolved issues on impacts to the fishery and they haven't
received one thing from them.
His organization has a responsibility to work diligently to protect
our fishing industry and insure the long-term survivability of the
fishing industry. An internal Board resolution guides their
efforts in matters of economic development, water quality and
habitat issues. The last part of the Resolution says, "We strive
to make it clear we are not opposed to economic development.
Expansion or development of new industries can be good for everyone
as long as development doesn't come at the expense of an existing
industry." They were the first organization to publicly support
the Kensington Mine and even after Coeur Alaska had to make basic
changes to its tailings discharge, they continued to have a healthy
dialogue with them.
MR. DAVIS said from their perspective the process of permitting
this mine did not adequately consider the impact on a healthy,
viable Alaska fishery. It is the one industry downstream and they
weren't even brought into the discussion until the very end. They
base their concerns on information submitted by ADF&G, Division of
Habitat Restoration. They say, "Tulsequah Chief mine and related
activity has the potential to substantially affect the water
quality and fisheries of the Taku River watershed...The Department
has concerns about the tailings storage pond and water treatment
plant. The Department concludes in the event of a landslide,
avalanche or earthquakes, tailing impoundment seepage would
increase substantially." They also raised the question of how the
cyanide would be shipped. In regards to the access raod, the
Department raises questions about sedimentation, siltation, and
fish passages. They question secondary impacts from additional
development because of a newly establlished road access. If this
mine were in Alaska, all these issues would be completely hammered
out in the public process. The only avenue left to protect
Alaska's interests is the IJC.
Number 438
MS. ANNISSA BARRY FRICK, Port Alexander, asked how we know the
Tulsequah Chief mine is an environmentally sound venture. The
health of the Taku River could be compromised becasue this mine is
opened. Because it is the largest unroaded, unprotected watershed
on the west coast of North America, our ADF&G and other federal
agencies need to be included in the review of the mine using the
IJC. It is the only way we can mitigate future problems up stream.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked her if she was referring to the Taku River as
the largest unroaded watershed in North America and if she had
heard of the Stikine which is four times larger and is also
unroaded. Someone from the audience commented that was not so.
MR. MICHEAL DUNLAP, Douglas Indian Association, said he is on the
Tribal Council and the Environmental Committee which submitted a
request to have the IJC look into this issue. They are affected by
everything that flows downstream. They support SCR 7. He thought
an indepth review of this as being more beneficial than what people
perceive so far. He said you could look at this as resource
development or resource exploitation, because the road system would
have other effects in the long term. That is what they really want
the Commission to review. He said his family has been in the Taku
River valley since the time of the pyramids. They have used it and
been denied use of it - fishing and mining permits.
Number 330
MS. KERRY HOWARD, Office of the Governor, said Mr. Bosworth asked
if she would read his testimony into the record and asked if that's
what the committee wanted.
SENATOR TAYLOR said she could submit the testimony, but there are
some questions. He asked if any of their concerns had been asuaged
by today's comments.
MS. HOWARD responded that information presented today by both
Redfern and the B.C. representatives is known to the Governor's
Office and she commented that many times professionals disagree on
assessments of risk. The Governor's Office still has concerns
about the project.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how you could disagree on how many trout died.
MS. HOWARD responded that speaks to acute toxicity, but doesn't
address chronic toxicity.
SENATOR TAYLOR said their concerns had been about the tailings
pond; its acidity, its location, and that it could be washed out by
a flood. They now say it can withstand a 10,000 year flood and he
didn't know of any dam in this country with that standard.
MS. HOWARD said the Governor's Office is concerned about
catastrophic events and the tailing impoundment. This includes
things other than floods. It's a very active geologic area prone
to earthquakes and avalanches. She thought there was disagreement
regarding the tailings pond in this instance. The information on
the tailings pond now is not what the Governor had when he
requested the IJC. It hasn't been accepted yet. Just the request
has helped them get new information. She stressed that the
Governor has concerns, but has not said no to the mine. She
thought the concerns could be addressed, but it's important to have
information to develop that.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if she thought they would ever have their
detailed questions answered to her satisfaction, because they go
through the process permit by permit, not all at once like we do.
Getting the information is the first step; the next is to get it
fully evaluated; then see what is rendered in a permit decision.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the administration was satisfied with the
response that we will be able to fully review the permit process.
They have been forthcoming in inviting our particiaption in the
detailed permit reviews. They have no reason to suspect it won't
continue.
MR. DON WEIR, Taku Wilderness Association, said he had written
testimony for the committee. They have prepared a case study of
two mines, the Comess Mine and Huckleberry Mine in B.C., and how
they were handled. They came into production in the last five
years. It's a bit of a sad tale. He said basically there is a 9
year mine that is going to be carved into 5.845 million acre
watershed where there is absolutely no plan or strategy in place as
to what is best for both jurisdictions. Taku River Tlingit are
struggling to put together a management plan for the area which he
totally supprots. 1. This mine was subjected to an environmental
assessment which at the final stage some of the major stakeholders
refused to sign. 2. The issue is under litigation with the Tlingit
because of a flawed environmental process. 3. If the mine goes
ahead, other mines will follow. 4. There are already other
properties that are doing exploration work.
The long term effect of this is what the regulatory agencies and
B.C. do in terms of monitoring. He personally knows the people who
will be overlooking these types of things and they have told him
that they do not have the money because of budgetary cutbacks.
From his point of view, there is a violation of process. There are
environmental considerations that have to be addressed. One of the
advantages of an IJC would be a dispute resolving mechanism.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what the employment situation in in terms of
local hire.
MR. WEIR answered that they had been talking about job training at
community meetings, but they can't really say exactly how many jobs
they are talking about.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that in his district he has seen significant
employment in two mines on the Stikine.
MR. WEIR said this has been discussed at a number of meetings and
they have struggled to get a committment for 50 percent employment
from Atlin, but Redfern couldn't commit. They said they would do
their best.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. Weir was employed in Atlin.
MR. WEIR answered that he is a landscaper.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he was employed by the Wilderness
Association, too, and what percent does he work for them.
MR. WEIR answered yes and he used to put in about 20 hours per
week, but at his point he doesn't have much time for landscaping.
MR. JOEL BENNETT, 30-year Juneau resident, said the Taku River is
a very special place for sport, commercial, and subsistence users.
He said that he understands the Legislature is trying to foster
reasonable resource development which he appreciates. Most
legislators understand that the fisheries resource is extremely
important to Alaskans. He supports the administration's position,
because he thought everything should be done to make a rigorous
review of the situation. Everyone knows of the sensitivity of the
fisheries to improper roading and other development activities. He
pointed out that this administration had been a good friend to
mining in general.
TAPE 19, SIDE A
Number 001
He didn't think the IJC recommendation was unreasonable. He
supported a rewording of the resolution to include that request.
He has a lot of sympathy for local native people from the area
traveling to Juneau to testify about their concerns and he hoped
that would add an extra note of caution and concern to the
committee.
MS. LAURIE FERGUSON CRAIG, Issues Coordinator, Alaskans For Juneau,
said she had submitted written comments, also. She explained that
the IJC primarily resolves issues having to do with the Great Lakes
and are currently involved in hearings in four Canadian and four
U.S. cities. They will proceed from there to resolve things.
They're showing a real interest in dealing with our coast and our
issues here. She supported IJC review.
She commented further on the differences in processing permits
between the two countries. Alaskans For Juneau was involved in
litigation resolving that question, setting a precedent for the
state. A city was going through their phased proceedure while
Alaskans For Juneau thought it was important to know the ultimate
impacts of the project before the permit was granted. The State
Supreme Court ruled in September 1996 that was not the proper way
to proceed.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what mine that was on.
MS. CRAIG answered it was the AJ Mine that was proposed to be
reopened in Juneau.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that they successfully killed that one.
MS. CRAIG corrected that the ore body itself took care of that,
because the original miners were very good at getting the gold out,
according to Echo Bay.
MS. JOYCE LEVINE related how when she was down south recently, she
was in grocery stores with whole aisles for water. She said that
Alaska's water is still pretty much safe enough to drink from a
stream, if you don't worry about the beavers.
She has been involved in the fisheries for several years in Alaska
and she remembers the fishermen talking about how the Canadians
were doing questionable things with their fish resource and she was
impressed with how much Alaska cared about their fish. This is one
of the reasons why our fisheries are so great.
MS. LEVINE said the Taku is a five-salmon river and if one mine
goes in and starts making a profit, others will follow, but the
fishermen are already making a living on the river. She likes to
eat fish and is concerned the fish she catches from the Taku River
might be tainted. She has a lot of faith in the ADF&G biologists
and thinks we should trust them to make these decisions. If Canada
hasn't historically taken care of their fisheries, we shouldn't
give them the go-ahead to "...just dump it in our water. It's
o.k." We need to be aware of what they are doing. If it takes a
little bit of time to check out they are doing, the mine will
always be there.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked everyone for their testimony and adjourned
the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|