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.