[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA VS. AMERICAN MINING JOBS: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATORY
ASSAULT ON THE ECONOMY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, October 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-146 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member
Louie Gohmert, TX Steven A. Horsford, NV
Rob Bishop, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Paul C. Broun, GA Niki Tsongas, MA
John Fleming, LA Jared Huffman, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Tony Caardenas, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Joe Garcia, FL
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Mark E. Amodei, NV Vacancy
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, October 10, 2013....................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Holt, Hon. Rush a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lamborn, Hon. Doug a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Fogels, Edmund, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Hamilton, Chris, Senior Vice President, West Virginia Coal
Association................................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Maier, Sheldon, President, Fortymile Mining District......... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Van Vactor, Norman, Chief Executive Officer, Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation........................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Kile, Linda, Prepared statement of........................... 29
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 49
Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA, Steve Moyer, Vice President
for Government Affairs, Letter submitted for the record
Representative Holt........................................ 34
Tsongas, Hon. Niki a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, Prepared statement of.............. 49
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON: EPA VS. AMERICAN MINING JOBS: THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATORY ASSAULT ON THE ECONOMY
----------
Thursday, October 10, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Gohmert, Fleming,
Benishek, Flores, Daines, Cramer, Holt, Horsford, Tsongas,
Huffman, Lowenthal, Garcia, and DeFazio.
Also Present: Representative Young of Alaska.
Mr. Lamborn. The committee will come to order. The Chairman
notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule
3(e), is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight
hearing titled, ``EPA vs. American Mining Jobs: the Obama
Administration's Regulatory Assault on the Economy.''
Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. We will
also hear from the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, if they are here, and I believe that will be the
case for at least one of those gentlemen.
However, I ask unanimous consent to include any other
Members' opening statements in the hearing record, if submitted
to the Clerk by close of business today.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Also, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Don Young
of Alaska be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Last year, we held a hearing on EPA's
retroactive veto of the Spruce Coal Mine in Logan County, West
Virginia, in 2010. That same year, EPA, at the request of six
federally recognized Tribes and commercial fishermen, initiated
a watershed assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed in
southeastern Alaska, in an effort to derail the development of
the world's largest known hardrock mineral resource: in
essence, an effort to preemptively veto mining across a whole
region of Alaska.
The watershed assessment covered an area the size of West
Virginia, more than 24,000 square miles, and was designed to
reach an outcome that the entire region is unsuitable for
mining. The assessment was severely criticized by a panel of
scientists appointed by EPA to review the document.
Meanwhile, in Chicken, Alaska, an EPA SWAT team of heavily
armed and armored agents conducted ``paperwork'' inspections on
small mining operations in what appears to be nothing more than
an effort to intimidate and scare hard-working Americans.
This hearing is about the story of how one agency, the
Obama administration's EPA, can single-handedly decide to
retroactively pull permits or prospectively veto any operations
in areas the size of States and, at the same time, use armed
SWAT teams to review permits. All combined, this agency is
responsible for destroying 4,000 coal mining jobs between 2011
and 2012, crippling local and State economies, increasing our
dependence on foreign sources of minerals, and increasing
energy costs for all Americans, seemingly all without
consequence.
At the heart of this issue is the lack of confidence in
permitting by the Federal Government. If, without cause, an
agency can retroactively veto issued permits, or prospectively
veto permits not applied for, then how can any company,
contractor or concessionaire, have confidence to invest in
America, when their permit is not worth the paper it is written
on?
And I am not talking just about permits required by the
mining industry. The Army Corps of Engineers issues an average
of about 60,000 permits annually under the section of the Clean
Water Act in question for all types of businesses and
industries, including road and highway construction, and
commercial and residential real estate. All industries are in
danger if the Supreme Court allows the retroactive veto of the
Spruce Mine permit to stand.
It gets worse. In 2009, the EPA asked the Navajo Nation
permission to withdraw the permit issued in the Desert Rock
Energy plant. That $4 billion investment would have created
thousands of jobs, generating tens of millions in revenues for
the Navajo Nation, and created the infrastructure for a broad
expansion of solar power across Navajo lands. One added bonus
would have been the electrification of a broad section of the
Navajo Nation, where people currently live without electricity.
But that permit, after being issued, was withdrawn by the EPA
for review. Needless to say, it has never been reissued, down
to this day.
The Obama administration's ``war on coal'' can be felt
throughout the country, from Logan County, West Virginia, to
Farmington, New Mexico. Now it has seemingly expanded to an
all-out war on mining jobs, threatening workers from Chicken,
Alaska to Superior, Arizona.
Americans deserve better from the EPA. There is no excuse
for conducting armed raids on family owned businesses to look
for minor permit violations. Retroactively and prospectively
vetoing permits, destroying high-paying family wage jobs,
adversely affecting government economies, and making Americans
more dependent on foreign sources of mined materials should not
be the hallmark of President Obama's policy.
It has been said by someone within the agency that the
EPA's job is to crucify American industry, to bring them to
heel. From armed raids to random permitting conditions and
arbitrary permitting, it appears they are doing their best.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who
have, unfortunately, been the victims, in some cases, of this
administration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources
Last year we held a hearing on EPA's retroactive veto of the Spruce
Coal Mine in Logan County, West Virginia in 2010. That same year EPA,
at the request of six federally recognized Tribes and commercial
fishermen, initiated a `watershed assessment' of the Bristol Bay
watershed in Southeastern Alaska in an effort to derail the development
of the world's largest known hardrock mineral resource--in essence an
effort to preemptively veto mining across a whole region of Alaska.
The watershed assessment covered an area the size of West Virginia,
more than 24,000 square miles, and was designed to reach an outcome
that the entire region is unsuitable for mining. The assessment was
severely criticized by a panel of scientists appointed by EPA to review
the document.
Meanwhile, in Chicken, Alaska, an EPA SWAT team of heavily armed
and armored agents conducted ``paperwork'' inspections on small mining
operations in what appears nothing more than an effort to intimidate
and scare hardworking Americans.
This hearing is the story of how one agency--the Obama
administration's EPA--can single-handedly decide to retroactively pull
permits, or prospectively veto any operations in areas the size of
States, and at the same time use armed SWAT teams to review permits.
All combined this agency is responsible for destroying 4,000 coal
mining jobs between 2011 and 2012, crippling local and State economies,
increasing our dependence on foreign sources of minerals, and
increasing energy costs for all Americans--seemingly all without
consequence.
At the heart of this issue is the lack of confidence in permitting
by the Federal Government. If without cause an agency can retroactively
veto issued permits or prospectively veto permits not applied for, then
how can any company, contractor or concessionaire have confidence to
invest in America when their permit is not worth the paper it is
written on? And I'm not talking just about permits required by the
mining industry.
The Army Corps of Engineers issues on average about 60,000 permits
annually under the section of the Clean Water Act in question for all
types of businesses and industries including road and highway
construction, and commercial and residential real estate. All
industries are in danger if the Supreme Court allows the retroactive
veto of the Spruce Mine permit to stand.
At some point in time one has to wonder what the EPA and the
administration have against Alaska, and the Appalachian basin, and
American coal miners in general, but their attacks on the Navajo Nation
are well documented as well.
In 2009, the EPA asked the Navajo Nation permission to withdraw the
permit issued to the Desert Rock Energy Plant. That $4 billion
investment would have created thousands of jobs, generated tens of
millions in revenues for the Navajo Nation, and created the
infrastructure for a broad expansion of solar power across Navajo
lands. One added bonus would have been the electrification of a broad
section of the Navajo Nation where people currently live without
electricity. But that permit, after being issued, was withdrawn by the
EPA for review, needless to say, it has never been reissued.
The Obama administration's ``war on coal'' can be felt throughout
the country, from Logan County, West Virginia to Farmington, New
Mexico. Now it has seemingly expanded to an all-out ``war on mining
jobs'' threatening workers from Chicken, Alaska, to Superior, Arizona.
Americans deserve better from the EPA. There is no excuse for
conducting armed raids on family owned businesses to look for minor
permit violations. Retroactively and prospectively vetoing permits,
destroying high-paying family wage jobs, adversely affecting government
economies, and making Americans more dependent on foreign sources of
mined materials should not be the hallmark of the President Obama's
policy.
It has been said that the EPA's job is to crucify American
industry, to bring them to heel. From armed raids to random permitting
conditions, it appears they are doing their best. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today who have often been the victims of
this administration.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency is unable
to be here today to present its side of the story. I think it
is even more unfortunate that this Republican-led government
shutdown has resulted----
Mr. Young. Will the gentleman yield? Let's just get on with
this hearing, and quit the politics.
Dr. Holt [continuing]. Has resulted in the Environmental
Protection Agency not being out in the field protecting our
air, protecting our water, ensuring that America's most toxic
waste sites are properly cleaned up.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, and to the other members of the
committee, I think it is completely appropriate in this
committee that we talk about what the government should be
doing. And so I think that some of my friends on the other side
may be pleased at the shutdown's effect, especially those who
voted 38 times during the 112th Congress to dismantle the Clean
Water Act and other environmental protections. But certainly
the families that rely on clean air and safe drinking water and
unpolluted lands are less appreciative of the efforts to shut
down the government and defund the EPA.
If the EPA were here, they would be able to directly refute
the implications of this hearing, I think. We will wait to see
how that goes. But I think the facts should be allowed to speak
for themselves.
Mining employment is up, and keeps going up. According to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is also shut down, there
were over 5,000 additional coal mining jobs in 2012 than there
were 4 years earlier, a 7 percent increase. There were also
5,000 additional metal or mining jobs in 2012 than 4 years
earlier, a significant increase. In fact, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports that there are more mining jobs during the
current administration than there have been in the past 15
years.
Now, since a major focus of this hearing is the situation
in Alaska, I think it is worth noting that mining employment in
Alaska is up 34 percent since 2008. It has more than doubled
since 2004. It is hard to argue with numbers like that.
I do want to thank the witnesses for being here today,
particularly given the long distances you have traveled, and
the fact that you can't visit the museums and other things here
in Washington on this visit. I particularly want to welcome Mr.
Van Vactor, former seafood processor and CEO of Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation.
Coming from New Jersey, I understand the huge importance of
fishing to an economy. The commercial and recreational fishing
industries in New Jersey bring in over $8 billion in sales, and
support 54,000 jobs. But, as important as fishing is to my own
State, that doesn't even begin to describe the importance of
fishing to Bristol Bay watershed, where it is, well a good
metaphor, the lifeblood of the community.
Bristol Bay's salmon fisheries contribute $1.5 billion in
economic value, and provide half of all the sockeye salmon in
the world. The salmon sustains the way of life for Native
American tribes throughout the region, and it is one of the
staples of their diet. So, any negative impacts on the salmon
fishery could be harmful to the economy and to the heritage of
the area.
It is my belief that the Bristol Bay watershed is too
important and too fragile to allow a massive open-pit mine,
industrializing the landscape, and creating long-term waste
management challenges. And I think it would put into jeopardy
the way of life of dozens of native villages and native
residents. And it would threaten fishing jobs and harm a
pristine ecosystem.
It is why I believe that it is appropriate for the EPA to
carefully study the impacts of the large-scale mining in the
region to see if I am right. I told you what I think. I would
like to be sure that we get the facts from EPA. Their peer-
reviewed scientific watershed assessment is designed to fill
gaps in the science and to look at the potential consequences
of moving forward with a mine.
EPA has yet to take the first steps required to initiate
any restriction under the Clean Water Act, but the Bristol Bay
watershed, I think, should be studied. We should look at the
science. And efforts to portray the EPA's enforcement as an
attack on mining, I think, are misguided.
I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency
is unable to be here today to present its side of the story. I think
it's even more unfortunate that because of this Republican-led
government shutdown, the Environmental Protection Agency isn't out in
the field protecting our air, protecting our water, and ensuring that
America's most toxic waste sites are cleaned up properly.
I think some of my friends from the other side may be pleased at
the shutdown's effect on the EPA, especially those who voted 38 times
during the 112th Congress to dismantle the Clean Water Act, but
certainly the families that rely on clean air, safe drinking water, and
unpolluted lands are less appreciative of efforts to shut down the
government and defund the EPA.
If the EPA were here, they'd be able to directly refute the dual
implications of this hearing: that they are somehow opposed to mining
jobs, and that mining jobs are disappearing. Because the facts speak
otherwise. Mining employment is up, and keeps going up. According to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics--which, I might add, is also shut down
because of this Republican House--there were over 5,000 additional coal
mining jobs in 2012 than there were in 2008, a 7 percent increase.
There were also 5,000 additional metal ore mining jobs in 2012 over
2008, a 13 percent increase. In fact, the BLS reports that there are
more mining jobs during the Obama administration than there have been
in 15 years.
Since a major focus of this hearing is on the situation in Alaska,
it's worth noting that mining employment in Alaska is up a staggering
34 percent since 2008, and has more than doubled since 2004. It is hard
to argue with a straight face that somehow the EPA or this
administration is carrying out a, quote, regulatory assault on mining.
That simply does not match the facts.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today,
particularly given the great distances many of you traveled, and the
fact that you were willing to come to Washington, DC, at a time when
some of our best tourist attractions, such as the Smithsonian, are
closed.
I'd like to particularly welcome Mr. Van Vactor, a former seafood
processor and now CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation, which represents the commercial and recreational fishing
interests of Bristol Bay.
Coming from New Jersey, I understand the huge importance of fishing
to the economy. The commercial and recreational fishing industries in
New Jersey bring in over $8 billion in sales, and support 54,000 jobs.
But as critically important as fishing is to my own State, that doesn't
even begin to describe the importance of fishing to the Bristol Bay
watershed, where it is not an exaggeration to call it the lifeblood of
the community.
The Bristol Bay salmon fishery contributes $1.5 billion in economic
value, and provides half of all the sockeye salmon in the world. But
salmon also sustains the way of life for Native American tribes
throughout the region. It is one of the staples of their subsistence
diet, and it is the basis for their culture. Negative impacts on the
salmon fishery could destroy their villages and their heritage.
It is my belief that the Bristol Bay watershed is too important,
and too fragile, to allow a massive open-pit mine that will
industrialize the landscape, create extremely long-term waste
management challenges, put the way of life of dozens of Native villages
at risk, and threaten tens of thousands of fishing jobs that depend on
a pristine ecosystem.
That is why I believe it is altogether appropriate for the EPA to
carefully study the potential impacts of large-scale mining in the
region. Their peer-reviewed scientific watershed assessment is designed
to fill gaps in the science, and look at the potential consequences of
moving forward with a mine.
While the EPA has yet to take the first steps required to initiate
any restriction under the Clean Water Act, the fact is that when the
company does submit its long-awaited permit application, if it ever
does, the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment will provide crucial science
necessary to further analyze the impacts of a specific project.
Efforts to portray the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Water Act as
an attack on mining are flat-out misguided. Opponents of the EPA's
actions can cherry-pick individual examples that they argue bolster
their point, but the truth remains: mining jobs are up during the Obama
administration, and the EPA remains committed to making sure that
mining is done in a way that protects our air, our water, and our land.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and yield back the
balance of my time.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Since the Full Committee Chairman
is not here, we won't hear from him at the moment. If he comes
later, we will do so.
And in the meantime, I would like to hear from the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee, Representative DeFazio of Oregon.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
that we are meeting today in the midst of a government
shutdown. We are taking testimony on an issue and an area upon
which this committee has no jurisdiction, which would be the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Water Act. I do
sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which
does have a good part of that jurisdiction. So, you know,
hopefully, if there were real issues to be heard, the T&I
Committee would be hearing them, about abuses of the 404
permitting process.
Second, Energy and Commerce also has jurisdiction, but this
committee does not. So we are here today to stage a hearing.
I heard some incredible hyperbole, no offense, Mr.
Chairman, during the opening remarks. Armed SWAT teams? I am
quite familiar with law enforcement. An armed SWAT team is a
particular specialty, and they carry automatic weapons,
longarms and other things. These were law enforcement agents of
both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government entering
onto Federal lands, and they were carrying holstered sidearms.
That isn't a SWAT team raid. Now let's not get a little
overboard here and say that somehow that constitutes a SWAT
team. So, and it is routine for law enforcement officers to
carry sidearms. And, you know, that has been blown out of
proportion.
Second, the issue of the 404 permits. Some people think
that if you blow the top off of a giant mountain and you bury 7
miles of a stream, that you are having some impact on water
quality. Others don't. Hard to believe, but that is where the
EPA acted retroactively to say, well, you know, maybe when the
Bush administration said that blowing the top off this mountain
and filling in 11 miles of stream had no consequence, you know,
in Oregon you can't even drive through a stream in many places.
You can't harvest timber approximate to a stream. These people
were just going to fill them in. I guess then you don't have a
stream any more, so you don't have to worry about the impacts.
But a little bit odd to me.
So, to say, gee, they acted somehow arbitrarily in this
case is not true. This was a huge and immediate impact and an
irrevocable impact. They are not going to put the stream in a
culvert, they are not going to dig it up again. And it is going
to cause leaching forever.
And then, finally, on that topic, their actions were upheld
by the D.C. Circuit Court. Again, this is all out of the
jurisdiction of this committee, so we are having a, you know, a
pretend hearing here on something that we can't do anything
about. But, in any case, I would just like to lay out a few
facts.
And finally, Bristol Bay. You know Don and I are going to
disagree over Bristol Bay and the potential impacts here. But
you are looking at hundreds of thousands of tons of mining
debris in the largest open-pit mine in North America that is
somehow going to be sequestered forever and not have any impact
on the fisheries in Bristol Bay, despite the fact that they
would be mining immediately around a number of the major
tributaries, and they would, in fact, disrupt some of the major
tributaries.
There has been some talk about, ``Oh, we will provide some
other wetlands, and we will do this, and we will do that.'' You
know, we are going to do geoengineering in order to destroy an
environment that is perpetual and balanced and sustainable, and
providing more than $1.5 billion a year of value throughout the
economy of Alaska and the West Coast. This impacts fishers from
my State, also.
So, you know, this is a very real issue. The EPA put
forward a draft report after some concerns. They pulled it
back, they wrote another. It is still in peer review. We
haven't heard the results yet. But they have not initiated a
process, over which this committee has no jurisdiction, yet.
So, that is why we are here today. You know, there are a
few other real things out there. I have had timber sales in my
district suspended. You know, all across the West, all the
timber sales have been suspended on both BLM and Forest Service
lands. The king crab fishing fleet is in port, because they
can't get their quotas. Real economic impacts because of a war
on government by the Republican Party. That is why we are here
today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Peter A. DeFazio
I'm a bit amazed by this hearing that we're holding today, and not
just because this is an issue that is outside of the jurisdiction of
our committee. I'm amazed because the majority is trying to portray the
EPA as engaging in some sort of ``war on mining'', when the real war on
mining and jobs is currently being waged by the House Republican
Majority through their misguided shutdown of the entire Federal
Government.
Instead of having Federal permit reviewers approving new mine plans
and drilling permits, and instead of having Federal safety and health
inspectors out there making sure that existing operations are being
done properly, we have hundreds of thousands of employees sitting on
their hands because of the antics of a House Republican Majority that
wants to delay a health care law they don't like.
For example, in 2012, the Bureau of Land Management approved over
5,000 permits to drill oil and gas wells: that's roughly 100 permits
each week. So that's 100 permits that have not been approved since the
Republican shutdown started last Tuesday, and the number keeps going
up.
The longer this goes on, the more severe the impacts will be. Next
week there was supposed to be an oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico--
but that has now been canceled. Two weeks from now there's one covering
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and that one is in doubt as
well. And it's a domino effect, with the shutdown keeping the
government from preparing for future lease sales, resolving protests,
and doing the environmental reviews necessary for new wells.
The Republicans like to fantasize that this administration has some
on-going war on fossil fuels, despite the increases in production,
despite the increases in permits, despite the ongoing lease sales
offering millions of acres each year. But their shutdown is making this
fantasy a reality, grinding the entire Federal leasing and permitting
system to a halt, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
When it comes to the fantasy surrounding this particular hearing, I
believe Ranking Member Holt has already pointed out the statistics
about how mining jobs are up in this country across the board, for both
coal mines and metal mines.
So there's clearly no effort by the EPA, or this administration, to
shut down mining in this country. Far from it. But what we have being
discussed today is something that I don't think we had nearly enough of
in the previous administration: taking a hard look at where mining is
occurring, and making sure it's being done the right way.
Bristol Bay deserves a particularly hard look. It is an important
economic driver for both the State of Alaska and the entire Pacific
Northwest: over 2,000 jobs in the State of Oregon depend on that
fishery. Any activity there requires the best available science to
assess the risks and evaluate the potential consequences, and I
strongly support the EPA's efforts to gather that science on mining in
that watershed.
If EPA determines that there is no way to put a mine in this region
without unacceptable water quality and fishery impacts, then that is
not the right place for a mine. It's simply not worth the risk to the
entire Bristol Bay fishing industry, the jobs that depend on it, and
the entire way of life of dozens of Native villages.
The EPA is right to be doing their watershed assessment, they're
right to be taking a close look at mining impacts, and they're right to
be holding miners accountable. I thank the witnesses for being here,
and I look forward to their testimony. I yield back the balance of my
time.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I would like to remind the
gentleman that this committee does have oversight over mining.
I will get you the language.
We will now hear from our witnesses. I want to thank each
of you for being here and appreciate the long distance that you
have come, in some cases. Your written testimony will appear in
full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral
statements to 5 minutes.
Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to turn them
on when you are ready to begin.
I will also explain how our timing lights work. When you
begin to speak, our clerk will start the time and a green light
comes on. After 4 minutes, a yellow light. After 5 minutes, the
red light, and I would ask that you conclude at that time.
So, I would like to now welcome to the table our four
witnesses: Mr. Edmund Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, the State of Alaska
Representative to the Interstate Mining Compact Commission; Mr.
Sheldon Maier--I hope I pronounced that correctly.
Mr. Maier. Maier.
Mr. Lamborn. Maier. Thank you for the correction, President
of the Fortymile Mining District; Mr. Chris Hamilton, Senior
Vice President of the West Virginia Coal Association; and Mr.
Norman Van Vactor, Chief Executive Officer of the Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation.
Mr. Fogels, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF EDMUND FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF ALASKA
REPRESENTATIVE, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION
Mr. Fogels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Edmund J. Fogels,
Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. I am here to testify on behalf of the State of
Alaska and the 26 member States of the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission. I thank you for the opportunity to bring to
your attention some of the challenges that recent overreaching
actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
created for mining States throughout the country.
The institutional attitude of the Environmental Protection
Agency demonstrated in the examples I will provide today needs
to refocus on a more collaborative and respectful relationship
with the States. We are hopeful that, through a careful
oversight of you and your colleagues, this change will occur,
and mining in the United States will continue to provide good
jobs to our citizens, and valuable commodities to our
industries in a manner that is consistent with the mission of
EPA and, more importantly, the interest of our States in
protecting human health and the environment.
My primary message today is that State governments have
developed effective and robust regulatory programs that should
be relied on by Federal agencies, not overridden by them. When
Federal agencies such as EPA seek to expand their mining
regulation, they are often duplicating existing well-
functioning programs.
There are three concrete examples of EPA overreach that I
will share with you today.
First, the EPA has been developing a watershed assessment
of our Bristol Bay watershed, an area roughly the size of West
Virginia. This assessment is in reaction to the proposed Pebble
Mine. The issue for Alaska here is not the Pebble Mine, but the
potential effective loss of all beneficial use of this massive
area of State land, which was promised to the State as part of
the Statehood Act, to help secure an independent economic
existence for Alaska. This is a serious concern, as the area of
the watershed assessment represents almost 10 percent of the
State of Alaska's land holdings.
This study could lead to the preemption of what really
should happen here, a thorough environmental analysis of the
project, once it is actually proposed, through the National
Environmental Policy Act, whereby one of the Nation's largest
EISs would undoubtedly be produced.
And this study is flawed. It has no legal basis. It is
based entirely on hypothetical mining activity, compounded by
theoretical projects that may never develop. It ignores modern
best practices, mitigation measures, and permit stipulations
that would be required. The bottom line: no project would ever
get permitted if it could not meet the requirements in multiple
State and Federal permits.
My second example is the EPA's attempt to displace
successful State bonding programs for the hardrock mining
sector pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA. Bonds are required
to ensure that States can reclaim and remediate mines if a
miner is unable to do so. And they are the financial
cornerstone of environmental protection. The bond calculations
are tremendously complex, and are the culmination of years of
permitting efforts. The States have developed vast experience
in administering these bonds, and EPA has stated that they will
not grow their agency to duplicate this expertise.
We understand that there may be legal sideboards within
CERCLA. But States need to be a partner in resolving this.
Above all, we should not gut effective State programs. Any
rulemaking should be thoroughly vetted with State experts
before release.
Third is the increasing frequency of elevations requested
by EPA when it does not agree with a 404 permitting decision, a
decision that typically has been carefully and cooperatively
made with other Federal and State agencies. Using the section
404(q) of the Clean Water Act, and usually when EPA determines
that a subject water body is an aquatic resource of national
importance, EPA will elevate the decision to higher-level
staff, causing significant delays. As there is no definite
standard as to what might be an aquatic resource of national
importance, it is very difficult for major projects to develop
timelines that can predict how EPA's review will affect the
project.
It bears repeating that the primary theme of my testimony
is that in all of these examples, the process would have gone
much more smoothly if the States were consulted and respected
as these Federal actions were developed. And we believe that
the process would have gone smoother still if Alaska had
primacy for its 404 permitting program. In fact, we are
currently evaluating if we should pursue such primacy.
Recently the EPA spearheaded an enforcement action against
small miners in the Fortymile District of Alaska. My fellow
Alaskan, Sheldon Maier, who is a miner in this district, is
also going to testify before you today, so I will not delve
into this issue. But I would like to say that the Federal
agencies should defer to the State agencies to get the problems
resolved before sending in the enforcement troops. We know what
is happening on the ground, we know the miners, we know their
plans of operation.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that Federal
regulators must respect the primary role and responsibility of
the States in managing, administering, and protecting their
lands and waters. This is clearly stated in the Clean Water
Act.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
and your leadership. I would be happy to answer questions when
the time is right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fogels follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edmund J. Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Natural Resources on Behalf of the State of Alaska and
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
i. introduction
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources--I am Edmund J. Fogels,
Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AK
DNR). On behalf of Governor Sean Parnell, the State of Alaska thanks
the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and express our
support for your work to ensure that mining in the United States will
continue to create wealth and provide for the Nation's mineral needs in
the future without duplicative and overly burdensome Federal
regulation. I have also been entrusted by the 26 member and associate-
member states of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) to
convey their views to the Subcommittee today, and to express their
gratitude for your leadership in this area.
In particular, I thank you for the opportunity to bring to your
attention some of the challenges that recent overreaching actions by a
particular Federal agency--the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--
have created for mining states throughout the country. The
institutional attitude of the EPA demonstrated in the examples I will
provide today needs to refocus on a more collaborative and respectful
relationship with the states. We are hopeful that, through the careful
oversight of you and your colleagues, this change will occur and mining
in the United States will continue to provide good jobs to our citizens
and valuable commodities and raw materials to our industries in a
manner that is consistent with the mission of the EPA, and, more
importantly, the interests of our states in protecting human health and
the environment.
Biographical Information
Before getting into substantive matters, I would like to briefly
mention my professional background as it pertains to this testimony and
provide some information about the IMCC. I have been serving as Deputy
Commissioner of AK DNR, a state agency of over 1,100 personnel, since
December 2010. I have worked as a natural resource manager for the
State of Alaska for over 25 years, including as a mining regulator and
state/Federal mining permit coordinator. AK DNR is the largest non-
Federal land manager in the United States. In addition to Alaska's vast
mineral resources, we manage one of the largest portfolios of oil, gas,
water, timber, and renewable energy resources in the world. Our
workforce is staffed by experts on responsible exploration and
development that have years of experience with Alaska's unique
environment.
The IMCC, of which the State of Alaska became a full member this
year, is a multi-state organization that represents the natural
resource and related environmental protection interests of its member
states. Twenty-one states have ratified their membership in the IMCC
through acts of their respective state legislatures, and five others
participate as associate members while they pursue enactment of state
legislation ratifying their membership. A primary focus of the IMCC is
liaising with Congress and the Federal government to promote a
cooperative effort between state and Federal agencies in advancing
responsible mining development and environmental protection.
Overview of Today's Testimony
My primary message today is that state governments must be allowed
to be an equal partner, and at times to take the lead, in regulating
mining in their respective states. A healthy mining industry and
environmentally sound natural resource development are important to
Alaska and the member states of the IMCC, and are in the best interests
of the United States. Responsibly developing our mineral resources
benefits our citizens and the country as a whole. To make this happen,
we need cooperation rather than frustration from Federal agencies such
as the EPA. The states have developed effective and robust regulatory
programs that should be relied on by Federal agencies, not overridden
by them.
States have been a central part of bringing about the modern era of
mining regulation and environmental protection, and these processes
have been very effective at correcting past mistakes. When Federal
agencies, such as the EPA, seek to expand their mining regulation they
are often duplicating existing, well-functioning programs. This
duplication is not only inefficient, but it has real costs to the
states and their residents who work to responsibly develop and protect
natural resources. The states' familiarity with the specifics of their
respective local mining industries is irreplaceable, and Federal
agencies must recognize the states' role in representing their
citizens' economic and environmental interests.
The examples of ongoing processes that are negatively affecting the
State of Alaska and the IMCC member states that I will describe today
illustrate how Federal overreach can create uncertainty, increase cost,
and cause delay for mining investment. These are also all examples
where well-functioning state processes have been duplicated or
disregarded. To solve this problem, Federal regulators must:
First, respect the primary role and responsibility of the states in
managing, administering, and protecting their lands and waters. This
role is grounded in the states' position as sovereign entities in the
system of federalism recognized in the U.S. Constitution, and has been
unequivocally acknowledged many times by Congress. For example, the
Clean Water Act--one of the primary Federal environmental statutes the
EPA is tasked with administering--clearly states: ``It is the policy of
Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary
responsibilities and rights of the states to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including
restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water
resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his
authority under this chapter.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(b) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, respect the experience and expertise of state agencies who
are often much more familiar than Federal regulators with the
particular circumstances and needs in their communities. States may be
able to craft more practical solutions to challenges if their roles are
not displaced by rigid Federal processes that do not take into account
state experience and expertise. In short, states are more likely to be
problem solvers, looking for and finding solutions that work well for
their environment and their economy.
Last, defer to, and build on, the successful programs that are
already in place. New programs do not need to be built from the ground
up at the Federal level, as this will duplicate many of the well-
functioning processes that are established and well-managed by the
states. This will ensure that the expertise of both the states and of
other Federal agencies can be used efficiently. Collaboration with and
support for state programs should be the focus of new Federal
initiatives.
ii. mining, under modern standards and regulations, is critical to our
states
I know that the Subcommittee is very familiar with the numerous
benefits that are associated with U.S. mining, so I will only quickly
outline them to give a foundation to the issues of state primacy that
my testimony focuses on. Bottom line--mining is critical to the
economic, social, and security interests of our states and the Nation
as a whole. When companies, including the many small businesses that
participate in American mining, invest in mineral exploration and
development in the United States it brings high-paying, technical jobs
back to our country. Many times, especially in a state like Alaska,
these investments and developments occur in rural areas and bring
economic opportunities and social benefits to our citizens that are
otherwise not widely available. Domestic mining also brings secure
domestic supplies of important resources--for example: coal and uranium
for energy security, iron for industrial production, and gold and other
metals for modern high-tech applications. We are in a global
competition for these resources--for secure supplies to meet our
demands, and for the investment that drives employment and development
in our states.
iii. mining regulation is local, and should remain primarily the
responsibility of the states
The issues we are discussing today are certainly global and
national, but they are also local. Environmental protection benefits
those who live in the protected environment. Clear and general
standards, enforced by objective regulators, have to be applied to
specific situations in specific locations. This is why the State of
Alaska focuses so intently on maintaining high standards for
environmental protection--so many of our citizens, whom our state
government has a Constitutional responsibility to represent, regularly
utilize Alaska's environment. Many areas of Alaskan life, from
traditional subsistence lifestyles to local recreation to our robust
tourism industry, are dependent on protecting our fish, wildlife,
water, and land from degradation.
This is also why Alaska, and the members of the IMCC, recognize
that a well-regulated mining industry brings real, local benefits to
our residents. The most frequently cited and clearly illustrative
example in Alaska is the Red Dog Mine in the Northwest Arctic Borough.
This project brings hundreds of jobs to this remote region, and
provides the Borough's only source of tax income. In partnership with
the regional Alaska Native Corporation (NANA, Inc.), this mine has
generated hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in the
region and is far and away the region's largest employer. When these
kinds of mining projects are delayed or deferred due to Federal
overreach and permitting delays, it means that local residents do not
have access to employment opportunities, and social programs in rural
areas have limited funding. As commodity markets are dynamic, delayed
projects may miss windows of opportunity. This stretches a 1 or 2 year
permitting delay into potentially decades before communities see
projects move forward. When projects are abandoned altogether, it means
economic and social opportunities they could have provided in our
states are completely lost.
Local affects, both positive and negative, are central reasons why
mining regulation must preserve a strong role for the states. Federal
resources and expertise should not be disregarded, but these complex
regulatory activities must primarily rest with state regulators who are
on the ground and who understand the full range of their respective
states' interests. We need to reverse the tendency seen in the last
several years to centralize agency decisionmaking in Washington, DC. In
this regard, I would like to submit for the record a resolution
concerning the states' federalism concerns that was recently adopted by
IMCC which further expands on our concerns and recommendations
regarding state and Federal relations. (Material submitted has been
retained in Committee's official files.)
iv. current state mining regulations and programs are effective and
functioning well
Mining can have impacts on the environment. Many of the laws that
regulate mining today were passed to remedy the negative impacts that
prior, unregulated mining had during the 1800s and early 1900s. State
regulators can confidently say we have learned many lessons from these
earlier projects. The same re-prioritization of environmental
protection that motivated the passage of Federal laws such as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the 1970s and 1980s has
also occurred in state government. Modern regulations and mining
practices, with states functioning as the leading regulator in many
areas, now successfully mitigate impacts associated with mining.
This point is critical for our discussion today--there are not
lapses or loopholes in today's environmental regulations. There is not
a need for Federal regulators to displace existing state programs.
Recent EPA initiatives to ratchet up their regulations are a solution
without a problem. They usurp authority from the states, and, in some
cases, from their own partners in other Federal regulatory agencies,
while resulting in less-effective regulation.
v. epa overreach creates uncertainty, increases costs, and causes delay
for projects
There are three concrete examples of EPA overreach that I will
share with you today, but this list is certainly not exhaustive. The
administrative process within which these dialogs occur can be
extremely detailed and technical, and this opacity works against
effective oversight and readjustment of agency priorities. It bears
repeating that the primary theme of my testimony is that all of these
processes would have gone much more smoothly if the states were
consulted and respected as these Federal actions were developed. We are
hopeful that Congress will support the states in the future by
reaffirming the call for state primacy supported by the U.S.
Constitution and described in Federal law in your continued oversight.
The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment--Uncertainty
Since 2010 the EPA has been developing a ``watershed assessment''
of an area roughly the size of West Virginia in the Southwest of
Alaska.\2\ After the short description of this rushed process that I
will provide, it will be unquestionably clear that it has really
accomplished only one thing--increased uncertainty in the regulatory
framework for mining in the Bristol Bay region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Almost all of the lands in the assessment area are owned by the
State of Alaska. Conversely, almost none of the lands are owned by the
Federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite there being no clear basis in statute, regulation, or past
practice for this kind of study,\3\ this new watershed assessment
process has developed an unauthorized regulatory document, based on
hypothetical mining activity in the region, to potentially support the
unprecedented exercise of a preemptive CWA 404(c) veto by EPA. To be
clear--the State of Alaska is not concerned that an attempt is being
made to gather information in the region related to mining, or to
ensure that the numerous valuable ecological resources in the sensitive
Bristol Bay region are protected. With the watershed assessment, a
Federal agency is creating new, ambiguous regulatory steps that exclude
the state and duplicate the processes already put in place by existing
state and Federal law. The state's biggest issue is not Pebble Mine--
but the potential effective loss of all beneficial use of this massive
area of state land, which was promised to the state as part of the
Statehood Act land entitlement to help secure an independent economic
existence for Alaska and Alaskans. This is a serious concern, as the
area of the watershed assessment represents almost 10 percent of the
State of Alaska's land holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The watershed assessment has been conducted at a cost of over
$2 million dollars. In the context of sequestration and serious Federal
budget challenges, these are funds that the EPA has expended on a
purely discretionary activity while letting mandatory responsibilities
(i.e., approving state-proposed water quality standards) slide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were a mining permit submitted for a project in the region, a duly
authorized Federal regulatory document that is consistent with
established law and the public participation process would have to be
prepared. This would not be a watershed assessment but instead an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The latter process would also allow for the State of
Alaska to participate as a cooperating agency, and have a formal role
representing its interests in the process. An EIS must still be
completed for any future development in the region, but it will likely
be pre-determined by the amorphous regulatory action undertaken by the
EPA in conducting the watershed assessment outside of the normal NEPA
process.
The EPA's multi-year, multi-million dollar assessment is also based
entirely on hypothetical mining activity.\4\ Under the typical
regulatory process, which will still have to occur for any future
mining development in the Bristol Bay region regardless of EPA's
actions stemming from the watershed assessment, a project proponent
would be responsible for submitting a detailed mine plan to state and
Federal regulators to review. If this mine plan did not comply with
state mitigation and environmental protection laws, or did not receive
appropriate Federal permits under the CWA, it would not be able to go
forward. All of these decisions would be made based on specific
proposals, rather than speculation and conjecture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The activity EPA evaluated in the watershed assessment was
based in part on a non-technical investor document prepared in 2011 by
an entity with a partial interest in the project to comply with
Canadian financial disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a watershed assessment is not the manner in which the EPA
is statutorily authorized to involve itself in a regulatory approval
process under the CWA. While the EPA has not committed to do so, the
State of Alaska has repeatedly raised the concern that EPA will use the
assessment to claim it has authority to preemptively veto CWA section
404 permits before they are issued or even applied for.\5\ The EPA does
have the authority to veto CWA section 404 permits--if they are deemed
to be insufficient after full review of the mining plan has taken
place. The preemptive veto that the EPA has been urged to make would
turn this process on its head and replace the statutory process called
for under NEPA and the CWA with a process created on an ad-hoc basis by
EPA outside of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Despite the fact that the watershed assessment was begun in
response to a petition for a preemptive CWA 404(c) veto by private
groups, the EPA has stated it ``will not address use of its regulatory
authority until the assessment becomes final.'' However, EPA has
acknowledged the watershed assessment will ``provide an important base
of information'' for EPA to respond to the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state has submitted many detailed comments and criticisms of
the watershed assessment to the EPA, and my comments today are only a
summary of these concerns. On this point, the take-away is that the EPA
has obfuscated and duplicated the EIS/NEPA/CWA section 404 process in
conducting its assessment--without involving the specifics of an actual
project or the application of the state's processes. Ad-hoc regulatory
steps that diminish the state's role are the opposite of how Federal
agencies should be conducting their work.
CERCLA 108(b) Bonding--Costs
The EPA's attempts to displace successful state bonding programs
for the hard-rock mining sector pursuant to its authorities under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) is another major concern to Alaska and the members of the
IMCC. Despite the extensive expertise that state agencies have
developed in the areas of bonding and reclamation, it is unclear how an
EPA-administered hard-rock bonding program would incorporate this
expertise or how it could affect these successful state programs.\6\
This is an example of the need for Federal agencies to respect and
proactively consult with states on regulatory issues, rather than
making us fight to provide information about the success of the
programs we already have in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As well as the successful bonding programs conducted by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior (DOI)
and the United States Forest Service (USFS) in the Department of
Agriculture (DOA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This process could have enormous negative impacts on the mining
investment in the United States and our national interests by driving
up capital costs. Reclamation bonds are capital commitments that
companies must make to ensure cleanup and reclamation of mining
activities are completed if the companies themselves go bankrupt or are
unable to remediate their sites. Bonds are the financial cornerstone of
environmental protection and are a cost that responsible operators must
pay to receive mining permits. However, unsophisticated calculations by
the EPA, uninformed by the vast experience of the states, would throw
the bonding process severely out of balance. Excessive bonds do not
make it more likely that a mine will be properly remediated, but they
may prevent it from being developed entirely.
The EPA's initiative to develop bonding requirements for hard-rock
mines under CERCLA 108(b) dates back to 2009. In response to a suit
brought by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a
Federal district court in California found that the EPA had not
complied with timelines in CERCLA to begin issuing bonding requirements
for industrial activities that create a high risk of releasing
hazardous materials into the environment, and ordered the EPA to begin
doing so. In July 2009 EPA announced in the Federal Register that it
would begin with hard-rock mining. This was in some ways a surprising
decision, because EPA did not have any institutional expertise in
bonding hard-rock mines. Successful state and Federal programs were
already in place, and modern mitigation measures and reclamation have
significantly decreased the risk of hazardous material releases
associated with hard-rock mining.
Many states raised questions and concerns about how the rulemaking
was proceeding in 2010 and 2011. In this regard, I would like to submit
for the record copies of resolutions recently adopted by IMCC and the
Western Governors Association that address this matter in greater
detail. (Material submitted has been retained in Committee's official
files.) The State of Alaska understands that this rulemaking has been
delayed by EPA's focus on its numerous other expansive regulatory
undertakings, but may be reinitiated this year or next. If this
rulemaking goes forward, the EPA should commit to deferring to state
bonding programs and honoring their primary role of managing mining
programs within their respective jurisdictions. Importantly, any
rulemaking should be thoroughly vetted with state experts before its
release so that EPA can benefit from their expertise regarding the
content and implementation of the rule.
Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNIs)--Delay
The final subject I will touch on today is the role the EPA has
played in reviewing the work of other Federal permitting agencies, and
delaying decisions that have been carefully and cooperatively made.
Under section 404(q) of the CWA, EPA is directed to enter into a
memorandum of agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
implement their shared responsibilities under CWA section 404. This
memorandum lays out a process for escalating levels of review at both
the EPA and the Corps when EPA believes a permit improperly addresses
environmental concerns.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ironically, this process culminates in a 404(c) veto action--
the same veto that the EPA's Bristol Bay watershed assessment is
gathering a ``base of information'' for before any Corps permit
application has even been submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently the EPA has been quick to escalate review of projects
under the MOU. EPA documents indicate that in the first 20 years of the
MOU, less than 20 permit cases were elevated in the entire country.\8\
One of these was an oil development project on the North Slope of
Alaska in 2005. In the last 3 years two 404(q) letters have been sent
in Alaska alone: in 2010 for a bridge built over the Tanana River by
the Alaska Railroad, and just last month for a road being developed for
a road near the native village of Nuiqsut on the North Slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA 404(q) fact sheet: ``EPA has requested higher level of
review by the Department of Army on 11 permit cases under the 1992
404(q) MOA as of January 2011 . . . Eight (8) additional permit cases
were elevated to EPA Headquarters.'' See http://water.epa.gov/type/
wetlands/outreach/upload/404q.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process in the MOU was ostensibly created to streamline the
joint EPA and Corps review timeline for CWA permits, but in practice
EPA ARNI concerns have been raised once details of the project have
been extensively debated between the Corps, state regulators, and the
project proponent. As there is no definite standard as to what might be
an ARNI, it is very difficult for major projects to develop timelines
that can predict how EPA's review will affect the project. Project
proponents are pressured to accept changes sought by the EPA to
preliminary Corps decisions in order to avoid the potential extended
delay that a disagreement between the Federal agencies could entail.
vi. epa's enforcement approaches reinforce the need for state primacy
in mining regulation
My fellow Alaskan Sheldon Maier from the 40-mile district in Alaska
where the ``Chicken Raid,'' as it is being called, took place is also
going to be testifying before you today, so I will only speak briefly
about this incident and leave the details to him to describe. However,
I will note that it demonstrates the over-zealousness that the EPA and
other Federal agencies are applying to the enforcement of their
environmental regulations. This kind of enforcement raises serious
issues for all Alaskans who exercise their rights to use the state and
federally managed lands and waters in Alaska, and especially for many
of our miners. It also highlights the importance of having state
regulators who know the details of operations as the primary lead on
the programs that have such direct impacts on the state's citizens.
vii. future epa overreach should be averted by state consultation on
cwa jurisdiction today
The EPA has recently released a draft document prepared for its
Science Advisory Board (SAB) that has been informally titled the
``connectivity study.'' \9\ This is a several hundred page report that
documents the interconnection of most water in the entire United
States, and will serve as the basis for an expansive EPA rulemaking
that will likely dramatically increase CWA jurisdiction. The EPA has
acknowledged as much, noting on its website that this report ``will
provide the scientific basis needed to clarify CWA jurisdiction'' \10\
and listing the areas that the future rulemaking will generously
exempt, such as ``artificial ornamental waters'' and ``artificially
irrigated areas that would be dry if irrigation stops.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Formally titled: ``Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to
Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence
(External Review Draft).'' See 78 Fed. Reg. 58,536 (Sept. 24, 2013).
\10\ See EPA Report Information, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=238345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of CWA jurisdiction is absolutely critical to the
management of land and water in every state throughout the country. It
has been disputed for decades, including in multiple cases before the
Supreme Court that have restricted EPA's prior interpretations of its
authority. It is therefore absolutely critical that the states be
extensively consulted during this rulemaking. Unfortunately, that isn't
happening.
While the connectivity study is currently out for public comment
and is not yet finalized, the EPA has been developing its rulemaking in
tandem with the study, which EPA states ``provide[s] the scientific
basis needed'' to justify its development. Troublingly, a draft
proposed rule has already been sent to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in the White House for interagency review. While the State
of Alaska and many of the IMCC states have pushed for a formal
rulemaking to clarify CWA jurisdiction, \11\ this undertaking should
not be conducted without the detailed involvement of the states.
Additionally, it should not be conducted before the states have been
able to comment on and review the report providing the underlying
scientific basis for the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Rather than the potentially extra-legal attempts EPA initially
pursued to make jurisdictional determinations through guidance
documents that were not reviewed under the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the states have been provided the same opportunity
to comment on the connectivity study as the average member of the
public. This disregards the clear direction of the CWA to consult with,
and retain the primary role of, state governments in managing land and
water use. For example, the State of Alaska--representing almost 20
percent of the land mass of the United States--is not even featured in
the maps in the connectivity study. There are no sections addressing
its unique arctic environment or the complexities of permafrost. These
kinds of omissions starkly illustrate the need to involve state
regulators who know the specifics of their respective regions from the
very beginning of these processes.
viii. the solution
The problems I have discussed here today are difficult to solve.
They will require a change in approach by Federal regulators to
increase rather than decrease consultation with states when dealing
with mining regulation. Unfortunately, expressions of Congressional
intent language like that in the CWA are not always enough to stem
Federal overreach. There must also be continued oversight and
leadership from Congress and the executive branch to ensure that states
are treated as partners in the critical process of environmental
protection. The benefits of such a stronger state and Federal
partnership will accrue to the whole Nation. Increased Federal
efficiency will reduce both government expense and delays that affect
projects. State primacy will ensure that all of the state's interests
are represented in regulatory decisionmaking. Environmental protection
can continue to be strengthened by Federal and state experts
complimenting rather than duplicating each other's work.
The states are ready to take up this partnership. The membership of
26 states in the IMCC demonstrates this commitment, and provides an
excellent venue for the further development of state and Federal
partnerships in the area of mining regulation. In the future, the
country as a whole may want to discuss broader solutions, including
review of the CWA, CERCLA, and other environmental laws to ensure that
the states' expertise can be more effectively put to work in these
areas. For example, the Canadian process of devolving resource
management authority to provinces and territories may provide lessons
that could be applied to our own system. The IMCC member states are
committed to an open dialog about these ideas.
Additionally, the State of Alaska is going a step further and
undertaking a review of assuming primacy for permitting under CWA
section 404. Under this program, the state, rather than the Corps,
would administer many 404 permitting responsibilities in cooperation
with EPA. If we moved forward, this could require significant effort
and expense by the state, but it may also make permitting projects,
including mining projects, in Alaska more efficient, timely, and
certain. We are putting our money where our mouth is. We are also
potentially alleviating significant financing and staffing burdens for
the Federal government at a time of very limited Federal budget
capacity. This kind of partnership is a win-win scenario. There are
many questions that need to be answered regarding development of the
state program before we can make a recommendation to the Governor and
the State Legislature to continue the process, but we are committed to
continuing our thorough evaluation.
ix. conclusion
I have presented a number of problems caused by overreach by the
EPA and other Federal agencies, and I know my fellow panelists will be
raising others. I am also presenting a solution--respect for states'
rights and state primacy. States need to remain in the driver's seat on
mining regulation so we can protect our environment while also
attracting the mining investment that protects our citizens' economic
security. I respectfully ask that you continue your careful oversight
of Federal regulatory agencies to ensure they acknowledge this need.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today, and
for your leadership supporting American mining. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Maier.
STATEMENT OF SHELDON MAIER, PRESIDENT, FORTYMILE MINING
DISTRICT
Mr. Maier. Thank you. I am Sheldon Maier, President of the
Fortymile Mining Association. Fortymile Mining Association was
first convened in 1898. We have been organized and operating
ever since to try to continue to ensure responsible resource
development in our region.
First, I will start by talking about the Federal overreach
by the EPA, and about the raids. We consider them raids. It was
a serious invasion.
On August 13--I think it was between the weeks of--or in
week 22 through 27, the EPA led their environmental crimes task
force with armed agents. Between 3 and 7 agents entered 30
different mining locations in the Fortymile. They entered mine
sites without identifying themselves. They charged in, at Dick
Hammond's family mine, he was at his cabin when they came by.
Seven agents rode by on four-wheelers, didn't stop to identify
themselves. Went up to his mine site, without him being there,
poked around on his equipment, he had to go up and ask them
what they were doing. And they said they were there to enforce
the 404 Clean Water Act. He said they were extremely nervous,
he was extremely nervous, because he had never experienced
anything like this before.
The Race family, Chris Race, he was working on a piece of
broken equipment, so he wasn't actually mining, or sluicing,
what we call at the time, and four Federal agents, or
``agents,'' came by him. They didn't bother to stop and talk to
him. They just came up and started poking around his mine site,
too. They started looking at all of his equipment, climbing
around on his stuff, looking for, well, he had to go ask them
what they were doing. The same thing, they didn't bother to
identify themselves. This is definitely not professional
conduct from a law enforcement agent.
And then Jeff Owen, another miner that I spoke with, he had
the seven armed agents come to his mine site. They all had
their full flak gear on, said ``Federal Agents'' on their
vests. They were carrying not just sidearms. They told him they
were there to collect water samples. When they did collect
water samples, the only one he saw them take, which, when you
are collecting a water sample, you are supposed to take it out
of the main stream that the miner is actually operating on, not
a side tributary. The only sample he saw them take was out of a
side tributary.
And then, Linda Kile, who is here today, and she has
firsthand experience, because she was actually raided. And it
would be nice for you to hear her side of the story.
Notwithstanding this unacceptable show of force, I mean we
are used to getting inspected by agencies, the State and the
Federal agencies, it is unacceptable that this happens. There
is no peer-reviewed science studied today to show that has been
done currently, that placer mining is doing anything to hurt
the water. We all, we have been living this life for a long
time. I have been mining for 22 years in the Fortymile. Mrs.
Kile has been for 37. We drink the water, we eat the fish. We
care deeply for the land. We don't want to see it ruined. We
just want to be able to continue our lifestyle.
But we have multiple agencies, four Federal agencies right
now are coming down on us. If we can't do something to stop
what is happening with this regulatory overreach, we won't be
in business any more. The Bureau of Land Management is one of
them; MSHA, the other one; and the Corps of Engineers. And we
have, the OSHA, for instance, they offer an exemption for small
miners. We don't get one. Or, I mean, for small business
owners. MSHA doesn't offer that for small miners.
As far as the water quality standards go, I couldn't get
any answers out of the EPA on where the water quality standards
came from that we are supposed to be getting out of our
settling ponds if we have discharge. But the only answer I got
was the EPA said that the DEC set the standard. Well, the DEC
said the EPA gave them a directive that they needed to pick
one, so they picked drinking water. We are supposed to have
drinking water standards of anything that comes out of our pond
systems. And it is just not attainable. We can't humanly do
that.
And I thank you for allowing me to come here today and
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sheldon Maier, Fortymile Mining Association
the fortymile mining association
Gold discovery in the Fortymile September 7, 1886 by Franklin and
Madison on Franklin Gulch. March 25, 1898 first official meeting of the
Fortymile Mining Association (FMA) on Bonanza Bar. The Fortymile has
been mined and prospected since making it the oldest Mining District in
Alaska.
Placer gold is washed from gravel without the addition of
chemicals. There are approximately 657 active small scale placer
operations in Alaska today; 77 are in the Fortymile mining district.
The FMA maintains annual meetings and fundraising to ensure
responsible mining activity in the region.
federal overreach by the environmental protection agency
August 2013; an EPA led crime taskforce with armed fully suited
squads of 3-7 men entered 30 mining locations in the Fortymile. The
taskforce took water samples from small scale placer operations to
ascertain compliance with discharge requirements mostly without the
courtesy of introducing themselves to the mine operators.
EPA visit at Jeff Owen's mine site; 7 armed guards in two cars
entered camp, 2 approached the miner for introduction, the rest started
taking water samples. To measure potential discharge, a ``background''
water sample from upstream of the operation is needed. At the Owen mine
site, the EPA took the background water sample from a small tributary
to the mainstream instead.
At the Race family mine, 4 armed guards entered on four-wheelers,
they did not introduce themselves to the miner, but simply commenced
sampling. The miner approached the agents to inquire about their
activities.
At the Hammond family mine, 7 armed agents passed the miner's cabin
without stopping or making introduction and commenced searching and
sampling at the mine site. Again the miner approached the agents to
find out what their purpose was.
Linda Kile will give an account of the inspection at her and her
husband's mine site. Here again, no introductions were made, and the
miner had to initiate dialog with the agents.
Notwithstanding the unacceptable show of force to collect water
samples, there is no science supporting current EPA small mine
discharge restrictions. The only peer-reviewed studies on the
environmental effect of fluctuating suspended solids, or turbidity,
from placer mining, use data from before current settling pond and
reclamation requirements were in place.
The Army Corps of Engineer branch is also reaching into Alaskan's
mining rights further by planning to ensure wetland reclamation through
compensatory mitigation. No study has investigated small scale placer
mining impact on wetlands since current reclamation practices have been
mandated.
federal overreach, bureau of land management
In 1980 the Fortymile Management Plan along with plans for other
Eastern Interior areas were mandated by Congress, but BLM has
continuously ignored mandates in the plans to open designated areas to
mineral entry, and the agency refuses to recognize valid existing
rights with regards to navigable waterways, right-of-ways, and validity
of mining claims in the managed areas.
In accordance with the 1980 mandate, small scale placer miners now
fulfill settling pond and reclamation requirements. Otherwise small
scale placer mining methods have changed little since 1980 continuing
to rely on the physical properties of material and water for gold
extraction.
Nevertheless, BLM insists on a new lengthy and more restrictive
management plan encompassing all Eastern Interior Alaska.
mining safety and health administration
MSHA regulations are applicable to small mines to the same extent
as to large operations with hundreds of employees, and large mines
employ several people to stay abreast of MSHA required record keeping;
an onerous and unneeded task for small scale placer operations.
FMA encourage miners in the district to follow MSHA mandated
precautions and practice safety and FMA conducts an annual licensed
MSHA training class facilitating this.
OSHA partially exempts businesses with fewer than 10 employees; in
the interest of attainable safety parameters, a similar MSHA small
miner exemption is warranted.
economic and historic impact
The Alaska small scale placer industry impacts the economy in trade
hubs as well as in the rural communities where the mines operate and
contribute, and small scale place miners in Alaska work hard to comply
with regulations to stay safe, minimize impact, and protect the
environment.
At the same time miners in the Fortymile are contributing to and
participating in an ongoing part of Alaska mining history. Taking steps
to ensure the survival of this sustainable and historically well
preserved way of life is paramount.
securing american small scale mining jobs
In cooperation with the Alaska Miners Association the FMA has
worked continuously to seek acceptable solutions and we suggest:
Small miner exemption from most EPA, COE, and MSHA
regulations; for mines under 10 employees and 20 acres
Congressional mandate to implement the original Fortymile
management plan
References:
--Alaska Polar Regions Archives, Rasmusen Library, UAF
--Alaska Department of Natural Resources
--EPA and MSHA regulations
--http://scholar.google.com/
scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,2&q=turbidity+mining+alaska
--Army Corps of Engineers
--Proposed Eastern Interior Management Plan, and communications with
BLM state director Cribley Oct 2012
--Fortymile Management Plan
--https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9632
--Fairbanks Economic Development Cooperation
--Personal communication
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS HAMILTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WEST
VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I am
Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing.
Our State of West Virginia just celebrated its 150th
birthday, and we have been mining for all of those 150 years.
As a State, we manufacture and export energy and power
throughout the eastern part of our country, throughout the
world. It enables millions of Americans to enjoy the freedoms
and liberties, and the world's greatest quality of life, which
we do.
West Virginia is the second leading coal-producing State,
the country's leading underground coal-producing State, and a
U.S. leader in coal exports, where we account for about 50
percent of the U.S. total. We have consistently averaged
between 150 and 160 million tons of annual coal production over
the past several decades, until this administration took
office. We ship coal to practically every State east of the
Mississippi River and some 38, 39 foreign destinations.
Coal mining is a $30 billion business, an industry in West
Virginia with coal and electric utilities accounting for over
60 percent of all business taxes. Over the years we have
enjoyed a great workforce, great access to ports, and
tremendous quality in our coals. We also have a great
infrastructure to support that level of mining. We have the
best miners found anywhere in the world.
Our industry was rolling along just fine, expertly
navigating the typical cyclic nature of our business with
economic fluctuations and mild weather patterns affecting
demand and market conditions. In January 2009, all that changed
when we began to experience an all-out assault on our industry
from the Obama administration and our Federal Government.
Literally, the day after President Obama took office, mining
companies in West Virginia began to receive objection letter
after objection letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency raising objections to new permits. And even those that
were already issued, where active operations exist. These were
permits that were previously cleared by the same Federal
agency, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, along with the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
Then came the Administration's Council on Environmental
Quality and its multi-agency mine permit review process, known
as the enhanced coordinated permit review process, and the
imposition of new permit demands. This effectively slowed the
mine permit process to a crawl, which soon afterwards became
known as the Administration's ``Permitorium.''
The Administration's war on coal has been waged with a
barrage of ill-conceived administrative and regulatory actions,
such as EPA's Spruce Mine retroactive veto, the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation's totally unnecessary efforts to
rewrite the Stream Buffer Zone, effectively paralyzing acres
and acres and millions of tons of coal reserves in our State.
And, of course, EPA's regulatory train wreck. The war on coal
is not rhetoric, it is real, and it is wrecking havoc and
bringing harm to practically everyone in our State.
Today, 57 months into the Obama administration, the war on
coal has taken its toll, and things are very bleak in West
Virginia. Currently, we have 101 fewer mines operating today
than this time in 2008. That means approximately one-third of
our coal mines operating in 2008 are now closed. All mining
operations are impacted. Surface and underground, every mine
has slowed or has cut back.
In West Virginia alone, there are over 3,500 miners laid
off or furloughed, another 12,000 to 15,000 mining-dependent
jobs, which have been lost over the last 3 years. Across the
Appalachian region, the damage is even worse, with
approximately 10,000 direct mining jobs lost and another 40,000
indirect jobs lost. At an average salary of $75,000 per person,
the net effect is the removal of over $700 million from West
Virginia's economy, and a whopping $2-plus billion loss from
within a tri-state region, of Southwest Virginia, West
Virginia, and Eastern Kentucky. These are real dollars that
have been lost, impacting every family, every business in our
area.
The hardships on West Virginia and West Virginian families
is hard to imagine from Capitol Hill: high stress levels, not
being able to make ends meet, basic life needs not being met.
These are too commonplace now, leaving a large number of West
Virginians without hope and vulnerable to the perils of today's
society as hopes of gainful employment vanish, and the
possibility of life without a paycheck and health care benefits
preconditions all else.
As mining jobs have stripped away, we have seen a
significant rise in drug and alcohol abuse, theft, and other
forms of crime, and a tremendous amount of social decay.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to
participate, to share these numbers, to share these economic
facts with you, as a direct result of this administration's war
on coal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris R. Hamilton, Senior Vice President, West
Virginia Coal Association and Chairman, West Virginia Business and
Industry Council
Good afternoon! I appreciate the opportunity to participate in your
meeting and discuss the actions or inactions of this Administration on
West Virginia's economy.
I'm Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice-President of the West Virginia Coal
Association. More information on my background and experience in coal
is included in my prepared remarks before you.
West Virginia just celebrated its 150th birthday and we've been
mining for all of those 150 years. We are without question one of the
state's leading industries, if not the leading industry. We have always
provided good paying jobs, infused millions of dollars into local and
statewide economies and have provided the region, state, country and
world with low-cost, reliable power on a 24/7 basis.
That's what we do, as a state we manufacture and export energy and
power throughout the eastern part of our country and throughout the
world and it enables everyone else to enjoy the freedoms and liberties
along with the world's greatest quality of life.
West Virginia is the second leading coal producing state, the
country's leading underground coal producing state and the U.S. leader
in coal exports, accounting for 50 percent of the U.S. total. We have
consistently averaged between 150-160 million tons of annual coal
production over the past several decades--this is until this
administration took office.
We ship coal to practically every state east of the Mississippi
river and some 38-39 foreign destinations.
Coal mining is a $30 billion industry in West Virginia with coal
and electric utilities accounting for over 60 percent of all business
taxes. Over the years, we've enjoyed a great workforce, great access
and coal quality, close proximity to ports, and generally, a good
infrastructure. We have the best miners and coal quality found anywhere
in the world.
Our industry was rolling along just fine, experiencing the typical
cyclic nature of our business with economic woes and mild weather
patterns affecting demand and market conditions. In January 2009, all
that changed when we began to experience an all-out assault on our
industry from the Obama Administration and our Federal Government.
Literally, the day after President Obama took office, mining
companies in West Virginia began to receive objection letter after
objection letter from USEPA, raising objections to new permits and even
already-active operations that were previously approved and cleared by
EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and WVDEP.
Then came the Administration's CEQ and its multi-agency mine permit
review process known as the (enhanced coordinated permit review
process) and imposition of new permit demands effectively slowing the
mine permit process to a crawl, which soon afterward became known as
the Administration's ``permitorium''--the highjacking of state's rights
over the administration of water quality standards.
A barrage of ill-conceived administrative actions, litigation and
regulatory actions--e.g. Spruce mine veto, stream buffer zone proposal
from EPA and its sister agencies OSM and MSHA, coupled with EPA's
``train wreck'' advanced the ``War on Coal''.
Fast forward to today, 57 months later, the war on coal has taken
its toll and things are very bleak (statewide austerity). Currently,
West Virginia has (101) fewer mines operating today than this time in
2008--approximately one-third of our coal mines operating in 2008 are
now closed. All mining operations are impacted and every mine has been
slowed or has cut back.
In West Virginia alone, there are over 3,500 miners laid off or
furloughed and another 12-15,000 mining dependent jobs have been lost.
Across the Appalachian region, the damage is even worse, with
approximately 10,000 direct mining jobs lost and another 40,000
indirect jobs. At $75,000 per person, the net effect is the removal of
$719 million from our state's economy and a $2.05 billion loss from our
region. These are real dollars that have been lost, impacting every
family and business in our area.
The hardship on individuals and West Virginia families is hard to
imagine. High stress, not being able to make ends meet, basic life
needs not being met, are all too commonplace leaving a large number of
West Virginians without hope and vulnerable to the perils of today as
hopes of gainful employment vanish and life without a paycheck
preconditions all else. As mining jobs have been stripped away, we have
seen a significant rise in drug and alcohol abuse, theft and other
forms of crime and social decay.
Small communities throughout our state have been threatened and
county and municipal budgets and resulting government services dwindle.
Since 2008, West Virginia has lost 25 percent of production as coal
prices and productivity continues to fall. West Virginia has lost
millions of dollars in severance collections which serves to fund
education, county budgets and important programs for seniors and the
less fortunate.
To make matters worse nearly 300 coal-fired power units nationwide
have closed or will be retired this year. Other plants have switched to
natural gas. A total of eighteen (18) coal-fired units in West Virginia
have announced their plans to close.
It is estimated that each unit accounts for approximately 100 full-
time positions, thus the total number of jobs impacted in West Virginia
by these closures is approximately 1,800 additional jobs.
By utilizing every resource available to him, every Federal agency,
President Obama has done everything in his power to obstruct West
Virginia coal production and our industry from maintaining its
viability in domestic and world markets. To date, and by all the
negative administrative and policy acts, his mantra has been akin to
``death by 1,000 cuts''. The President's plan on climate and EPA's NSPS
is a knock-out punch for our industry.
Our only savior at the moment appears to be the export market. As
domestic usage continues to trend downward, international demand grows
exponentially. With West Virginia currently accounting for a large
share of U.S. exports, we stand to gain and become a world marketer of
coal.
Fortunately for us, world coal usage is on the rise as developing
countries expand their economies and infrastructure. Exports have
doubled over the past five (5) years and coal is quickly becoming the
world's fuel of choice for power generation. In fact, coal is scheduled
to surpass oil over the next 2-3 years.
Other nations see coal the way America used to view this resource,
as an abundant, low-cost and reliable fuel. America became a
manufacturing superpower thanks to coal, and it can't be a coincidence
that our global domination waned when we stopped fostering coal
industry development.
Although the current export market appears strong today,
predictions of our continued presence and strength vary. As with
domestic energy, we face strong competition for seaborne coal from
foreign producers who do not have the same level of protections for the
environment or for human rights.
Actions of this president have even placed global opportunities at
risk by calling on the World Bank and international financial
institutions to stop funding the construction of coal-fired power
plants and the construction of new port facilities which could handle
greater coal volumes, are endangered by the EPA.
In closing, I simply observe--the president speaks a lot about
economic justice and hope and promise--I would simply ask: where is the
justice for West Virginia and Appalachia? Where is the hope or justice
for our coal mining families?
There are few options available for many of our miners and by his
actions, this president is effectively condemning them to lives of
poverty and despair. Again, I ask where is the justice?
Thank You.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Van Vactor.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN VAN VACTOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, our
own Congressman, Don Young, my name is Norman Van Vactor, and I
am the CEO/President of the Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation.
BBEDC is a community-based corporation charged with
developing and enhancing the fishery-related economic
opportunities in our region. For nearly 40 years, I have worked
in every aspect of the seafood processing industry in Bristol
Bay, working my way from deckhand on a boat to the Bristol Bay
manager for one of the largest seafood companies in the United
States. I am particularly honored to be here today with Mr. Tom
Tilden, Rick DelKittie, and Bobby Andrew, who are tribal
leaders from our region.
I have to confess, given my track record of aggressive
economic pursuit and development, I never thought I would be in
Washington, DC to testify in support of a regulatory agency.
But EPA's involvement in Bristol Bay offers the opportunity for
a science-based, common-sense solution to the threat posed by
the proposed Pebble Mine. So, here I am, and I thank you for
the opportunity.
Also, since I am here, I cannot help but comment on the
fact that the government shutdown is already impacting our
fishing economy. The Bristol Bay Red King Crab fishery must
start on October 15, or it risks losing a significant
marketplace. Please end the shutdown so our fishermen can get
their Federal permits and get back to work.
My testimony today focuses on the importance of the Bristol
Bay economic engine, based on our wild salmon fishery, and the
positive role EPA has played, and should continue to play, in
assisting the people of Bristol Bay to protect this immensely
important cultural and economic resource.
The indigenous people and folks like myself who call
Bristol Bay home have one commonality: our lives and economy
focus around salmon. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery, as has
been mentioned, is, without question, large and lucrative, and
provides about 50 percent of the world's sockeye salmon
production. The economic importance of the fishery extends well
beyond Bristol Bay in the State of Alaska. We touch the Pacific
Northwest in a big way and, by extension, our entire country:
over 12,000 jobs, over 2,000 small business owners that we call
fishing families. Our fishery is robust and healthy because of
the pristine and untouched watershed conditions.
In February of 2011, the communities of Bristol Bay drafted
what we now call the Bristol Bay Vision Statement. That vision
is based on the fact that we are a salmon-based community and
economy, and is founded on a fish-first policy.
The perspective shared by most of my industry, the
production level with boots on the tundra and the boats of
Bristol Bay, is, despite being at odds at times with
regulators, EPA has been effective and fair in permitting and
enforcement. Consistent enforcement rewards those of us in
compliance, and provides a clear message to the regulated
community that there is a price to be paid for non-compliance.
The proposed Pebble Mine sits at the headwaters of the
Kvichak and the Nushagak River drainages, two of the most
prolific salmon-producing watersheds in the world. This
sensitive location, its massive size, and potential acid-
generating nature, combine to pose an unacceptable risk to our
region.
I want to highlight that EPA is involved in Bristol Bay in
response to the unprecedented alliance of Tribes and native
corporations, sport, and commercial fishing industries, all of
whom petitioned EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water
Act to step in to help protect our wild salmon, the fisheries,
and the people who rely upon them. This response was a
collective expression of concern from the community to have
certainty that its cultural and economic well-being would be
protected.
The EPA responded to our request by conducting a scientific
assessment of the watershed and the salmon fishery. EPA has
been responsible for several public hearings throughout our
region. Ninety-eight percent of the people from Bristol Bay who
commented to EPA, more than 1,200 comments all together,
supported EPA action, just a remarkable level of agreement and
participation from our region. This is an issue that has
bipartisan support in the State of Alaska and elsewhere.
EPA should complete its scientific study and address the
request to protect Bristol Bay. There is a legitimate national
interest in protecting clean water that has, for centuries,
supported the people and economy of our region. As a
businessperson, I would welcome a regulatory agency telling me
right up front the core parameters of a permit that are
proposed for my proposed operations.
The pure and abundant waters of Bristol Bay support a
salmon fishery that is the very foundation of Bristol Bay,
unique in the world, and truly a national treasure. We, the
people of the region, know we live in one of the most
incredible places on earth. Our region feels threatened to its
core by the proposed mine. The threat posed by the proposed
Pebble Mine has gone on long enough.
We support EPA, and we urge swift and decisive action under
the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Vactor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norman Van Vactor, CEO/President of Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. My name is
Norman Van Vactor and I am the CEO/President of the Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC) in Dillingham, Alaska. I have
lived and worked in the Bristol Bay region for the last 38 years. For
37 of those years I divided my time between Bristol Bay and Seattle,
Washington. I started as a deckhand on fishing tenders working my way
through college as a vessel Captain, later joining the Shore Side
Management team with Peter Pan Seafoods as a Plant Manager. With time I
became the Bristol Bay Manager for Peter Pan Seafoods, one of the
largest seafood companies in the United States. My responsibilities
included managing the shore-based cannery and the floating processing
ships. In 2006 I joined a smaller family-owned fishing company and
started a shore-based freezing operation in Dillingham. Subsequently I
became the General Manager of Leader Creek fisheries based in Naknek,
Alaska.
From operating the oldest continually operating cannery in Alaska,
to being involved with the development, construction, and modification
of floating processors, to new startups, to taking on regulatory and
other issues that preceded my direct involvement, my experiences
throughout the fishing industry in Bristol Bay have been varied.
Through these experiences, I have seen first-hand the immense
economic and cultural value of the Bristol Bay fishery. Last fall I was
offered the opportunity to become the CEO/President of BBEDC. We are a
regional community-based corporation charged with developing and
enhancing the economic opportunities in the 17 communities that we
represent and for the greater Bristol Bay watershed when possible. Our
support and constituency is not race-based but residency-based. The
indigenous people and folks like myself who call Bristol Bay home have
one commonality--our lives and economy focus around salmon.
My testimony today focuses on the importance of the Bristol Bay
economic engine--the pristine salmon fishery--and the positive role EPA
has played and should play in assisting the people of Bristol Bay in
protecting this immensely important economic and cultural resource.
First I will define for you the economics of Bristol Bay; second I will
speak to my business experiences as a manager of seafood processors in
the community and as President/CEO of BBEDC; third I will explain my
view on why the location, size and type of the proposed Pebble Mine
presents an unacceptable risk to our economy and people; and finally, I
will lay out the reasons why my community and others have asked the EPA
to step in and use its legal authority to help protect the Bristol Bay
watershed.
bristol bay economics
The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is without question large and
valuable. The commercial salmon industry has been in place for over 120
years to say nothing of the time period of subsistence and recreational
use before that. It is the world's single most valuable wild salmon
fishery and provides about 50 percent of the world's sockeye salmon
production. The economic importance of the fishery extends well beyond
Bristol Bay and Alaska, and is particularly significant to the West
Coast States of Washington, Oregon, and California. . . . In fact, the
Bristol Bay fishery provides 14,000 jobs to the Nation. Every summer,
over 7,000 commercial fishermen fish in Bristol Bay and this provides
essential income and additional jobs to watershed residents. The
University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research found
the Bristol Bay salmon fishery has a total economic output or sales
value of $1.5 billion across the United States (see Attachment 1--
retained in Committee's files).
In the just completed fishing season of 2013, over 23 million fish
found their way home and about 16 million fish were sustainably
harvested. All that in a down biological cycle. Our fishery is robust
and healthy because of the pristine and untouched watershed conditions.
Consumers, increasingly aware of the healthy attributes of wild salmon
vs. farmed salmon, are seeking our wild salmon products. Our fishery
and the economic value derived from it, while not without challenges,
are looking better than they have for 20 years.
We know we have to invest in our own future. To that end, BBEDC
recently acquired a 50 percent stake in Ocean Beauty Seafoods, one of
the largest seafood processors and distributors in Alaska. In addition,
Silver Bay Seafoods, a new player to the region and largely owned by
fishermen, is building a new shore-based processing plant with
capitalization in excess of $40 million. Silver Bay plans on being
operational in 2014. These investments in our resource are being done
with faith and hope for a continued healthy and sustainable fishery far
into the future. Greater investment opportunity exists and I have no
doubt that others would invest their resources if the cloud of
uncertainty, posed by the threat of the Pebble Mine, was eliminated.
In February of 2011, after two years of engaging community members
in 27 communities, the people of Bristol Bay drafted the ``Bristol Bay
Vision Statement'' (see Attachment 2--retained in Committee's files).
As you can see the people of Bristol Bay have a clear vision for
the future. That vision is based on the fact that we are a salmon-based
community and economy, and the vision is founded on a fish-first
policy.
positive role of epa permitting and enforcement in the business
community
My perspective, and the perspective shared by most of the industry
at the production level with boots on the tundra and in the boats of
BB, is that EPA has been present, fair and consistent. I personally had
positive and helpful interactions with EPA during my experience
managing the seafood processing community. Further, I found EPA to be
effective and fair in permitting and enforcing standards, and this
fairness helps promote positive business decisions.
Togiak Seafoods, which is owned in part by one of our member
communities, is a good example where EPA provided clarity upfront so
that the project could proceed. EPA told folks right off the bat that,
given the volume of discharge and the location of the facility, certain
criteria must apply to obtain a discharge permit for the site. This
early input changed the way the community approached and implemented
its business plan. EPA's input didn't stop the project; rather it
changed it for the better of the community and industry.
We can construct things properly and run our businesses accordingly
when we know the necessary standards up-front. This also provides
needed certainty for both the community and investors. Standards and
regulations are important for the public and regulated community, but
they are not enough. We also need strong and consistent enforcement by
EPA to make sure that there is a level playing field amongst the
regulated industry. Consistent enforcement rewards those in compliance
and also provides a clear message to the regulated community that there
is a price to be paid for non-compliance with permits intended to
protect the environment.
proposed pebble mine
The location, type, and size of the proposed Pebble Mine--as
described in the Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.'s own publicly-
available documents--presents an unacceptable risk to our people and
economy. The proposed mine sits at the headwaters of the Kvichak and
Nushagak River drainages, two of the most prolific salmon-producing
watersheds in the world. These headwater areas include streams and
wetlands that support the essential salmon spawning and rearing habitat
of these drainages, and pristine water quality of these areas is
critical for salmon production and survival.
The Pebble deposit is a low-grade ore that requires large-scale
mining to be economically viable. If fully developed, Pebble Mine would
be the largest mine of its type in North America, and would dwarf the
combined size of all mines ever developed in Alaska.
Finally, a significant percentage of the ore within the Pebble
deposit includes potentially acid-generating properties. The proposed
Pebble Mine therefore would require the use of a tailings storage
facility where acid-generating tailings would be stored behind a dam in
perpetuity.
In short, no iteration of the Pebble Mine plans I have seen is
acceptable or good for Bristol Bay. These plans all contain
unacceptable risks to the greatest wild salmon run left on the planet.
the epa and bristol bay
I want to highlight that EPA is involved in Bristol Bay because the
community asked EPA to engage and protect the fishery and the people
who rely upon it. Our community has received little support from the
State of Alaska to date and we therefore turned to the Federal
Government. In May 2010, six federally recognized tribes and commercial
fishermen petitioned EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act
to protect our fishery. Other Bristol Bay area tribes, the Bristol Bay
Native Corporation, and Bristol Bay commercial and sport fishing
groups, among others, also requested that EPA take action to protect
Bristol Bay. This was a collective expression of concern from the
community to have certainty that its cultural and economic well-being
would be protected.
The EPA responded to our request by conducting a rigorous
scientific assessment of the watershed and the salmon fishery. The
EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment allows the EPA to move forward
to protect the region based on solid science-based information. In
completing its watershed assessment, the EPA conducted two essential
peer reviews of its document and supporting studies. The EPA has also
been extremely responsive to public comments and concerns, including
visiting our region to hold public comment meetings in six villages--
Igiugig, Levelock, Naknek, Nondalton, New Stuyahok, and Dillingham. I
personally participated in three hearings and meetings that EPA held
throughout the Bristol Bay region. To me, the EPA has been very
responsive to our concerns.
In addition to visiting the region, EPA had two public comment
periods on the watershed assessment document. During the second public
comment period, 98 percent of the people commenting from the Bristol
Bay region--more than 1,200 people total--sent letters to the EPA in
support of process and the watershed assessment, a truly remarkable
level of agreement and participation from our region.
The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment describes the location, size
and type of the proposed Pebble Mine and clearly describes the threats
to our lifestyle, community, and economic foundation. Again, no
iteration of the Pebble Mine plans I have seen is acceptable or good
for Bristol Bay.
In my opinion the EPA should develop performance standards that
will ensure that we deal with the hard questions about the proposed
Pebble Mine up-front, thus providing greater certainty to businesses
and the entire Bristol Bay community. The EPA has the legal authority
to implement performance standards through the Clean Water Act, Section
404(c). The Riley/Yocom Report from 2011 (executive summary included as
Attachment 3--retained in Committee's files) describes the following
performance standards that I believe EPA should implement to address
proposed mining activities in the Bristol Bay watershed:
1. No discharge of dredged or fill material into salmon spawning and
rearing habitat;
2. No discharge of dredged or fill material that is toxic to aquatic
life;
3. No discharge of dredged or fill material that requires treatment
of runoff or seepage in perpetuity.
EPA should take action now to protect Bristol Bay. There is a
legitimate national interest in protecting clean water that has for
centuries supported the people and economy of Bristol Bay. As a
businessman, I would welcome someone telling me up front the core
parameters of a permit for my proposed operations.
Our community has been dealing with the uncertainty caused by PLP
for many years. In fact, this summer Senator Lisa Murkowski called for
a stop to this lengthy uncertainty, stating that the proposed Pebble
Mine has promoted ``anxiety, frustration, and confusion'' in many
Alaska communities. I couldn't agree more. EPA could, by developing
performance standards now, go a long way to eliminate that uncertainty.
conclusion
The pure, pristine, and abundant water of Bristol Bay supports a
salmon fishery that is the very foundation of Bristol Bay, unique in
the world, and which is a national treasure. The people of Bristol Bay
know we live in one of the most incredible places on earth--all due to
our pristine fishery. And that fishery is threatened to its core by the
proposed Pebble Mine.
EPA's draft watershed assessment has added immense knowledge and
value to the discussion concerning Bristol Bay. This information is
vital to our community and future activities proposed for the Bristol
Bay watershed. And just as we knew which standards would apply when I
worked on bringing the Wood River Seafood Plant back to life, so too
would responsible mining companies benefit upfront from knowing what
standards to apply to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts to salmon
fisheries.
In short, the threat to Bristol Bay posed by the proposed Pebble
Mine has gone on long enough. EPA should, as soon as possible, finalize
the assessment and use its Clean Water Act authority to develop and
implement performance standards that would apply to the proposed Pebble
Mine. I support EPA, and urge swift and decisive action by it to
protect Bristol Bay.
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. We will now begin our
questioning. Members are limited to 5 minutes, but we may have
an additional round.
Let me fill you in on what is happening on the Floor. They
are about to start votes. So when that happens, we will
continue a little bit further along, then we will go into
recess, and it will be about 30 minutes or so before we can
come back. And then, at that point, we will resume. And I would
ask the patience of each of our witnesses to indulge us while
we go over and vote for about 30 minutes, which is coming up
fairly soon.
I am going to yield my first 5 minutes of questioning to my
colleague, Representative Young of Alaska, for scheduling
purposes. And then he will yield to me in return. So, for 5
minutes, Representative Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding
this hearing. I would like at this time to offer a testimony by
Linda Kile and submit it for the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. There is no objection; so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kile, submitted by
Representative Young for the record, follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda Kile
My husband and I have placer mining claims in Alaska near the
border with Canada. Most of our claims are patented and therefore
private property. My husband has 50 years of mining experience and I've
been with him for 36 years. Over the years we've been visited by
multiple regulatory agencies, all of whom arrived without prior notice,
but all of whom sought us out, explained the reason for their visit and
we proceeded from there. Our most recent visit by the EPA in no way
resembled any of our previous encounters.
This experience began Tuesday, August 20, 2013 with a single engine
aircraft circling our camp at various times during the day, as well as
flying up and down the creek which passes through our claims. We had no
idea who it was or why they were circling our camp.
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 the plane returned and again circled
our camp several times and flew up and down the creek. We were becoming
quite disturbed because it was now obvious we were under some type of
surveillance and we wanted to know who it was and why we were being
watched.
At approximately 5:30 p.m. that day I heard several four-wheelers
on the road below our camp, which is nothing unusual except the engines
were suddenly shut off. I looked over the bank and saw three people
wandering around. I headed down the hill toward them to see who they
were and ask why they had stopped. As I got closer I was stunned to see
that they all were wearing bullet-proof vests and were carrying various
weapons. I looked down the road and saw three more armed and vested
people with my husband and son. My mind was reeling at this point
because I'd never seen anything like that on our mining claims. I
approached them and asked who they were. In response one of the men
silently pointed to the words on his bullet-proof vest which said
``FEDERAL AGENT''. I asked what that meant and they said ``EPA''. I
then asked if there was something specific they wanted and they said
they were taking water samples for the ``Clean Water Act'', though I
didn't see them take any samples. They said they were going to check
all our creeks, two of which actually converged right next to them. I
suggested they go ahead and take their samples right there in front of
me, but they refused. They said they were going to look around on our
claims. I informed them it was private property and was posted as such.
Their only response was ``Clean Water Act''. I also asked them about
the aircraft that had been circling us and they denied knowing anything
about an aircraft.
At that point they got on their wheelers and drove onto our
property over to one of our shaker plants (used for sluicing),
dismounted and began taking pictures of the shaker and surrounding
area. I went to where my husband and son were talking with the other
agents. He too questioned them as to why they were on our property
taking pictures and what the pictures were for. The only response to
him was the same that I'd received, ``Clean Water Act'' with no
additional explanations. He also asked them about the aircraft and one
agent replied that it was their ``air support''. My husband inquired
about the firearms and show of force and the only response to that
question was, ``It's policy''. Two of the agents stayed close to my
husband and son while another was on our property taking pictures of
our other shaker box. My husband questioned them about bypassing the
``Private Property--No Trespassing'' signs and taking pictures and
again the only response received was ``Clean Water Act''.
The six agents eventually left without any further communication
with us. My husband, son and I were all very confused and upset about
the entire encounter. At no time did any of them ever approach us and
identify themselves. They presented no documentation to confirm their
identities or explain the purpose of their invasion (the word ``visit''
is too civil a term for this encounter). We had to approach them. None
of us witnessed them take a single water sample, so there is no way for
us to verify if they actually did take samples, or if so where those
alleged samples came from. The more we processed the encounter the more
upset we became. We comply with all regulations and have never been
cited for any violations. Suddenly and without provocation we are set
upon by six fully armed agents on the ground and two in the air. They
violated our property with no regard or respect for ``No Trespassing''
signs, and left us with the frightening realization that this is
happening in the United States of America to law-abiding citizens and
it's being perpetrated by our own Government.
On September 14, 2013 there was a meeting in Chicken, Alaska
regarding EPA's ``visit'' to multiple mining operations in that area.
This meeting was attended by multiple miners; Sean Parnell, Governor of
Alaska; representatives from the offices of Senator Murkowski and
Congressman Young; as well as representatives of state legislators,
along with Ken Fisher from the EPA in Juneau and Ted Murphy from BLM.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Murphy questioned about the necessity of the blatant
show of force, as well as how they determined whom to visit. They
stated that the list of mines they visited was a result of lengthy
criminal investigations of miners with a history of non-compliance.
They felt the weapons were necessary due to reports of heavy criminal
activity in the area involving drug and human trafficking, and child
endangerment as reported to them by Alaska State Troopers (which the
troopers denied).
______
Mr. Young. And for the gentleman from Oregon, I am going to
remind him that he was not there, and there is testimony that
they were carrying M-16s and assault shotguns, fully armored,
and said, ``Police Agents.'' This is a SWAT team. They did not
communicate with any of the people they were investigating,
they would not answer. All they would say, ``Clean Water Act,''
``Clean Water Act.'' This is not the way our government should
talk.
They have been visited many times, and regulatory agencies
have visited them. They always go in and introduce themselves.
This was not Federal land, it was State land, State claims, and
patented claims. They broke the law. And any time our
government starts doing that without due process of the law, we
have lost our government. We are losing it.
There is such a thing as a handshake, say, ``Listen, I have
a problem. We want to take water samples,'' and they could have
done that. But, no, they came down with the heavy, just like
the Park Service is doing in my State. There is no
consideration of the human factor. And I think you will find
out these small mines have been running, for like you said, 37,
40 years--1895? There have been no complaints, no science. Why
the strong arm?
I just want you to think about this. You sit back on that
side of the aisle and think, ``Oh, the government is so good,
let's hug them,'' when they are, in fact, hurting people.
Legitimately not doing so--in fact, they have a process which--
they are forcing the little guys--we have heard about the coal
mines, we heard about Pebble Mine, we have heard about the
State. But let's think about the little guy. You are supposed
to be for little guy. You are for big government. Government
can't be wrong. Government is always right. They rolled a 79-
year-old man around in the mud, arrested him on nothing
charges. You are supposed to be for the little guy. No, you are
for big government.
Mr. Maier, I want to ask you one question. Has much changed
in these Fortymile areas, as far as mining goes, in the last 22
years?
Mr. Maier. We just have a lot more Federal regulations to
deal with, so the permitting----
Mr. Young. But the process, though, has not changed?
Mr. Maier. No. We still fill out our APMA and then--oh, you
mean as far as the mining goes?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Maier. As to how we mine? No, it is still--we just--we
wash the rocks. We do settling ponds now, and do reclamation
mandatory since----
Mr. Young. And I want to stress that settling pond, because
that was not a requirement when it started in 1895.
Mr. Maier. No.
Mr. Young. So now you have settling ponds.
Mr. Maier. Yes.
Mr. Young. And the settling ponds are supposed to reach the
quality of drinking water?
Mr. Maier. Yes.
Mr. Young. Which is very nearly impossible?
Mr. Maier. Yes, I don't know how you would do that.
Mr. Young. Yes, because now, that is what they are probably
basing this on. But they were--were they exempted for a period
of time, or this is relatively new?
Mr. Maier. No--well, in 1986, when the--through ANILCA, and
the management plans that were passed through Congress then is
when the mandates for mandatory reclamation and water--having
ponds and--so----
Mr. Young. Now, the State did this first?
Mr. Maier. No, that, I think that came, as far as my
knowledge, is it came through after ANILCA and the management
plans were passed.
Mr. Young. But OK, management. Even EPA at that time wasn't
doing the investigation, though.
Mr. Maier. No, not to my knowledge.
Mr. Young. BLM is making things more difficult for you now?
They are trying to put you out of business, is what I am trying
to get across.
Mr. Maier. Yes, the BLM, they are working on a new
management plan in the eastern interior, and it is getting far
more restrictive. There are, well, for instance, there are six-
and-a-half million acres in the Fortymile subunit. The current
active mining claims, Federal mining claims, right now on the
Fortymile are about 25,000 acres. So that is less than, that is
about .4 percent of the Federal land that is open for mineral
entry. And now they want to limit more. They want to restrict
more.
And our main contention about this is the Federal
Government, the BLM, just spent 3 years publishing a 1,400-page
monstrous proposal, they are going to redesignate land. They
want to put more restrictions on access. We have a bone of
contention with them over access on R.S. 2477's and
navigability issues.
We have a plan that Congress passed in 1986. It is the
Fortymile management plan. There are plenty of environmental
safeguards in there. We, as the district, and the miners in the
district, we try every way we humanly can to comply with these
mandates.
Mr. Young. That is already the law.
Mr. Maier. Yes.
Mr. Young. I want everybody to remember, already the law,
and now they are trying to change that law. That is the thing
that concerns me a great deal.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I do thank you. And I
want to thank the witnesses.
And, Linda, I am sorry I submitted your written testimony.
I would like for you to have been able to tell this committee
that feeling of private property and these agents not
responding to your questions at all.
Again, think about our government. Forget your liberal
labels. If you really believe in the people, start thinking
about the little people. And shame on you if you don't.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. We will now have time for one more
Member's questions. Then we will go into about a 30-minute
recess. Representative Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thanks. Mr. Hamilton, let me clarify something in
your testimony that I am really not sure of.
According to the Coal Facts newsletter, published by the
West Virginia Coal Association, has the number of employed coal
miners increased or decreased in recent years?
Mr. Hamilton. It should show a decrease.
Dr. Holt. Well, in the Coal Facts 2012, the employment
figures show 22,000 miners, the highest level in any of the
reports on your Web site, an increase of 3,000 over the level
from 4 years before. Is it increase or decrease? I am----
Mr. Hamilton. The 2012 Coal Facts----
Dr. Holt. I am genuinely----
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Would have contained information
on calendar year 2011.
Dr. Holt. I see.
Mr. Hamilton. There was a slight blip in employment from
2008 to 2011.
Dr. Holt. 2011, OK.
Mr. Hamilton. Basically, due to the increased manpower
demands on loss of efficiencies because of every mining company
basically mining out of cycle, mining out of sequence, mining
areas that they----
Dr. Holt. OK. Now, Mr. Hamilton----
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Did not engineer, because of the
lack of permits.
Dr. Holt. OK. So it is from the year before.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
Dr. Holt. But your testimony accuses, I think that is
probably the right word, the administration of being directly
responsible for declining coal production in West Virginia,
from the day of President Obama's inauguration. Do you know
what actually happened to national coal production over the
first 2 years of the Obama administration?
Mr. Hamilton. I am not sure about national production.
Dr. Holt. OK. It increased. Do you know what happened to
the national coal production in the first 2 years of the Bush
administration?
Mr. Hamilton. I am not sure.
Dr. Holt. Actually, it decreased. So, you know, I would
caution you against throwing these accusations around about a
war.
Mr. Hamilton. Well, what I know is we produced 165 million
tons of coal the year before President Obama took office. This
year we will likely produce less than 100 million tons, a loss
of 65 million tons of coal over a 4\1/2\-year period, and the
loss of some 3,500 jobs.
Dr. Holt. And how much of that do you attribute to the use
of natural gas for energy----
Mr. Hamilton. There has clearly been an influence by the
abundance of low-cost natural gas----
Dr. Holt. I think a----
Mr. Hamilton. Coal has actually regained most of the lost
production to natural gas over the last 18 months, due to the
price increases in natural gas. At least----
Dr. Holt. I mean the use of coal for electricity from 2011
to 2012 was down nearly 13 percent, natural gas up about 21
percent. So again, I am not sure that we can attribute this to
a war on coal by the Obama administration.
Mr. Hamilton. Well, in addition to the lost jobs----
Dr. Holt. Let me ask Mr. DeFazio if----
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. There have been some 300 coal-
fired power plants shut down----
Dr. Holt [continuing]. He has--let me ask Mr. DeFazio----
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. West Virginia.
Dr. Holt [continuing]. In my remaining 2 minutes if he has
some questions that he would like to----
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman, yes. I would like to
turn to the gentleman, Mr. Van Vactor, on Pebble.
You know, it's been said that this is this national war,
this Federal agency coming in to a place where it is not
wanted. Could you tell me who requested the EPA to come in and
do this oversight?
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, it was
an incredible coalition, the likes of which we have never seen
in the State of Alaska before. As I mentioned, it was the
native corporations, it was Tribes, it was the sport fishing
industry, it was the commercial fishing industry. We asked EPA
to come in because we felt the State wasn't coming in.
Mr. DeFazio. And so you are telling me the commercials and
the sports and the Tribes don't get along all the time, huh?
Mr. Van Vactor. We do not get along all the time. So this
was a very unique instance----
Mr. DeFazio. Right, I get that.
Mr. Van Vactor [continuing]. A broadband coalition.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Now, as I understand it, people also say
this is based on a hypothetical. But weren't there documents by
the proponents of the mine that were filed, upon which the
analysis was based? And isn't it true that there would be
hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic tailings or potentially
leachate tailings, that would have to be sequestered forever,
in order not to impact water quality?
Mr. Van Vactor. No question, Mr. Congressman through the
Chair. The facts that the State has, tens upon thousands of
pages of documents, which are actually generated by the mining
companies themselves, as to the different possibilities and
different applications, and different results. All you need to
do is go to their own Web site, their own homepage. And it is
not just tens of thousands of toxic tons. It is over ten
billion tons. And that information comes right from their own
homepage.
Mr. DeFazio. And you think that this could have an impact
on water quality?
Mr. Van Vactor. No question, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Van Vactor. The livelihood of the folks----
Mr. DeFazio. How many jobs for the mine versus the
sustainable jobs? Last question. I am running out of time.
Mr. Van Vactor. Hundreds to maybe 1,500 versus tens of
thousands.
Mr. DeFazio. That are sustainable forever?
Mr. Van Vactor. Absolutely. Sustainable forever and have
been around forever.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Dr. Holt. Reclaiming the time, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask unanimous consent to submit in the record a letter to
the subcommittee from Trout Unlimited in support of the EPA's
assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed.
[No response.]
Mr. Lamborn. If there is no objection, so ordered.
Dr. Holt. Thank you.
[The letter from Trout Unlimited to the Subcommittee,
submitted for the record by Representative Holt, follows:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by Representative Holt
Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA
October 9, 2013.
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
1333 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Rush Holt, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
H2-186 Ford House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Holt:
Trout Unlimited (TU) is writing on behalf of its 150,000 members
nationwide to comment on the October 10th Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee hearing titled, ``EPA vs. American Mining Jobs: The Obama
Administration's Regulatory Assault on the Economy.'' Please include
our letter in the hearing record. We wish to take this opportunity to
convey our strong support for the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) actions in regards to proposed large scale mining in the
headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
TU's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's
trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Protecting Bristol
Bay's world class fishery from the likely harm caused by the proposed
Pebble Mine--which would be one of the world's largest open pit mines,
located in the headwaters of Bristol Bay's most productive rivers--is
our highest conservation priority.
EPA's decision to conduct a watershed assessment on the potential
mining impacts in Bristol Bay's headwaters was based on requests from
local stakeholders--native Alaskans, commercial and recreational
fishermen, lodge owners, and others--to protect the Bristol Bay
watershed and the 14,000 recreational and commercial fishing jobs and
$1.5 billion in annual economic activity that it supports. The EPA has
done a thorough and commendable job of assessing the risks of mining to
the world class fisheries of the Bristol Bay region. When the EPA
released its second draft of its watershed assessment, more than
650,000 commenters expressed support for protecting the region's
fisheries and for EPA's assessment. Across the country, three out of
four comments received were supportive of the EPA's efforts, and in
Alaska, the EPA's assessment was supported by 84 percent of statewide
residents and an incredible 98 percent of Bristol Bay regional
residents.
The watershed assessment found that even in a best case scenario,
mining would destroy 87 miles of salmon streams and 2,500 acres of
wetlands, and create 10 billion tons of waste which would be stored in
perpetuity in one of the most seismically active regions in the State.
America's foremost professional fisheries group, the American Fisheries
Society (AFS), and hundreds of leading scientists across the Nation
agree with TU that the EPA's estimates of habitat and fisheries loss
are conservative.
A frequent criticism of the draft watershed assessment is its
reliance on a ``hypothetical'' mind proposal. There is not very much
that is hypothetical about this mine. Northern Dynasty Minerals, one of
the two principals in the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), presented a
mine plan to the Securities and Exchange Commission to secure investor
support for the Pebble project, and has since lauded the mine's
potential benefits through an economic study based on reasonable mining
scenarios in the Bristol Bay region. PLP has claimed that a mine
scenario does not exist, while at the same time touting the economic
value of it to State and Federal officials and their shareholders. PLP
cannot have it both ways. Senator Murkowski recently agreed with many
stakeholders in Alaska that PLP cannot continue on its path without
unveiling a mining plan to the public.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Senator Murkowski, July 1, 2013: http://
www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=3b2efb37-
cdd2-4203-8568-72c405e2a4e4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps most telling about the risk presented by this project is
the recent decision by Anglo American, one of the world's biggest
mining companies, to withdraw from the Pebble Partnership, stating that
they were going to ``prioritise capital to projects with the highest
value and lowest risks.'' The company did not mention the EPA as a
reason for its decision to withdraw. When specifically asked whether
their outlook on regulations and permitting had changed, an Anglo
American spokesman reiterated that ``our decision to withdraw from the
project is the result of an internal prioritisation of the many
projects that we have in our portfolio.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet's Richest Undeveloped
Gold Deposit. Bloomberg Businessweek, September 27, 2013: http://
www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-27/why-anglo-american-walked-
away-from-the-pebblemine-gold-deposit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If ever the EPA had the authority, and indeed the necessity to
protect a body of water, Bristol Bay is it. The EPA has properly
assessed the science and allowed a thorough public response to its
findings. A coalition of businesses, commercial and recreational
fishermen, jewelers, outdoor industries, and Alaskan Natives,
represents stakeholders from across the political spectrum who are
united in the common purpose of protecting some of the most productive
salmon and trout habitat on the planet that possesses huge commercial,
subsistence and recreational value.
We believe it is in everyone's best interest for EPA to use its
Clean Water Act authorities to set prudent limits on industrial-scale
mining that will both protect the region's unsurpassed fishery
resources and the economies and communities they sustain, while
clarifying for potential mine developers what is and is not permissible
so they can make informed business decisions.
Finally, we urge the Subcommittee to listen carefully to the voice
of Alaskans on this matter. We appreciate the Subcommittee's invitation
to Norm Van Vactor, a commercial fisherman and CEO of the Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation, who will provide strong testimony in
support of protecting Bristol Bay. Former Alaska State Senate President
and Republican Majority Leader Rick Halford also opposes the mine,
saying ``Mining can do a lot of good things, but the bottom line is
that this particular place is the last place on earth we should have a
sulfide mine so large that it dwarfs the largest open pit mine in North
America.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA Could Move to Stop Pebble Mine, Flyfisherman.com, May 14,
2012: http://www.flyfisherman.com/2012/05/14/epa-could-move-to-stop-
pebble-mine/#axzz2h9dVs3v3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee should consider the thousands of Alaskans who
commented on the watershed assessment, the majority of whom oppose the
mine and support EPA's scientific assessment. We urge the Subcommittee
and other decisionmakers in this process to join local Alaskans in
support of the scientifically and economically justified need to
protect Bristol Bay.
Sincerely,
Steve Moyer,
Vice President of Government Affairs.
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK. We will now go into recess for roughly 30
minutes. Thank you all for your patience. As soon as we are
done voting we will come back and resume.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lamborn. The subcommittee will come back to order.
Thanks for your patience, everyone. We are done voting, so we
won't have to run off again. We can stay here and finish up.
And this is an important hearing within the jurisdiction and
oversight of the subcommittee, so I am glad we can do this.
I am going to start out asking my first question to Mr.
Hamilton.
You mentioned, in your testimony, the tsunami of objection
letters that were sent to mining companies in West Virginia
after President Obama was sworn in. Can you describe the nature
of these objection letters concerning coal mining in West
Virginia?
Mr. Hamilton. The letters, for the most part, appeared to
be form letters that were sent to every mining operation in the
State that had either a permit pending or recently issued
permit, or a permit modification before either the Corps of
Engineers or EPA. And they were objection letters objecting to
the permit without specificity.
Mr. Lamborn. And how many, what number are we talking
about, what quantity?
Mr. Hamilton. A hundred.
Mr. Lamborn. And they were all the same?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, that begs the question. Were they
thought out, or were they just done en masse to start
objections for the sake of objections?
Mr. Hamilton. They appear to be en masse, and they were
issued either the day of or the day following the President's
inauguration in----
Mr. Lamborn. I don't see how they could have had time to
investigate 100 different pending permits and send out 100
letters on a one-by-one basis. That is not possible.
What is the coal mining industry's relationship in West
Virginia with EPA? What was it like prior to President Obama
being sworn in?
Mr. Hamilton. EPA, as it relates to its role in the State
of West Virginia, has always maintained an oversight role with
the U.S. Corps of Engineers, in an oversight capacity also with
the Office of Surface Mining, but primarily with the Corps of
Engineers. They were involved with several major comprehensive
environmental impact statements that were brought about for
various reasons throughout 2000 to 2007 or 2008. They had a
presence, but the presence was principally in an oversight
capacity.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. What do you think, in more
general terms, of the EPA's use of science as it relates to
coal mining and the operation of coal-fired electrical plants?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, it appears that most of the science
relied on by the EPA as it relates to mining operations and
coal-fired generating facilities is science basically held by
the agency, reviewed by the agency, and relied on by the
agency. There is a widespread disagreement on a lot of the
science that the agency relies upon to make its policy in
regulatory decisions.
Mr. Lamborn. Has it all been made public?
Mr. Hamilton. Some has, some hasn't.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you have any disagreements with some of the
specific applications of their science, or as it might compare
to other findings?
Mr. Hamilton. Quite honestly, we have been put in a
situation where we suspect and have disagreements with
practically every aspect of the agency's rulemaking and
policymaking process.
Mr. Lamborn. Can you give me an example in my last 58
seconds here?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, I am not sure, maybe if I could have
some clarification to the question.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I will tell you what. Ponder that a minute
in case we have a second round.
Mr. Hamilton. OK.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Fogels, you said States should have more
flexibility in mining regulations. What could Congress do to
achieve that?
Mr. Fogels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We believe that there
could be some flexibility built into both the Clean Water Act
and CERCLA, and maybe some other Federal laws, that might allow
the States to a little more effectively manage their natural
resources. In the Clean Water Act, we are currently evaluating
whether the State of Alaska should go for primacy in wetlands
permitting.
And the big issue for us there is which wetlands do we
actually get jurisdiction over. We feel the Clean Water Act is
a bit ambiguous in that. And we would certainly think that it
is worth discussing whether the Clean Water Act could be
tightened up to allow the States to take the majority of the
wetlands within their States.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much. We are now going to go to
Representative Fleming. Oh, excuse me. Representative Fleming?
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Van Vactor, the
title of today's hearing is, ``EPA Versus American Mining
Jobs,'' and you have heard testimony that really focuses on the
impact of NPA--excuse me, EPA regulations, and over-the-top
enforcement of regulations, guns drawn, you know, SWAT-style
tactics, and so forth. And I am enamored--excuse me. I am moved
by the fact that you are enamored with the EPA in all of that.
But you note that the economic impact of the Bristol Bay
fisheries, and particularly the salmon fishery, rather, to the
economy of the Bristol Bay region. Are you aware of the
proposed EPA regulations on discharges from fishing vessels?
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, first of
all, I don't know that I am enamored, other than I said I was
in support of EPA action in Bristol Bay.
Second, as it relates to the commentary about guns drawn, I
can't speak to the situations that folks like Mr. Sheldon
experienced----
Dr. Fleming. Well, you weren't there, neither was I----
Mr. Van Vactor. Right.
Dr. Fleming. So there is no reason to get in it. But the
point is, what about the EPA regulations for fishing vessels?
That is what I am asking about.
Mr. Van Vactor. What I can speak to, sir, is that, as it
relates to large fishing vessels, large fishing processors such
that were utilized in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, I am
somewhat familiar with the discharge permits required by those.
Dr. Fleming. Do you agree with them?
Mr. Van Vactor. Yes, I do.
Dr. Fleming. And you are not concerned about the effect on
the fishing industry, the impact, the economic impact, and the
problems that that may cause?
Mr. Van Vactor. I am always concerned about options and
deviations. But at the end of the day, the rules and
regulations that are in place provide for a level playing
field. We know who we have to talk to to get discharge
permits----
Dr. Fleming. If it caused a 30 percent decline in your
revenues, and unemployed 3,500 people from the fisheries
industry, would you be comfortable with that?
Mr. Van Vactor. For the sake of the greater good, and I am
not sure where you are getting those statistics----
Dr. Fleming. Well, I am giving an example here with the
mining industry. Your fellow witness next to you, this is what
he said has happened to the mining industry. And so, I am just
simply applying that to the fishing industry, and to see if you
would feel the same way about the EPA if there was a war on
fishing, the way there has been a war on coal.
Mr. Van Vactor. If fishing vessels, sir, were discharging
in an area that was improper, that was distracting and
destroying the habitat and the run, we would be willing to
forego that harvest.
Dr. Fleming. But----
Mr. Van Vactor. And the jobs associated with it.
Dr. Fleming. But again, an all-out--again, reduction of 30
percent production, the retroactive removal of permitting, the
loss of 3,500 jobs, you would be comfortable with that type of
loss, and also vessels being boarded by armed people with flak
jackets and, I guess, rifles or shotguns, as we have heard
discussed, would you be comfortable with that, Mr. Van Vactor?
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, let me
speak to that, I guess your last comment, first.
I can speak to dozens, if not hundreds, of boarding
incidents that would have taken place just as late in 2013
which are considered routine in our industry. The State of
Alaska, we refer to them as the brown shirts; they are the
enforcement division for Fish and Game, boards our vessels all
the time.
Dr. Fleming. Without identifying themselves, they typically
board the vessel and start picking up equipment, looking
around, and not even identifying themselves?
Mr. Van Vactor. They come on board, they are uniformed, for
the strict purpose of identifying and checking crewmen's
licenses.
Dr. Fleming. So then, what effect on the Bristol Bay salmon
fishery would there be if EPA decided to enforce the discharge
regulations by sending these armed enforcement guards? What
would be the impact? How would the industry local to you there,
how would they react to that?
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, I have
been in the seafood side of the industry for close to 38 of my
40 years in Bristol Bay. And in many instances I have been
inspected by EPA investigators. In my case, when they showed up
they showed up with state troopers who were armed.
I don't know what the different protocols are for different
agencies, depending upon the situation they are in, and I don't
think it is my place to question that.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So if they show up, state troopers with
guns and so forth, does that mean that people who are fishermen
and have boats somehow are a threat to law enforcement? Why
would they show up with all of that armament?
Mr. Van Vactor. Mr. Congressman through the Chair, again, I
don't want to question our law enforcement agencies for the
protocol in which they respond to specific situations.
In my particular region, we have a bill that is being
sponsored by our State representative right now, asking the
State of Alaska to allow our village public safety officers to
be armed, the very reason being that just 2 months ago one of
our community members was killed in the act of trying to
approach a house where a domestic violence event was taking
place.
Dr. Fleming. Well, that is domestic violence. That is a
completely different subject.
Well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
panel, witnesses, for this irrevocable gift of your time today.
I just want to focus in on one line of questioning, I guess,
and perhaps statements made earlier about the dispute, I guess,
that this administration is waging a ``war on coal.'' And, in
doing so, I want to remind folks that it was earlier this year
that a White House climate advisor, in anticipation of the
President's climate change speech, I think it was in June, told
the New York Times that a war on coal is exactly what is
needed.
I would also want to draw attention to the previous
Chairman of this Committee, who said that, and this was
Chairman Nick Rahall, a Democrat, who said, ``I am dead set
against the EPA and their scheme to issue emission standards
that would make it next to impossible for new coal-fired power
plants to be constructed. This callous, ideologically driven
agency continues to be numb to the economic pain that their
reckless regulations cause. Today's rule is just the latest
salvo in the EPA's war on coal, a war I have unwaveringly
soldiered against. And I will work tirelessly to prevent such
an ill-conceived and illogical plan for moving forward.'' This
was Democrat Chairman of this Committee, Nick Rahall.
Do you feel like you are in a war on coal, each of you?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes. We certainly are, in the State of West
Virginia, where Democrats and Republican office holders alike
have joined together to try to push back and bring some sanity
back to the level of oversight and enforcement by our Federal
agency.
Mr. Cramer. I can tell you that in North Dakota, where I
was once a coal regulator, the Democrat and Republican members
of our delegation are united as well, and all refer to it as a
war on coal.
Sir, do you feel like you are fighting a war on coal?
Mr. Maier. I am a gold miner, so the coal question----
Mr. Cramer. Certainly a good point, yes.
Mr. Maier. But I can see it from the perspective, but I am
not----
Mr. Cramer. You probably feel more like you are in a war
than most people, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Maier. Yes. Well, with the overwhelming Federal
regulations, if we can't get help, I mean I am just here
representing small families, small miners. And we are, this is,
the final straw, if we can't stave off these overwhelming
regulations, we can't survive.
Mr. Cramer. Yes. Let me ask you, because one of the things
that I sometimes find somewhat frustrating is when debate--see,
I like rigorous debate, I enjoy it. And I like it to be civil,
but I also like it to be honest. And is calling it a war on
coal, from your perspective, necessarily all that bad a
characterization of what we are up against?
Mr. Van Vactor. Congressman Cramer through the Chair, you
are looking at me, sir, so I am assuming you are----
Mr. Cramer. I am talking to you, yes.
Mr. Van Vactor. One, I am not an authority on the coal
mining industry, and so I would be happy to pass along some
salmon recipes and invite all of you to Alaska and take you
around the wonderful state, Bristol Bay. So, specifically as it
relates to that issue, I will defer.
I don't see this as a war, sir. I see these as separate
issues, issues that are all delicate, and that we need to take
into balance. I come from a family of South Dakota gold miners
in the Black Hills. And I find myself in Alaska, harvesting
fish.
Mr. Cramer. Yes. And fair enough. I would just say, Mr.
Chairman, my point that I wanted to make is I don't know that
it is so dishonest; well, personally, I think it is very honest
to refer to it as a war on coal. And I don't really know why my
friends who feel like they are fighting the other way are
ashamed to call it a war on coal. I mean, when the
administration themselves have referred to it as a war on coal,
I don't know, and the previous Democrat Chairman has referred
to it as a war on coal.
So, you know, I appreciate what you are up against, and I
certainly appreciate those of you that are especially standing
up for the little guy, as Representative Young referred to, or
the working men and women whose livelihoods are at stake here.
And I think that the economic pain that overreach of regulation
imposes upon the working men and women and the businesses of
our country are not being, adequately being considered, at all.
So, I appreciate all of your testimony with regard to
whatever industry it is, the area, and all sides. And I yield
back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Representative Benishek.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan Benishek. I
represent the northern half of Michigan, where there are a lot
of mining opportunities as well, not coal, but iron, copper,
gold in our area. And we have had a lot of trouble with the
EPA, getting permitted to mine the resources that are there,
although our area has been a mining area for over 100 years,
easily. We have multiple difficulties dealing with the EPA to
get these mines permitted.
But I just kind of wanted to, and it is very frustrating to
me, talk to you, Mr. Maier, about this episode you had with the
EPA. You have been in this area for a decade, as I understand,
right? And you have dealt with regulatory agencies in the past,
right?
Now, apparently, this recent raid was quite a different
episode for you. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Maybe I missed the details in your testimony.
Mr. Maier. Yes. Linda Kile, who is here with me, I didn't
have firsthand experience, because they flew over me multiple
times, but they didn't come on the ground, because I am 30
miles off the highway. It is a little more complicated to get
to my place. But Ms. Kile was visited, and she has a very
disturbing story.
But, yes, we deal with regulators on a constant basis. And
when we do have State regulators come, or BLM come to inspect
us, they are always polite. Yes, they come armed because of the
environment we live in. But they will come out and introduce
themselves. They find us, they know us by name. We know who
they are. And they do their inspections, they go. If we are
doing something wrong, they will say, ``Hey, you guys should
straighten this out.'' And normally we have no problems at all.
Dr. Benishek. So this episode apparently was more of an
intimidating one? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
tell me more about it.
Mr. Maier. Well, we feel, and all the miners feel, that it
was very intimidating. It was very disconcerting, that this can
happen. You know, just to have regulators come in like they
did, in the full armor, body armament, and you know, with their
automatic weapons, shotguns, just to surround people and not
bother to even introduce yourselves. Yes, it was very
disconcerting. But----
Dr. Benishek. They didn't introduce themselves? They didn't
have a warrant of any kind?
Mr. Maier. No.
Dr. Benishek. Did they take anybody away with them?
Mr. Maier. No, they did not.
Dr. Benishek. Did they make any effort to contact you
before they showed up, to notify you that they were coming?
Mr. Maier. No. In fact, in the EPA's statement, they said
it was casual and consensual. Well, no, nobody knew they were
coming. In fact, they did have the DEC in the loop, the State
Department of Environmental Conservation. But as far as the
rest of the agencies we normally--well, the BLM knew about it,
too, because we were trying to find out where the list came
from of the mine sites they were going to visit. And so far we
have no answers from the EPA or the BLM. They kind of just
point their fingers at each other.
Dr. Benishek. Each other, yes.
Mr. Fogels, you know, I mentioned that we have had trouble
with the EPA, as well. I mean we tried to get this county road
built in my district to service the mine. And, you know, the
rules the EPA put out there that we had to comply with changed
on a monthly basis. So it was difficult to comply. And also,
they were so unreasonable. They wanted a moose-proof fence for
the entire length of the road, along with designated moose
crossings, which I never heard of, ever in the history of the
country, having 20, 44 miles of moose-proof fencing. These are
really outrageous demands, never heard of before.
Did you have experience with similar type of things in your
job?
Mr. Fogels. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I would say that we do in
Alaska have similar experiences. I talked earlier in my
testimony about the Environmental Protection Agency's
propensity now to elevate 404 decisions, after the Army Corps
has made them, to a higher level. And then they will deem water
body and aquatic resource of national importance, and then that
just sort of results in a whole bunch of new requirements and
stipulations in the Army Corps' wetlands permit.
Dr. Benishek. A body of water such as what?
Mr. Fogels. Well, one example, we were permitting a bridge
across the Tanana River, which is a large, glacial river near
Fairbanks. And the EPA deemed that water body an aquatic
resource of national interest. And so I remember their
justification was it was a tributary to the Yukon and it had
salmon in it. And so, many rivers in Alaska have salmon in
them, and a lot of rivers in Alaska are tributaries to the
Yukon. So, by that definition, just about any river in interior
Alaska would be an aquatic resource of national interest.
Dr. Benishek. All right. I think my time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative Daines.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Daines. I
represent the State of Montana. So you are seeing the entire
congressional delegation from Montana here, as the at-large
Member. I want to thank you all for the testimony today, and I
want to start with Mr. Hamilton.
You know, in Montana, we have the largest coal reserves in
the country. And often times that is forgotten. We think about
Big Sky County, which I am a fifth-generation Montanan, and I
love to spend a lot of time above 10,000 feet and fly fishing
and hunting and recreating outdoors. We also have tremendous
natural resources in coal, oil, and gas. And more recoverable
coal than any other State in the Union.
In fact, the coal mining industry employs over 1,200 people
in our State. We get more than half of our electricity from
coal, and that keeps energy prices low. Unlike a lot of the
movie stars that have moved out to Montana and built their
starter castles, most Montanans are living paycheck-to-
paycheck, and are fighting to try to make ends meet, as they
fight for their families and raise their kids.
We are already starting to see, in my State of Montana, the
devastating consequences of President Obama's war on coal. And
I won't get into the debate whether it is a war, what have you.
I mean it is semantics, I suppose. But I do know these
regulations are starting to have a tremendous impact on the
business.
But let me just say this. Since elected to Congress here
last fall, I have been developing great relationships with our
tribal leaders in Montana. And normally they don't come
knocking on the door of Republicans. I will tell you what. They
are knocking on my door, and we are having some great
discussions about their future and their vision for prosperity
on the reservations.
One of my dear friends, in fact, I walked to kindergarten
with his cousin, Rachel Old Coyote, her cousin is now Chairman
Darrin Old Coyote of the Crow Tribe. Let me tell you what
Chairman Old Coyote said in Montana just a month ago in front
of a couple of U.S. Senators in Missoula. He said this, and I
quote, ``A war on coal is a war on our families and our
children,'' Crow Tribal Chairman Darrin Old Coyote said.
And here is why. They have 50 percent unemployment on the
Crow reservation. It would be much, much higher, if it weren't
for the fact that 70 percent of the coal mining jobs there are
held by Crow members. In April they signed a 145-million-ton
coal deal with Westmoreland. In June, a 1.4 billion-ton deal
with Cloud Peak. The revenues, by the way, from these mining
operations on the Crow reservation make up two-thirds of the
Tribe's non-Federal budget. It is very, very important, and the
Tribes are very concerned that Washington, DC and the overreach
of the EPA now and these regulations are having an effect on
their ability, their sovereignty to develop their resources for
the future and for their children.
In fact, the consequence of this war on coal, the J.E.
Corette Power Plant in Billings, which was directly impacted by
the EPA's Federal regs, is going to be mothballed in 2015. That
is in Billings, Montana. The closing of that plant is $3
million a year in lost tax revenue to the county, and 27 good-
paying union jobs. Coal in Montana has already accounted for
$1.9 billion in tax revenues, the severance tax in the State of
Montana, which helps us fund infrastructure and so forth in a
State that struggles to always make ends meet. Thankfully, we
are running a surplus right now in Montana, but in part due to
a strong Ag economy and a natural resource economy.
So, with that as backdrop, Mr. Hamilton, I would like to
ask you about the EPA's new performance standards, and how it
relates to coal-fired power plants. It makes plain good
business sense to always look forward to where the industry is
headed. As Wayne Gretzky said, ``You skate to where the puck is
headed.'' How do you see the new proposals impacting the coal
industry, and what does that mean for the cost of energy for
American families?
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. We are very concerned over those
new performance standards that were alluded to by the other
gentleman on the committee. And, of course, he indicated about
a proposed standard. Those standards have now been released.
They were released last month, in September, and they establish
a baseline, an emission baseline that just cannot be met today
with existing technology that is available to be employed on
coal-fired power stations.
We reference a lot of the administrative and regulatory and
policy issues that have served to cut our permits off, that
have served to heighten the enforcement activities of our
Federal Government. It is often referred to those of us in the
business as a death by 1,000 cuts, because that is what has
happened. When you strangle and have a permitorium for years,
you basically cutoff new opportunities, new commerce.
The new source performance standards for new coal-fired
power plants all but ensures that there will never be--never
be--another coal-fired power generator financed or constructed
in this country. It effectively eliminates coal and coal-fired
generated electricity from the all-of-the-above energy strategy
that I have heard so much about. It completely removes coal
from being a consideration, going forward.
Mr. Daines. OK. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Representative Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
Just to follow up on what was being said, I come from east
Texas, and we do have lignite. Not the quality of the coal that
you gentlemen are used to seeing. But we have over 1,000--
actually, a lot more than that that are related to the coal
being mined and the energy production.
But something I have noticed. When people are out of work
and they can't find jobs, they don't seem to be nearly as
interested in the environment. I don't know if you have noticed
that in the States from which you come, but it seems like if
there is industry going that is being regulated to make sure it
is not polluting, people have jobs, they can have the luxury of
caring about the environment. I am just curious.
Mr. Fogels, how bad has the air and water gotten during the
years of coal mining, at least the last 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Fogels. Congressman, thank you. Well, in Alaska we are
proud of our air and water quality. It is pretty spectacular.
It has been for a long time, and it continues to be to this
day. We have one major coal mine in Alaska that operates, and a
number of, you know, I guess in comparison to the Lower 48,
fairly small coal-fired power plants. But I think the
regulation is maintaining the environmental quality quite
nicely. All six of our----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, do you care if Alaska gets dirty water
or air?
Mr. Fogels. Yes, I would, Congressman.
Mr. Gohmert. I mean you are kind of a trustee of it.
Mr. Fogels. Absolutely. That is my job, to protect it.
Mr. Gohmert. Because I get the impression when EPA
officials come out, many times they act as if they are the only
people in the world that care about the environment, but they
don't seem to care anything at all about the people. And yet,
it seems like the more I have gone around the different States,
including Alaska, the State officials care every bit as much,
and maybe more, than anybody at the EPA about the environment.
I would imagine that the people I have not met in State
government in Alaska feel the same way, don't they?
Mr. Fogels. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Congressman. And we are
very proud of our record. Again, we have six operating mines.
And we hear a lot of rhetoric about how bad mining can be,
environmentally, and a lot of the problems. Most of those are
legacy problems. Our problems in Alaska, we have good mines
with good environmental records, and we are proud of our
regulatory----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, let me ask Mr. Hamilton. You have seen
people out of work that have worked in the coal industry. You
have seen people that work in the coal industry. When people
are unemployed, and you have a bunch of folks that are, do you
see them being able to care as much for the environment as they
do when they are employed?
Mr. Hamilton. I think they do care about the environment,
and I think they do what they can to maintain a good
environment, as it relates to the air and the water. I am not
sure they appreciate trading their job for perhaps an
incremental increase in environmental quality that is
questionable.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. I think therein lies the personal conflict.
You know, we are very proud of our environment. You know,
we are a heavily mining-intensive industry, but we have one of
the best tourism businesses, you know, that you will find
throughout the country. People----
Mr. Gohmert. You have a gorgeous State.
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Come to West--I mean we are a
shining example that you can have both a robust, energy-
producing industry, and a pretty pristine environment. In fact,
the Boy Scout Jamboree, 50,000 Boy Scouts chose West Virginia
as their home. And it just so happened that that parcel of land
used by the Jamboree--50,000 come from all over the country----
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Every single State was
represented--is on a reclaimed mine land.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, and why wouldn't they? As John Denver
said, it is almost heaven. If you want to get all the way
there, you can come on down to Texas and we welcome you there.
But----
Mr. Hamilton. Well, we joined the Big 12. That gets us a
little closer.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, that is true, that is true. But, anyway,
there seems to be a happy medium somewhere in there. And I
don't think the EPA has been as concerned, or has recognized
the importance of having a vibrant economy, because everywhere
you go in the world, if the economy has tanked, if it is bad,
they care about the environment, but they do not have the
luxury of doing anything about it.
So, thank you for all that you gentlemen do to try to make
this, your State, this world, a better place. Thanks for being
here.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. We will have a second, but
brief, round of questions.
And I would like to ask you, Mr. Fogels. There has been
some concern expressed to me a little bit earlier. I was
talking to some folks in the audience about the sensitive
waterways and fish habitat and so on in the area of Alaska that
we are talking about here. And there is the strong belief that
a mine of this nature, a mine of this size, would be impossible
to open and operate without an adverse impact on fish and water
quality.
Is it possible that the EPA and the State of Alaska could
impose conditions that would have to be followed by a mine
operator that would prevent such damage, is it impossible to
have the two together?
Mr. Fogels. Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is definitely
not impossible to have the two together. The issue we are
facing is, even though the Bristol Bay watershed assessment has
this hypothetical mine design, that is not really the mine
design that will be submitted to us if the company decides to
go forward. We need specific plans to evaluate what the real
environmental impacts will be, and that is the process that
should take place. And in that process, you can figure out the
engineering details of how the environment would be protected.
Then we can judge whether that would work or not.
I mean engineering science is amazing. You can always beef
up the systems at a cost. So it may be that those protections
cost too much for the mine to actually be economical. We don't
know that yet. All we are saying is that we need the
opportunity to let the real process run its course, and let the
experts evaluate the mine design. And it may very well be
possible to design something that protects the fisheries in
Bristol Bay.
Mr. Lamborn. So you are saying it is premature to draw that
conclusion absolutely.
Mr. Fogels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. What has the EPA done in a preemptive way that
seems to be jumping the gun?
Mr. Fogels. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole Bristol
Bay watershed assessment is jumping the gun. They are looking
at a preemptive veto of wetlands permitting in eight million
acres of our lands.
So you know, again, Pebble aside, this is not about Pebble
for us. It is about putting new regulations on our land that
would hamper the way we can develop it in the future. And they
are not considering best practices, they are not considering
stipulations, mitigation measures. And that, to us, is more
than troublesome. We are very alarmed by this whole prospect of
perhaps losing almost 10 percent of our land entitlement.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Hamilton, in West Virginia does extensive
coal mining and sport fishing coexist?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes. They do coexist in almost every single
watershed where mining takes place. There is example after
example of stream water quality improvement that is made on an
annual basis. And it has been occurring for decades and
decades.
Mr. Lamborn. And can you tell me, bring me up to date on
the West Spruce Mine operation? Is that the correct name?
Mr. Hamilton. Spruce Number One Mine.
Mr. Lamborn. Spruce, can you bring me up to date on that?
Mr. Hamilton. And this is probably, yes sir. This probably
ranks amongst one of the most studied mining complexes that you
will find anywhere not only in our little State, but anywhere
in the country, or maybe even the world. It underwent one of
the most stringent, comprehensive environmental assessments of
any industrial permit of that magnitude, or operation of that
magnitude.
In fact, I think it was 6 or 7 years that all the pre-
mining data for the permit, all the engineering work, was being
developed. It was being developed in concert with State and
Federal agencies, the Office of Surface Mining, the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and even EPA, all eventually signed off on
that permit.
It was signed off on and approved in 2007, only to have--
and there was equipment put, several millions of dollars of
development, equipment spreads were put onsite, the
infrastructure to accommodate the mine was developed, miners
were employed. And when this administration took office, they
initially threatened to veto that permit, wanted to study it
more.
And, quite frankly, you know, we have heard from
practically every manufacturer, every other industry around
this country that is involved with the Corps and require a 404
permit questioning the specifics, the conditions. Because,
quite frankly, they were concerned that if EPA could go back
and revoke a lawful approved permit, that could set a precedent
and happen elsewhere.
That mine is idle today. That mine has been idled. EPA has
followed through with their plans to rescind and veto that
permit. They first tried with our State, then they tried with
their own sister agency, U.S. Corps of Engineers, that went
through the concerns raised by the current EPA Administration,
point by point, and answered every single concern, addressed
every single condition. This is the U.S. Corps of Engineers,
and they basically joined with the West Virginia DEP and said,
``That mine and that permit ought to continue as it was
approved, because of all the years of study and evaluation that
went into it.'' And that is being litigated today.
The company met with EPA. They had a series of meetings
that went over months and months, and they tried to accommodate
every concern, redesign the mine, reengineer the mine, take
into consideration, you know, all the economics, the geology,
and just could not meet the demands of EPA.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for the update. Representative
Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you again. I want to ask a question
again of Mr. Fogels, because, as you know, we are here about
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and mining, whether or not
they can be compatible. But this administration obviously is
trying to preemptively close off an area in Alaska that is the
size of West Virginia. And, according to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-
associated recreation found that 305,000 fishermen in West
Virginia contributed $750 million to the economy in West
Virginia, only on sport fishing.
So, I ask you, Mr. Fogels, do you find that in Alaska that
mining and fishing seem to get along there? And if West
Virginia, that obviously has mining, and has that significant
amount of fishing, can support nearly a billion dollars in
income from fishing, do you think the same area, the same sized
area in Alaska, could also accommodate one mine?
Mr. Fogels. Mr. Congressman, I think to answer your
question, yes, I do believe that some type of mining activity
could certainly happen on that eight million acres with very
little impact to the fish, and maintain the vibrant fisheries
that are for both subsistence users, sports users, and
commercial users. There is no question that we have the
technology to allow mining to happen within that eight million
acres responsibly to coexist.
We are living proof of that already. Our mines in Alaska
already have healthy fish populations downstream. Some mines
have actually improved the habitat for and the water quality
for fisheries. So modern mining and the modern mining
regulatory process is working in Alaska, and it can work in
Bristol Bay. Whether it can work for a mine the size of Pebble,
again, as I mentioned before, we don't know yet, because no one
has given us the plans yet.
Mr. Gohmert. But you certainly think that is conceivable.
And the plans, once submitted, would have to be approved,
right?
Mr. Fogels. Yes, sir. Very thoroughly reviewed.
Mr. Gohmert. And I might mention to you some years back,
actually my freshman term here, we had field hearings around
the country, and we had hearings in Washington State. And we
had heard from one power company there that they were required
to, well, it cost them $8 million that the Federal Government
cost them to preserve fish in a river. And the $8 million lost
or cost actually saved 20 salmon.
And, at the time, I raised the issue wouldn't it be
possible to have a whole lot less money than that produce a
whole lot more fish, salmon, to be exact. And there were groups
there that said, ``Absolutely not. There is no fish you can
ever produce in a hatchery that could ever be the same in any
way, really, as the fish that are spawned in the wild.'' And
since then we have the benefit of information that indicates
you really can't tell the difference, if they are hatched in a
hatchery, or they are hatched out in a stream.
So, I just encourage you to keep that in mind, as well.
They can work together. And, actually, if nature had its way,
there would be a lot more extinct species around this country
than there are now. But thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Lamborn. I want to thank everyone also for being here,
and you have come a long way in many cases, and we appreciate
your testimony and appreciate answering our questions.
Members of the committee may have additional questions for
the record.
And if you are given those, I would ask that you respond to
those in writing.
If there is no further business, then without objection the
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Niki Tsongas
It is absurd that we are holding this hearing without a single
witness from the Environmental Protection Agency. As my friends on the
other side of the aisle well know, the Administration was unable to
send a witness because of the ongoing Republican shutdown and the
Federal worker furloughs. The Federal Government is shut down today for
one reason: we have been denied any chance of voting on the clean
funding bill passed by the Senate. No piecemeal approach, no temporary
fix here or there is going to put an end to this reckless shutdown.
Only one bill can re-open all of the government today, and it is time
for the House to vote on the straightforward, Senate-passed funding
bill.
Conducting this hearing with full knowledge that someone from the
EPA would be unable to attend is irresponsible and demonstrates a
complete disregard for the important work that they do. This is
particularly worrisome in regards to the proposed Pebble Mine near
Bristol Bay, Alaska, which is of considerable interest to my home State
of Massachusetts.
The EPA is currently conducting the Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment, and early drafts have found that large-scale mining in the
Bristol Bay Watershed could cause irreparable damage to the fisheries
and the jobs they support. The watershed assessment found that even in
a best case scenario, mining would destroy 87 miles of salmon streams
and 2,500 acres of wetlands. The Bristol Bay Watershed is home to the
world's most valuable wild salmon fishery, valued at over $1.5 billion
annually and supports an estimated 12,000 jobs. Even fishermen from my
home State of Massachusetts make the journey to Alaska each year to
fish during the 3-month salmon season.
In Massachusetts, we have seen the devastating impacts of the
decline of the fishing industry. The proposed mine near Bristol Bay
would present an unavoidable and unacceptable risk to the salmon
fishery in Alaska and the thousands of people who depend on it for
their family's livelihood. Fishermen from across Massachusetts and New
England stand in strong opposition to large-scale mining in Bristol Bay
because it could cause undue harm to a community that has a long and
proud history of commercial fishing.
I urge my colleagues to ask the Speaker to bring the Senate CR to
the floor for a vote so we can bring an end to this Republican shutdown
so that agencies like the EPA can get back to work and provide
certainty to the many people who depend on the Bristol Bay fisheries to
support their families.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Alaska Legislature Letter
Mr. Van Vactor's Attachments that Accompanied his
Testimony:
1. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of
Alaska Anchorage, The Economic Importance of the
Bristol Bay Salmon Industry (2013)
2. Bristol Bay Regional Vision Statement (2011)
3. Riley/Yocom, Mining the Pebble Deposit: Issues of 404
Compliance and Unacceptable Environmental Impacts
Executive Summary (2011)
Mr. Fogels' Attachments that Accompanied his
Testimony:
1. IMCC Resolution Federalism Funding
2. IMCC Resolution Financial Responsibility Bonding
3. IMCC WGA Resolution on Bonding
[all]