Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/07/2016 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): the Cohen Group Report on the Environmental Protection Agency's Pebble Mine Action | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 2016
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Ben Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Craig Johnson
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Bill Stoltze
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator John Coghill
Senator Bert Stedman
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Mike Hawker
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Senator Peter Micciche
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault
Senator Charlie Huggins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): THE COHEN GROUP REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S PEBBLE MINE ACTION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GENERAL JOSEPH RALSTON, Retired, Consultant
The Cohen Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Cohen Group
Report entitled, "Report of An Independent Review of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's Actions In Connection
With Its Evaluation of Potential Mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay
Watershed."
HOLLY BUTLER, Law Partner
DLA Piper LLP (US)
Baltimore, Maryland
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the overview
of the Cohen Group Report entitled, "Report of An Independent
Review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Actions in Connection with its Evaluation of Potential Mining in
Alaska's Bristol Bay Watershed."
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:11 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the joint meeting of the House
Resources Standing Committee and the Senate Resources Standing
Committee to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order
from the House Resources Standing Committee were Representatives
Nageak, Talerico, Herron, Josephson, and Seaton; Representatives
Tarr and Johnson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Present from the Senate Resources Standing Committee were
Senators Giessel, Stoltze, Wielechowski, Coghill, and Stedman;
Senator Costello arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW(S): The Cohen Group Report on the Environmental
Protection Agency's Pebble Mine Action
OVERVIEW(S): The Cohen Group Report on the Environmental
Protection Agency's Pebble Mine Action
3:31:27 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the only order of business would be
the Cohen Group Report on the Environmental Protection Agency's
Pebble Mine Action. Further, she said that today's hearing is
about a federal process that falls under the auspices of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During the past five
years, she opined, the state has been faced with significant
federal restrictions and challenges for accessing the abundant
resources that the land holds. She provided examples,
including: the Department of the Interior blocking the state's
efforts to construct a public safety road through the [Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge]; the Clean Air Act (CAA) challenges to
Alaska's coal production, which will be followed by the Clean
Power [Plan] regulations; and the Clean Water Act (CWA) placing
all Alaskan waters under federal EPA jurisdiction - currently
stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Today's hearing focuses on
one of the many federal regulatory processes under which Alaska
must function, she said.
3:33:36 PM
GENERAL JOSEPH RALSTON, Retired, Consultant, presented the
overview titled, "Report of An Independent Review Of The United
States Environmental Protection Agency's Actions In Connection
With Its Evaluation Of Potential Mining In Alaska's Bristol Bay
Watershed, Executive Summary," compiled by Secretary William S.
Cohen [Secretary of Defense 1997-2001], The Cohen Group, DLA
Piper LLP (US), dated October 6, 2015. He paraphrased from the
following prepared statement, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Secretary
Cohen's independent review of EPA's decision-making
process regarding potential mining in the Bristol Bay
watershed.
Let me start by saying that I have been an Alaska
resident since 1992 and spent several years at
Elmendorf when I commanded the Alaskan Command during
my career as an Air Force Officer. I fully understand
and appreciate the complexities and the views within
our State both pro and con regarding the Pebble Mine.
The Secretary's review is not about the Pebble
Mine, but rather the actions of EPA as a federal
agency. Secretary Cohen and I have spent most of our
professional lives in service of our country. For the
Secretary - as a Congressman, Senator and Secretary of
the largest Department in the Executive Branch - and
my own 38 years of service in the Air Force; we both
feel very strongly that federal agencies have an
obligation to act in a fair manner. This is the only
way they can maintain the trust of the American
public.
I will summarize the basis under which the review
was undertaken, the process used, and the findings.
Conditions of Acceptance
Secretary Cohen was first approached by Tom
Collier and the Pebble Limited Partnership in Fall
2014. Pebble expressed concern about the fairness of
EPA's decision-making process in connection with EPA's
evaluation of potential mining in Bristol Bay and
wanted an objective party to examine that concern.
After examining a wide range of documents,
including those obtained under [the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA)], the Secretary determined that
sufficient and legitimate questions existed as to the
fairness of EPA's process and agreed to undertake this
review, assisted by his team at The Cohen Group and
the law firm DLA Piper. One of the lead counselors on
this review, Holly Butler, is here today.
The Secretary conditioned his acceptance on
complete independence. The Pebble Limited Partnership
had no ability to edit or censor his views. The
conclusions he drew were his and his alone. The
Pebble Limited Partnership compensated our team
according to commercially standard terms, and no
portion of this compensation was contingent upon the
result or content of the report.
The Secretary did not make a determination on
whether a mine should be built - this is a question
for engineers, scientists, and the State of Alaska.
Nor did he comment on the legality of EPA's preemptive
use of Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act - this is
a question for the Courts and Congressional review.
Given his substantial Executive and Legislative
experience, Secretary Cohen felt qualified and agreed
to review the process by which EPA assessed, and
proposed restrictions to reduce, the environmental
risks associated with potential mining in the Bristol
Bay watershed from the perspective of a Cabinet
official.
Process of Review
The Cohen Group team had unfettered access to and
conducted a thorough examination of the extensive
written record of more than 42,000 documents produced
by federal agencies in response to FOIA requests,
including EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps
of Engineers, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. We also reviewed documents from the
State of Alaska, EPA's own published record of its
process, Congressional hearings, and the Pebble
Partnership.
We welcomed the opportunity to speak with anyone
who cared to share with us their perspective on this
important topic, and we made every effort to seek out
and speak with as many people representing as many
different points of view as we could.
Over sixty people representing all points of view
on EPA's actions - Pro, Against and Neutral -
voluntarily spoke with the Secretary and our team.
This included three former EPA Administrators and
several former EPA Assistant Administrators for water
from both Democratic and Republican Administrations,
as well as members of Alaska Native Tribes from the
Bristol Bay region, scientists (both opposed to and in
support of the mine), former Alaska government
officials, and representatives of the Pebble
Partnership. We also visited the region, including
the Pebble Deposit site.
EPA, through the Justice Department, declined
Secretary Cohen's request to making current personnel
available for interviews, citing ongoing Congressional
and (at the time) the Inspector General (IG) inquiries
and pending litigation. We recognized and can
appreciate this decision.
Findings
The Pebble Deposit is a mineral deposit located
in the Bristol Bay watershed. The deposit has been
described by the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources as one of the world's largest copper
resources. It is located on lands owned by the State
of Alaska, which have been specifically designated for
mineral exploration and development under an area plan
for state lands.
The Bristol Bay watershed is largely undisturbed
by significant development. The economy is dominated
by commercial salmon fishing and features a Native
Alaskan population that maintains a strong salmon-
centered culture and subsistence-based lifestyle.
Thus any regulatory authority to be exercised
requires the most fair and appropriate process,
particularly as it interacts with the State of Alaska,
the landowner in this case.
Here EPA did not employ the well-established
Permit/[National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]
process to evaluate potential development in the
Bristol Bay watershed. Rather, EPA used Section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act to preemptively impose
restrictions on potential mining in the area.
· Because, to date the Pebble Partnership has not
submitted a permit application, EPA relied on
hypothetical scenarios for its Bristol Bay
Watershed Assessment (BBWA) rather than the
characteristics of a mine that is actually
proposed to be built and maintained
· EPA failed to address important considerations
that would be included in the Permit/NEPA
Process, including meaningful participation by
the State of Alaska and other federal government
agencies, mitigation and controls as proposed by
the developer, and an array of public interest
factors;
· The Permit/NEPA Process has been used for decades
and has been widely endorsed by environmental
groups as being "Democratic at its core";
· EPA relied upon the BBWA in its Proposed
Determination but acknowledged that there were
significant gaps in its assessment and that it
was not designed to duplicate or replace the
Permit/NEPA Process; and
· EPA's unprecedented, preemptive use of Section
404(c) inhibited the involvement of two key
participants: the State of Alaska and the Army
Corps of Engineers.
These observations informed the Secretary's
conclusion that EPA's application of Section 404(c)
prior to the filing of a permit application was not
fair to all stakeholders.
The fairest and most appropriate process to
evaluate possible development in the Pebble
Deposit Area would use the established regulatory
Permit/NEPA Process to assess a mine permit
application, rather than using an assessment
based upon the hypothetical mining scenarios
described in the BBWA as the basis for imposing
potentially prohibitive restrictions on future
mines.
The Permit/NEPA Process is more comprehensive
than the preemptive Section 404(c) process employed
here. EPA conceded in comments to peer reviews that
there were gaps in its assessment that would be
addressed during a Permit/NEPA Process.
Here, as the Agency acknowledges, EPA initiated
Section 404(c) in an unprecedented manner. EPA's use
of Section 404(c) before a permit application filing
exacerbated the shortcomings of the BBWA noted by the
State of Alaska, several peer reviewers, and the
Pebble Partnership: most notably, the use of
hypothetical assumptions that may not accurately or
fairly represent an actual project; and the failure to
take into account mitigation and control techniques
required by the State or that a developer might
propose. Stakeholders disagree about the legality of
EPA's preemptive use of Section 404(c).
An environmental impact assessment is bound to
provide more accurate information if it analyzes a
mine that will be built in accordance with the
developer's plans, rather than a hypothetical mine
plan which even EPA acknowledges is likely to be
different from a developer-submitted plan. This
project is too important, for all stakeholders, to
pilot a new, untested decision-making process. The
fairest approach is to use the well-established
Permit/NEPA Process, and Secretary Cohen could find no
valid reason why that process was not used.
During the course of this review, statements and
actions of EPA personnel have raised questions about
EPA's motives. Although Secretary Cohen found many
troubling questions, he did not attempt to reach any
conclusions on these issues and instead urged those
with subpoena power to pursue this incomplete record.
The EPA Inspector General recently released a
report of its investigation. The IG Report, however,
addressed only one component of the broader process by
which EPA determined it would propose restrictions on
mining in the Pebble Deposit Area and it did not
address the fairness of EPA's novel application of
Section 404(c).
As a result of this narrow scope, the IG Report
did not provide any information that directly
addresses Secretary Cohen's findings, including his
central finding that the fairest and most appropriate
process to evaluate any development in the Pebble
Deposit Area would use the established regulatory
Permit/NEPA Process to assess a mine permit
application. The IG Report left open many questions
and presented an incomplete record in material
aspects. Thus, we believe there remain troubling
aspects that merit review by those who have the
constituted responsibility [to] take a deeper look -
be it in Congress the Courts, or the Administration.
This is not about Pro-Pebble or Anti-Pebble, but
rather good governance and the actions of our federal
agencies and processes by which they interact with
their State partners and constituencies.
How EPA conducted the process to assess potential
development and protect our fish and our environment
here in Alaska is of vital importance to our State,
region and country.
3:45:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether there has been a specific
impedance that has prohibited the Pebble Partnership from
submitting a mining application.
GENERAL RALSTON responded that the EPA statement, indicating
that a permit would be declined due to Section 404(c) issues,
has given the Pebble Partnership pause to proceed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about the amount of compensation
that the Cohen group has received from the Pebble Partnership,
and whether the contract could be made available to the
committee.
GENERAL RALSTON responded that the requested information is
considered confidential, and allowed that the compensation was
commensurate with standard rates and terms.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the law firm, DLA Piper,
assisted in the preparation of the document, and asked whether
Stewart B. Morrow is a senior partner in the firm.
3:47:26 PM
HOLLY BUTLER, Law Partner, DLA Piper LLP (US), responded that
Mr. Morrow is a partner in DLA Piper's Canada office.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI cited a filing, with the British Columbia,
Canada, Securities Commission (BCSC), by a Mr. Morrow, in a $3.5
million stake with Northern Dynasty Minerals, entered into about
40 days prior to the release of this report. He asked whether
it is the same Mr. Morrow.
MS. BUTLER responded that Mr. Morrow initiated a company, on
behalf of a client, for deposit of stock, but he personally
holds no interest in, nor facilitated the purchase of, Northern
Dynasty stock. She reported that no one in the DLA Piper (US)
or Canada, holds any interest in stock for Pebble Partnership,
Northern Dynasty, Hunter Dickenson, or any of its affiliates; no
financial or business relationship exists.
3:48:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON indicated that the EPA has established
specific standards and asked why a permit application would be
necessary in order to have the standards apply to a theoretical
situation. He suggested that the standards should be able to
stand alone.
GENERAL RALSTON opined that the EPA should wait to have a
description of a project prior to applying standards and making
determinations. Mitigation measures are part of the proposal,
and would need to be taken into account, he added.
3:50:20 PM
CHAIR COGHILL inquired about national precedent for the EPA's
omission of the stakeholders in the decision making process; the
Corps of Engineers and the State of Alaska.
GENERAL RALSTON responded that it was an unprecedented action.
The EPA has no prior history of invoking Section 404(c) in the
absence of a permit being filed. He recalled actions that did
invoke 404(c), but a permit had been filed on those occasions.
He added that the EPA has acknowledged that the action may serve
to establish a precedent. The concern, he opined, is that the
precedent may allow the EPA to make other preemptive rulings.
SENATOR COGHILL queried whether the EPA had solicited
congressional recommendations or other comments prior to the
action.
GENERAL RALSTON said the Cohen Group was not allowed access to
question personnel of the EPA, and a number of e-mails were not
made available. An EPA official allegedly violated protocol by
utilizing a personal computer for agency purposes. Due to
computer failure or misuse, a 25 month period of computer
communications are missing, or not available, from the EPA
official who was assigned to the project site. The EPA
inspector general (IG) acknowledges that there may have been a
misuse of position, and Secretary Cohen has recommended that
further investigation should be handled by a sector with
authority to subpoena, such as the courts, the US Congress, or
the IG.
SENATOR COGHILL stated his understanding that the EPA's primary
investigator has subsequently fled the U.S. and cannot be
sequestered.
GENERAL RALSTON acknowledged that Phil North, the EPA official
in question, retired, now lives outside of U.S. jurisdiction,
and has refused to be subpoenaed. There may be a possibility
that Mr. North will return to the US, which would allow the
authorities to continue the investigation.
SENATOR COGHILL indicated that the fairness question is of major
concern for the state. He suggested that the specific area to
be permitted may have varied significantly from what has been
perceived as the entire watershed, and asked for clarity.
GENERAL RALSTON deferred comment.
SENATOR COGHILL opined that the application process was thwarted
on every account, and stopped from reaching maturity. He said
it was unfortunate that a legitimate proposal was blocked from
being brought to the table.
3:55:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that today's debate is not whether
the mine should go forward or not, but rather the possibility
that a government official has corrupted a process. He referred
to the Izembek road proposal, and stated his belief that,
following the conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) recommending a go-ahead for the road project, corruption
may have occurred in Washington, DC. He asked whether it's
possible that an individual has corrupted a very thorough
process.
GENERAL RALSTON said the questions being uncovered are
troubling. He opined that the response from the IG regarding
Mr. North's actions was dismissive. He recounted the protocol
that would occur in a military setting to bring accountability
to such a situation.
3:57:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
is one way to track the performance of government officials, and
asked whether it was implemented to produce the report.
GENERAL RALSTON said the FOIA was invoked, which allowed access
and review of over 42,000 documents; however, the 25 months of
e-mails have remained unaccounted for.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that it appears to be a general plague
to governance: convenient computer crashes and missing e-mails.
He opined that it creates a troubling atmosphere.
3:59:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about disclosure of the names and
affiliations of the people solicited to participate in the
report.
GENERAL RALSTON responded that over 60 people were interviewed;
however, in the interest of receiving candid responses, their
identity is confidential.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI queried whether preliminary drafts of the
report were made available to the public or the EPA.
GENERAL RALSTON indicated that the EPA received a copy prior to
publication, but not the public or the 60 participants.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the report was subject to
peer review.
GENERAL RALSTON said the report is not a scientific document
and, as such, not subject to peer review.
4:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the observations and conclusions
section of the Cohen Report states that the purpose was not to
comment on whether the EPA acted within the scope of its legal
rights. It further indicates that the EPA had the authority to
conduct the study of the Bristol Bay Watershed, as well as to
invoke Section 404(c) at any time. He noted that the IG report
was solicited by the Cohen Group and the Pebble Partnership, and
is entitled, "EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment:
Obtainable Records Show EPA followed Required Procedures Without
Bias or Predetermination, but a Possible Misuse of Position
Noted," Report No. 16-P-0082, dated January 13, 2016. He asked
what action is being suggested, given the IG report indicates
that bias and predetermination were absent from the ruling.
GENERAL RALSTON pointed out that the IG report is narrow and
spans a discreet section of time from 2008-2012. Additionally,
it is key that the report is based on obtainable records, and
there were major omissions that involved the possible misuse of
position.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the scope of the situation
appears nebulous. The IG report indicates that an appropriate
ruling was made by following procedures, and arrived at without
bias or predetermination. He said:
We can always want more. And is that the point we're
at? We don't like the inspector general's
conclusions, and therefore we are saying we should
have more.
GENERAL RALSTON repeated that the IG report covered a narrow
time span and did not address the fundamental issue of whether
the fairest method possible was being applied. He reviewed the
continuing issues: Phil North's missing e-mails covering a 25
month period; and the Army Corp of Engineers was not contacted,
which is a mandated coordination that the EPA did not follow.
He opined that a number of deficiencies may exist in the IG
report.
MS. BUTLER added that a number of questions and concerns alluded
were not addressed in the scope of the IG report and bear
directly on the integrity of the process. These include: the
use of hypotheticals, third party communications with anti-mine
advocates, and the EPA's refusal to accommodate specific
requests made by the State of Alaska.
4:05:17 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked whether state officials were consulted
regarding the use of the 404(c).
GENERAL RALSTON recalled that the state made repeated written
requests for additional time to address the issues. He said the
requests were discarded by the EPA.
MS. BUTLER interjected that the State of Alaska voiced concerns
at various stages of the process and included a request to
suspend determinations prior to a permit being filed. She said:
The State of Alaska stated they were "damned if they
do, damned if they don't." We have to participate or
you'll say we stood down, and if we do participate you
will say we had our opportunity.
4:06:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked about the credibility of the science base
used by the EPA regarding the watershed determination.
GENERAL RALSTON maintained that it was not possible to make an
assessment without a permit application to indicate what the
developer was proposing.
MS. BUTLER commented that the EPA established a hypothetical,
relying in large part on what has been identified as a
mineral/material identification report, necessary for investment
purposes, versus a mine plan. A mine plan focuses on how to get
the identified minerals out, she stipulated.
SENATOR COGHILL asked whether there were any assessments done on
the waters of Bristol Bay.
MS. BUTLER responded that an assessment was conducted and the
validity of the science used was cause for debate, which the
report did not evaluate.
SENATOR COGHILL concluded there was a hypothetical with an
existing assessment that is under question. He posited that
Alaskans should pay close attention to what that assessment
actually says for the value. He said the e-mails from the state
are light, but at least show the state made some appeals.
Regarding the statement about appeals by anti-mine environmental
groups, he asked whether those were traced or were part of the
missing e-mails.
GENERAL RALSTON indicated that the missing communications from
the 25-month period mentioned could be illuminating on this
topic. However, the EPA did not start the 404(c) process until
requested to do so by a letter from the Alaska Native community.
Early e-mails indicate that Phil North was coordinating with the
Native community to solicit specific action from the EPA.
MS. BUTLER added that the IG report cites the letter exchange
instance as the possible misuse of position. The impetus of the
watershed assessment was the EPA's receipt of a letter from the
Native Alaskan tribes. The investigation revealed that someone
within the EPA had facilitated the letter exchange. Allegedly,
drafts of the letter were exchanged between Mr. North and an
agency attorney to craft a viable correspondence, which resulted
in the watershed assessment.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the legal groups involved would have
received compensation and asked if the Cohen Group pursued that
trail, and opined that it would be an important direction to
follow.
MS. BUTLER responded no.
4:11:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether DLA Piper participated in
authoring the Cohen report.
MS. BUTLER replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that a decade ago there was
debate about the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
filings, which included sworn statements outlining the
expectations/scope of the mine project. He asked whether the
CWA prohibits reliance on that type of data being used for an
EPA ruling.
GENERAL RALSTON responded that the SEC filing would have to be
considered insufficient and in no way representative of the
scope of the mine. He opined that it would lack the necessary
level of detail required by a permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether law prohibits the EPA
from applying the 404(c) action.
GENERAL RALSTON deferred comment and opined that it is for the
courts to decide.
4:13:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that Native Alaskans hold
unquestionable rights to request support from the federal
government in an area of such great importance. She asked for
comment on the weight that Native voices hold at the federal
level. Also, she pointed out, Pebble could make a permit
application at any time, thus triggering the NEPA process, which
hasn't occurred, and questioned why the state would involve
itself further.
GENERAL RALSTON deferred commenting on Pebble Partnership
motives. However, he stressed, a permit cannot be issued until
the ongoing legal issue surrounding the EPA's 404(c) process is
resolved. The requests from Alaska Natives were reportedly
heard from both sides, and the NEPA process is the fairest means
for incorporating all views and all agencies involved, he
maintained. One of the troubling aspects of the Phil North e-
mails, and the missing piece here, is that the EPA IG Report
called the possible misuse of position was his coordination with
anti-Pebble Mine groups when he is an EPA employee who is
supposedly looking at this process even-handed.
MS. BUTLER added that until a permit is issued and subjected to
the NEPA process, a shovel can't go into the ground, and the EPA
is not relinquishing its 404(c) right.
4:16:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that once issued, the agency is also able to
withdraw a permit, and recalled a working mine in West Virginia
having that action taken against it by the EPA.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the report being presented
today, criticizing the EPA for process, was paid for by the
Pebble Partnership for an undisclosed amount, compiled behind
closed doors in a non-transparent process, and involves 60
undisclosed sources. He said it is a preliminary report that
was not released for public review before disclosure, nor was it
released to the 60 anonymous participants, and has not been peer
reviewed. The report doesn't deal with scientific or legal
issues, he opined, and holds no credibility as it represents an
opinion paid for by the Pebble Partnership.
4:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK recalled that he has lived through this
type of action before, where economic opportunities are blocked
by the federal government. As an example, he offered the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) decision where the authorization
process may not have been followed.
SENATOR COGHILL said he considers the document to be a public
report, compiled by an outside source, and opined that the
result is non-biased.
CHAIR GIESSEL said that the state is faced with a number of
federal regulations which often inhibit opportunities for
development.
4:23:12 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the participants and announced the
continuation of the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, Chair
Giessel adjourned the joint meeting of the House Resources
Standing Committee and Senate Resources Standing Committee, at
4:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Cohen Group Report-Executive Summary.pdf |
SRES 3/7/2016 3:30:00 PM |
EPA-Cohen Group Report |
| EPA-IG Report- Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment.pdf |
SRES 3/7/2016 3:30:00 PM |
EPA-Bristol Bay |
| SRES-HRES-Testimony-General Joseph Ralston.pdf |
SRES 3/7/2016 3:30:00 PM |
Cohen Report-EPA |