    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             THE PEBBLE MINE PROJECT: PROCESS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

    =======================================================================

                                    (116-39)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 23, 2019

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-942 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
      District of Columbia               DON YOUNG, Alaska
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    RICK LARSEN, Washington                  Arkansas
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
        Georgia                          ROB WOODALL, Georgia
    ANDRE CARSON, Indiana                JOHN KATKO, New York
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           MIKE BOST, Illinois
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey     DOUG LaMALFA, California
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California          LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice  MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
        Chair                            GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey             Puerto Rico
    GREG STANTON, Arizona                TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      ROSS SPANO, Florida
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
    SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas               GREG PENCE, Indiana
    ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    HARLEY ROUDA, California
    Vacancy
                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                     GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida,     BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
        Vice Chair                       DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROB WOODALL, Georgia
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          MIKE BOST, Illinois
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa                DOUG LaMALFA, California
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    HARLEY ROUDA, California               Puerto Rico
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
        Officio)
                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water
      Resources and Environment:

        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
      Resources and Environment:

        Opening statement............................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Alaska:

        Opening statement............................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, prepared statement.............................    60

                                   WITNESSES

    Dennis J. McLerran, Environmental Attorney, Cascadia Law Group:

        Oral statement...............................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Tom Collier, Chief Executive Officer, Pebble Partnership:

        Oral statement...............................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Richard K. Borden, Owner, Midgard Environmental Services LLC:

        Oral statement...............................................    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
    Alannah Hurley, Executive Director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay:

        Oral statement...............................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Brian Kraft, Owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge:

        Oral statement...............................................    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Mark Niver, Bristol Bay Driftnet Permit Holder, FV Surrender:

        Oral statement...............................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Anisa Kamadoli Costa, Chief Sustainability Officer, Tiffany &
      Co.:

        Oral statement...............................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    51

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Statement of Michael Jackson, Bristol Bay Driftnet Permit Holder,
      FV Kelly J, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen.......    10
    Article from Juneau Empire, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
      Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.........................................    69
    Article from Anchorage Daily News, Submitted for the Record by
      Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell....................................    72
    Letter of September 29, 2010, from Patrick Dorsey, Senior Vice
      President, Secretary and General Counsel, Tiffany & Co.,
      Submitted for the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman...............    79
    ``EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records Show
      EPA Followed Required Procedures Without Bias or
      Predetermination, but a Possible Misuse of Position Noted,''
      EPA Report No. 16-P-0082, January 13, 2016, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio................................    95
    ``Report of an Independent Review of the United States
      Environmental Protection Agency's Actions in Connection With
      Its Evaluation of Potential Mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay
      Watershed,'' Executive Summary, The Cohen Group and DLA Piper
      LLP, October 6, 2015, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Bruce
      Westerman......................................................    95
    Supplemental Written Testimony Provided by Richard K. Borden,
      Owner, Midgard Environmental Services LLC......................   100
    Chart and Email Provided by Alannah Hurley, Executive Director,
      United Tribes of Bristol Bay...................................   102
    Screen captures, ``CNN Exclusive: Complaint Seeks Investigation
      of Alleged Insider Trading That May Have Come From a Trump
      Administration Leak,'' Provided by Brian Kraft, Owner, Alaska
      Sportsman's Lodge..............................................   104
    Companies Opposed to Proposed Pebble Mine, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio................................   104
    Timeline of Pebble Mine Process, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
      Peter A. DeFazio...............................................   106

                                    APPENDIX

    Question from Hon. Don Young to Alannah Hurley, Executive
      Director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay.........................   107
    Question from Hon. Don Young to Brian Kraft, Owner, Alaska
      Sportsman's Lodge..............................................   108

             THE PEBBLE MINE PROJECT: PROCESS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:58 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Grace F.
    Napolitano (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order, and we are here today to focus on the Pebble Mine
    project. Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the
    chair be authorized to declare recesses during today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
        Today's hearing is very important with significant impact
    to the Nation. While the topic of the Pebble Mine project may
    seem local to Alaska, the impacts of the mining project in
    Bristol Bay may be felt as far away as Washington, Oregon,
    California--my State--States with a robust salmon fishing
    industry--and the rest of the world.
        The predominant Alaska Native cultures present in the
    Nushagak and Kvichak River watershed--the Yup'ik, Dena'ina, and
    Alutiiq--sorry if I mispronounce them--are two of the last
    intact, sustainable, salmon-based cultures in the world. And it
    is for this reason that it is important that the Pebble Mine
    project be examined thoroughly with the best science before it
    proceeds.
        Today, we will talk about the process for permitting the
    Pebble Mine project. Like any process, the outcome of it is as
    good as its input. In this case, it is not clear that the
    scientific data is being properly reviewed or considered. The
    Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has a significant role in
    permitting projects for this mine, even though the Army Corps
    of Engineers is the primary leader in permitting. EPA should be
    participating in a robust review process for a mine that was
    once described as the largest open-pit mine in the world.
        Even though the current proposal for the mine focuses on a
    smaller scale mine, the EPA has an important role in evaluating
    the potential impacts of the latest proposal. It now seems like
    the EPA is backing off of reviewing the permitting process in a
    significant manner. Specifically, on July 1, 2019, the EPA
    expressed concern that the draft EIS, environmental impact
    statement, underestimated impacts and risks of the Pebble Mine
    project to water resources.
        However, on July 30, 30 days later, they chose to withdraw
    protections for Bristol Bay under section 404(c) of the Clean
    Water Act. What happened in 30 days to change the EPA's mind?
        We need to get to the bottom of this and find out why EPA
    has changed its mind, or had it changed for them, about the
    potential impacts of the mine.
        The process seems flawed. I am not convinced that if we
    continue to let the process play out, as proponents of the mine
    suggest, that we will end up with a final decision based on
    good science and data. We need evidence that this project is
    being properly reviewed. And so far, I have not seen that.
        [Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
    Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
                        Water Resources and Environment
        Good morning. Today's hearing is on a very important issue with
    significant impacts for the nation.
        While the topic of the Pebble Mine project may seem local to
    Alaska, the impacts of a mining project in Bristol Bay may be felt as
    far away as Washington, Oregon, California--states with a robust salmon
    fishing industry--and the rest of the world.
        The predominant Alaska Native cultures present in the Nushagak and
    Kvichak River watersheds--the Yup'ik, Dena'ina, Alutiiq--are two of the
    last intact, sustainable, salmon-based cultures in the world.
        It is for these reasons it is important that the Pebble Mine
    Project be examined thoroughly with the best science--before it
    proceeds. Today, we will talk about the process for permitting the
    Pebble Mine Project.
        Like any process, the outcome of it is as good as the inputs. In
    this case, it is not clear that the scientific data is being properly
    reviewed or considered. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a
    significant role in the permitting process for this mine, even though
    the Army Corps of Engineers is the primary lead on permitting. EPA
    should be participating in a robust review process for a mine that was
    once described as the largest open pit mine in the world. Even though
    the current proposal for the mine focuses on a smaller-scaled mine, the
    EPA has an important role in evaluating the potential impacts of the
    latest proposal.
        It now seems like the EPA is backing off of reviewing the
    permitting process in a significant manner. Specifically, on July 1,
    2019, the EPA expressed concern that the Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement underestimated impacts and risks of the Pebble Mine Project
    to water resources. However, on July 30, the EPA chose to withdraw
    protections for Bristol Bay under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water
    Act. What happened in 30 days to change EPA's mind?
        We need to get to the bottom of this and find out why EPA has
    changed its mind about the potential impacts of this mine. The process
    seems flawed and I am not convinced that if we continue to let the
    process play out, as proponents of the mine suggest, we will end up
    with a final decision based on good science and data. We need evidence
    that this project is being properly reviewed, and so far, I have not
    seen that.

        Mrs. Napolitano. I ask unanimous consent that committee
    members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the
    subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        I am pleased to yield this time to my ranking member, Mr.
    Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano. We have a
    significant amount of business before the subcommittee that is
    critical to the American taxpayer. Today would be better spent
    discussing how to move forward the next Water Resources
    Development Act, a traditionally bipartisan effort to advance
    navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration projects
    critical to communities nationwide. We can also be examining
    solutions to fix our aging water infrastructure and flood
    control strategies to prevent or lessen future flooding events
    that plague many of our communities.
        But instead of focusing on any of these critical issues,
    the subcommittee is focusing on a partisan priority currently
    under review at the Federal agency level. We are wading into a
    project and an issue that is currently in the middle of a
    comprehensive review under the National Environmental Policy
    Act.
        In 2014, EPA aggressively sought to expand its influence
    far beyond the original intent of the Clean Water Act and
    exercised what is known as the 404(c) veto authority by issuing
    a preliminary determination which essentially blocked
    development of Pebble Mine. Historically, this authority has
    been used in rare circumstances, only having been employed 13
    times. But never had EPA issued a veto before a project permit
    application with detailed engineering site plans and
    environmental mitigation had been filed.
        In doing so, EPA completely bypassed the established Clean
    Water Act and NEPA procedures specifically designed to evaluate
    potential projects, thereby denying the company a fair
    regulatory due process by foreclosing the opportunity for
    science to be objectively presented, reviewed, and assessed,
    trampling State authority and stranding millions in capital
    expenditures by the company.
        When unprecedented steps like this are taken, a chilling
    effect is sent around the country and the world for businesses
    wanting to invest in the United States, and it raises serious
    concerns about regulatory due process in our country.
        I want to be clear. I understand the charged nature of this
    proposal and the potential for environmental disruption that
    can occur when mining operations are present, and I know
    stakeholders are here today representing those concerns. But
    again, I also believe in proper regulatory due process through
    a fair and objective Federal environmental permitting process.
    I believe in giving an applicant the opportunity to have the
    Corps of Engineers and the State of Alaska, along with a suite
    of other Federal agencies, review this project objectively on
    the merits of its permit application.
        It wasn't until 2017, 3 years after EPA's preemptive
    judgment, when the Pebble Partnership filed a permit
    application, thereby kick-starting NEPA--the environmental
    review process deemed the gold standard by environmental
    activists, environmental NGOs, and Democrats nationwide.
        I will withhold judgments on the merits of the mine and
    stay out of the politics, but I will reaffirm that Federal
    agencies should not be predetermining outcomes, and that the
    review process that is currently taking place, should be
    allowed to play out.
        In the meantime, this committee should get back to its
    business of addressing the infrastructure needs of this
    country. I hope we can get back to real work on what usually
    are bipartisan issues for us. We have made real headway in the
    past Congress, advancing three WRDAs in the past 6 years and
    exploring ways to improve and accelerate our water resources
    development programs. We could have focused today on a topic
    that would help inform our actions on those important issues
    and help our constituents who sent us here to work together on
    real solutions.
        [Mr. Westerman's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
     Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                       on Water Resources and Environment
        Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano.
        We have a significant amount of business before this subcommittee
    that is critical to the American taxpayer. Today would be better spent
    discussing how to move forward the next Water Resources Development
    Act--a traditionally bipartisan effort to advance navigation, flood
    control, and ecosystem restoration projects critical to communities
    nationwide. We could also be examining solutions to fix our aging water
    infrastructure and flood control strategies to prevent or lessen future
    flooding events that plague many of our communities.
        But instead of focusing on any of these critical issues, the
    Subcommittee is focusing on a partisan priority currently under review
    at the federal agency level. We are wading into a project and issue
    that is currently in the middle of a comprehensive review under the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
        In 2014, EPA aggressively sought to expand its influence far beyond
    the original intent of the Clean Water Act and exercised what is known
    as its 404(c) ``veto'' authority by issuing a preliminary
    determination--which essentially blocked development of Pebble Mine.
        Historically, this authority has been used in rare circumstances,
    only having been employed 13 times. But never had EPA issued a veto
    before a project permit application with detailed engineering, site
    plans, and environmental mitigation had been filed.
        In doing so, EPA completely bypassed the established Clean Water
    Act and NEPA procedures specifically designed to evaluate potential
    projects, thereby denying the company a fair regulatory due process by
    foreclosing the opportunity for science to be objectively presented,
    reviewed, and assessed; trampling state authority; and stranding
    millions in capital expenditures by the company.
        When unprecedented steps like this are taken, a chilling effect is
    sent around the country and the world for businesses wanting to invest
    in the United States, and it raises serious concerns about regulatory
    due process in our country.
        I want to be clear--I understand the charged nature of this
    proposal and the potential for environmental disruption that can occur
    when mining operations are present, and I know stakeholders here today
    represent those concerns.
        But again, I also believe in proper regulatory due process through
    a fair and objective federal environmental permitting process. I
    believe in giving an applicant the opportunity to have the Corps of
    Engineers and the State of Alaska, along with a suite of other federal
    agencies, review this project objectively, on the merits of its permit
    application.
        It wasn't until 2017, three years after EPA's preemptive judgment,
    when the Pebble Partnership filed a permit application, thereby
    kickstarting NEPA--the environmental review process deemed the gold
    standard by environmental activists and NGOs nationwide.
        I will withhold judgments on the merits of the mine and stay out of
    the politics, but I will reaffirm that federal agencies should not be
    pre-determining outcomes, and that the review process currently taking
    place should be allowed to play out.
        In the meantime, this Committee should get back to its business of
    addressing the infrastructure needs of this country. I hope we can get
    back to real work on what usually are bipartisan issues for us. We have
    made real headway in past Congresses, advancing three WRDAs in the past
    six years, and exploring ways to improve and accelerate our water
    resources development programs.
        We could have focused today on a topic that would help inform our
    actions on those important issues, and help our constituents who sent
    us here to work together on real solutions.

        Mr. Westerman. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. We will proceed now to
    recognize Mr. DeFazio, the chairman of the full committee.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. I would agree with the
    gentleman that we want to have a proper regulatory due process
    and should not prejudge. Unfortunately, I think prejudgment has
    been made since the day that Donald Trump, the President of the
    United States, who is known to manipulate things, met with the
    Governor of Alaska, and essentially dictated to the Corps, and
    EPA, of course, withdrew its objections.
        This project is an abomination, and it does have massive
    implications, not just for Alaska, not just for the west coast,
    but for the future of sockeye salmon worldwide. Half of the
    wild sockeye are dependent upon the Bristol Bay region. One-
    half. At one point, Mr. Collier used to work with Bruce
    Babbitt, who, I think, probably would disown him at this point.
    He says this might even improve salmon habitat. I would love
    for him to name a mine other than a reclamation project that
    has improved salmon habitat anywhere in the world, particularly
    a pristine area like this.
        As they say, it is about jobs. Yeah. Well, there are a hell
    of a lot of jobs up there right now dependent upon this
    resource, 14,000 full- and part-time jobs, $480 million a year
    for the fisheries in that area. And then you go on to other
    activities: 150 sportfishing and hunting-related businesses
    operate in the watershed, 30,000 sportfishing trips, $12.4
    million in hunting trips, $34.5 million in wildlife viewing
    activities. I am sure they will love hunting around the 400-
    and 500-foot tall piles of dirt holding the toxic waste from
    this mine.
        Now, they are going to say this is about job creation, but
    the numbers they are using are predicated upon the original
    proposal which they say they have no intention of doing. We are
    never going there. We are going to do a 20-year project which
    has not been economically evaluated, and which the Corps has
    not dealt with in that manner. But they are still touting the
    numbers from 100 percent of the project, the 70-plus year
    project.
        Now, I want to hear if he has a credible economic analysis
    for this scaled-down proposal, because we are going to hear
    from someone with very significant experience in the industry
    working for real mining companies, Rio Tinto and others, who
    withdrew from this project because they knew it was a scam, and
    it wasn't economically viable.
        But now we have a shell company proposing this, a shell
    company that is going to have to treat the water in perpetuity.
    We have seen this before. I got one right in my district. A
    Canadian company came in, did a bunch of mining. Oh, we are
    gone, we are bankrupt, and you got the toxic waste. We are
    still working on cleaning that up.
        So here we have a shell company with no other assets except
    for this claim, and they are going to be able to create the
    largest perpetual water treatment plant in history, the history
    of the world. Never been done before, but they can do it, and,
    of course, they will, after they make so much money on this
    thing that is scaled down to the point where it is not
    economical.
        I would say, you know, if I was looking at this from sort
    of a financial perspective, I would say we have a pump and
    dump. It is one of two things: It is a pump and dump, and there
    have been some credible news reports about insider trading
    relating to decisions made by the EPA and others in the Trump
    administration on this. Or it is pump, dump, and fooled you,
    and we are going to come back with a giant mine, one or the
    other. Because what is before us today is not credible, and it
    has not been credibly evaluated by the Corps of Engineers.
        These dams are going to be 545 feet tall, made out of dirt,
    rock, in an area that is seismically active, currently gets an
    average of 50 inches of rain a year. Don't worry, we can treat
    all that. We can get all the toxic waste out from exposure, and
    ultimately we will submerge it and put it in this giant lake,
    and everything will be fine, and we will treat it in
    perpetuity, forever.
        How much does that cost? That is not in the core analysis.
    There is no closure analysis in here. So we know what kind of
    closure it is going to be. They are going to dump it on the
    people of Alaska and the taxpayers of the United States, and by
    the way, at that point, we probably won't have a salmon fishery
    anymore.
        So I really think that it is very important we are here
    today, and this is the business of this committee, clean water
    and protection of the environment.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
         Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Let me state, right from the start, that the Pebble Mine proposal
    is a bad idea made even worse by the sham review process currently
    underway.
        First, let's talk about the proposed location of this mine.
        The Bristol Bay Watershed, where this mine is proposed, is one of
    the last pristine environments remaining in the world.
        Protection of Bristol Bay is critical to native Alaskan villages
    that have lived in this area for over 4,000 years, to the fishers and
    businesses that rely on the salmon run for their livelihood, and to
    future generations of Alaskans.
        The quality of the Bristol Bay environment is also hugely important
    to the economy of the region. According to today's testimony, the
    Bristol Bay fisheries support about 14,000 full and part time jobs and
    generate over $480 million in direct annual economic expenditures and
    sales.
        Similarly, this pristine environment also supports approximately
    $1.5 billion in economic activity to the regional economy, including
    150 sportfishing or hunting related businesses that operate in the
    watershed with about 30,000 sportfishing trips taken to the region each
    year, as well as an additional $12.4 million in hunting trips and an
    additional $34.5 million in sales from wildlife viewing activities.
        Now, the Pebble Partnership will also try to sell this mine on its
    potential for job creation. I have heard the estimates that the Pebble
    Partnership is making on the thousands of jobs the mine will create
    nationwide, and the estimated $400 million in additional revenues to
    the State of Alaska that the mine could produce. However, I also
    understand that these numbers are based on the largest mine proposal
    that the Partnership floated in 2011 and that the Obama administration
    attempted to veto in 2016.
        Maybe Mr. Collier can enlighten us on the job creation numbers from
    the slimmed down proposal he is selling today; however, I would suggest
    that any jobs created from this mining proposal will be to the
    detriment of the lives and livelihoods of native Alaskans, fisheries,
    and other commercial entities that rely on the pristine environment
    there today--so, I ask, is it worth the risk?
        Second, let's talk about the unprecedented scale of this mining
    proposal.
        Even at the smallest scale under review, the footprint of the
    Pebble mine would be unprecedented for an open pit mine in such a
    pristine environment.
        As noted in testimony today, the Pebble proposal would require the
    removal and treatment of over 1 billion tons of bulk mining tailings,
    the capturing and treatment of approximately 13,000 gallons per minute
    of contaminated mine wastewater, and all of this behind 5 constructed
    dams in one of the most dynamic environments on earth.
        Two of these dams are proposed to exceed 545 feet each--which is
    roughly the same height as the Grand Coulee Dam, in Washington State.
    So, the proposal would be to construct at least 2 new Grand Coulee-type
    dams, on lands that are prone to seismic activity, in an environment
    that is facing some of the greatest challenges from climate change on
    Earth. And, Mr. Collier, you will be responsible for treating this
    mining wastewater, forever, using what others describe today as
    untested technologies that exist nowhere else in the world at this
    scale.
        Mr. Collier, you also say in your testimony that the mine will ``do
    no damage to the fishery'' and may, in fact ``have a positive impact on
    some fish habitats.'' Give me a break--how to you improve upon a
    pristine environment? And, the consequence of you getting this wrong
    are catastrophic and forever--and I would agree with many of the
    panelists here today, not worth the risk.
        Third, let's talk about the shell game that is going on with
    attempts to get approval of a project that just doesn't pencil out--
    unless you plan to come back and build the rest later.
        Today's testimony includes the insights of a mining industry
    specialist--someone whose livelihood has depended on the approval of
    mining operations, worldwide--who shows how the current mining proposal
    being advocated by the Pebble Partnership and under review by the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, is a sham. This testimony demonstrates what I
    have been hearing all along--that this ``smaller, smarter mine'', as
    Mr. Collier describes it, is not economically feasible--and actually
    starts with an estimated negative net present value of $3 billion.
        Now, I don't run a multibillion-dollar company, but if I did, I am
    not sure how long I would remain employed if I started $3 billion in
    the red. But, I also understand that Mr. Collier may not have to worry
    about this, because the press is reporting that if he is able to get
    approval of the permit for this mine, he will personally walk away with
    a $12 million performance bonus.
        But a $3 billion shortfall in revenue does require us to question
    the viability of this project, its ability to protect this environment
    over the long run, or the motives of the mining company on the need to
    expand the scale of mining to make this a profitable endeavor.
        I also want to express my deep disappointment with the Corps of
    Engineers on their track record of review for this project to date. If
    the Corps continues its current path to rush approval of this project,
    I believe this will be a stain on the reputation of this proud
    institution, which continues to serve as our nation's premier water
    resources agency.
        I would remind the Corps of the words of the former head of EPA,
    Scott Pruitt, who said `` . . . It is my judgment at this time that any
    mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant
    natural resources that exist there. Until we know the full extent of
    that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve
    the utmost protection.''
        When you are on the opposite side of Scott Pruitt--who was no
    friend of the environment--you have to wonder.
        I recognize the tremendous political pressure the leadership of the
    Corps must be facing from this administration to rush approval of this
    project, but I call on the Corps to start upholding its independent,
    statutory responsibilities, and stop acting like a cheerleader for this
    project.
        This Administration is once again putting private industry wants at
    the top of its agenda, risking the health and safety of our nation's
    ecosystem, the ancestral home for Alaska Natives, and the destruction
    of the nation's most productive salmon habitat.
        We need to stop this shell game and understand that a process that
    purposefully looks at only part of the picture, misses the entire view.
        The end goal for the Pebble Limited Partnership isn't for one-
    eighth of the deposit, it is for 100 percent of the deposit. That is
    what the EPA and the Corps need to review--and reviewing anything less
    is a disservice to the American people.

        Mr. DeFazio. So with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank
    you for this important hearing.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
        I now call on Mr. Sam Graves, the ranking member of the
    full committee.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano
    and Ranking Member Westerman. I appreciate that.
        I know the issue of Pebble Mine is charged, and I respect
    the views of our witnesses here, but I also understand that the
    permit application is currently going through a very robust
    environmental impact analysis, just as any other large-scale
    project would. I think we should let that process play out.
        With that, I would like to yield the remainder of my time
    to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, whose
    district this lies in.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Congressman Graves, and I want to
    associate my remarks to Mr. Westerman, and I would also like to
    ask for unanimous consent to yield to the committee my written
    statement. OK.
        I guess I might say that I have never been for or against
    this project, but I am for the process. And I looked at the
    witness panel. There is not one on the witness panel that is a
    scientist, or is an engineer or a Federal witness. If we want
    to talk about the permitting process, we ought to have--Madam
    Chair, we ought to have a witness from the EPA. We ought to
    have the Corps of Engineers. We ought to listen to the science.
    We are going to hear a lot of opinions as it directly affects
    them, but not the science.
        And people forget, Madam Chair, that this is State land. It
    is not Federal land. The Statehood Act has the right to choose
    the 103 million acres of land, and they chose this land. They
    put it up for discovery, and it was discovered. Under the
    discovery clause, you have a right for exploration. Under the
    right of exploration, you have a right for development if you
    go through the permitting process.
        This hearing today, and what I have seen recently on TV
    shows, politicizes this issue. You are not listening to the
    science. You are saying a lot of what ifs, can and cannot,
    should we or shouldn't we? This committee has a responsibility
    to review those that are directly involved, not those that may
    be affected by it. It is about science.
        I worry about it because, very frankly, I agree with Mr.
    Westerman. We have got other things we should be doing in this
    committee, including passing a transportation bill. I hope we
    don't start out a hearing like this one, with a transportation
    bill that becomes partisan.
        This is a State issue, and yet, here we are saying we are
    going to take land you can't develop. We put it up by hearing
    or by an agency. EPA did a preemptive strike under the Obama
    administration. A preemptive strike. Didn't follow the process,
    didn't follow science.
        It always interests me, Madam Chair, that my side and your
    side of the aisle always wants to say NEPA is perfect. We
    mustn't attack it. We must use science. But you are not hearing
    any science from this side of the aisle, from that group of
    witnesses.
        You may hear from somebody who worked for the agency once
    for awhile, no longer employed there, has a fixed opinion. That
    is not science. So I am going to sit here and listen to all
    this testimony, and, respectfully, believe some things people
    have, but I will tell you, unless we do and follow the rules,
    any other time there is anything to be done in the State of
    Alaska, there is a tendency for everybody in the lower 48 that
    figure they can do what is best for the State. They know better
    than anybody else. There is a tendency to have that feeling
    that we are going to take care of Alaska from Alaskans. This is
    a State issue. Once you step over that line, that goes for some
    of the witnesses here today, the Federal Government gets
    involved in your background, in your business, then you are
    going to have Big Brother on your shoulder all the time. I want
    to believe the United States of America, not the United States
    of the Federal Government.
        Mr. Chairman, this isn't a hearing, I don't think, which is
    as important as everybody makes it out to be. I would say it is
    important to me, because I follow the process. We are not doing
    it. We are making presumptive findings without the science, and
    I have said all along: if it isn't there, then the State does
    not have to issue its permits. Forget EPA. Forget the Corps of
    Engineers. The State doesn't have to do it. The emphasis should
    be put on the State. They chose the land. They put it up. It
    has to be utilized.
        So Mr. Chairman, I do thank Mr. Graves for yielding his
    time to me, but my written statement will be for the record,
    and use my vocal statement too because I feel very strongly
    about this. I yield back.
        [Mr. Young's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from
                              the State of Alaska
        Congressman Graves, thank you for yielding and to the committee for
    allowing me to speak on this uniquely Alaskan issue. For some reason,
    my colleagues in the majority feel that it is their moral imperative to
    highlight and politicize issues in my district. It seems that any time
    Alaskans want to develop their God-given resources, or even just build
    a road, it becomes a Federal case for the left.
        I have said from the beginning that I do not have a position for or
    against the mine being built. I have always called for a scientific and
    evidence-based approach to determine whether the project should be
    permitted in the first place. That is the process that is taking place
    now, that wasn't taking place before due to the preemptive Obama
    administration veto.
        I want to make several points on the format and substance of this
    hearing.
        First, it is difficult for me to fathom why we are holding this
    hearing in the first place. This committee has jurisdiction over the
    Army Corps of Engineers and their handling of Section 404(c) permits.
    If this hearing is supposedly about the process that our federal
    agencies are required to follow by the laws that Congress passes, why
    then, are there no government witnesses present?
        These six majority witnesses and my friends on the other side of
    the aisle have given statements and will give testimony questioning the
    integrity of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but none
    of the witnesses are the scientists or engineers that drafted or worked
    on the Draft EIS.
        The lack of an unbiased scientific expert on this panel just shows
    that this issue has never been about the process but is just an attempt
    to sway public opinion and tamper with the ongoing NEPA process.
        All of the witnesses have had the opportunity to submit comments on
    the Draft EIS, of which I understand there are more than 115,000. If my
    Democrat colleagues truly cared about the integrity of due process,
    they would want to hear from witnesses who do not champion their anti-
    development agenda.
        Secondly, I want to address the timing of this hearing and what it
    says about the self-serving and selective support for our nation's
    regulatory process. Comments on the Draft EIS were due on July 1, 2019.
    The Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing those comments and providing
    answers to the respective coordinating agencies including the EPA.
    Holding this hearing in the middle of the NEPA process to attack the
    Draft EIS is nothing more than another political stunt to cast
    aspersions and speculation on the outcome of process that is no where
    near complete.
        It is as if we are in the middle of a surgery and we are asked to
    listen to six people who are not doctors, much less the surgeon, try
    and predict the outcome for the patient. But because we are taking
    testimony that furthers the majority's political agenda, we are forced
    to take the time in this committee to hear it and in turn defend the
    NEPA process which Congress has set in law.
        Regarding the substance of this hearing, there are three critical
    points that must not get lost amidst the debate about the potential
    impacts of the mine.
        First, progressives claim that NEPA, is a bedrock environmental law
    in this country. I've heard Mr. Huffman use that exact phrase many
    times in the Natural Resources Committee. What specifically is wrong
    with the current state of the NEPA process for this project? Let us
    complete the science. Let the Army Corps of Engineers use the NEPA
    process to complete their EIS. Democrats sing the praises of science--
    let the scientific process continue to determine what effect, if any,
    this mine would have on Bristol Bay.
        It seems that the NEPA process is only infallible and to be
    protected at all costs if the Democrats get the outcome they want. If
    there is something that needs to be changed in NEPA, then let's have
    that debate but not in the context of politicizing this project. What
    we cannot have and what I won't stand for is selective outrage about
    the NEPA process, only when it serves the left's antidevelopment
    agenda.
        Secondly, I understand that there are federal permits required and
    that the section 404 process exists. But this project is proposed on
    state land that was specifically reserved for mineral and resource
    development for decades. Depending on the outcome of the federal permit
    process, there will be dozens of state permits that would need to be
    awarded. Primacy on this matter should rest at the state level, where
    the people are closest to the issue. Alaska is well equipped to decide
    what is best for Alaskans. During the Obama administration the 404
    process was used to inject the opinions of bureaucrats in Washington,
    D.C. on Alaskans. That was wrong then and any similar attempts today,
    such as this hearing, are equally wrong.
        Lastly, I want to talk about the pitfalls of allowing a politically
    motivated anti-development agenda dictate how and when the federal
    government utilizes its veto authority to prematurely end the
    exploration of resource development projects. The Obama administration
    set a dangerous precedent in this case. If the EIS process had been
    allowed to take place then, this issue would have likely been settled
    by now from a NEPA perspective.
        If there is not a commitment to follow the law as written, then a
    draconian chilling effect will linger over all future proposed
    development projects in Alaska. Alaska needs to continue balancing
    economic development with environmental stewardship. Impugning the NEPA
    process in this case will help ensure that future projects are never
    proposed, cutting off economic prosperity for future generations of
    Alaskans.
        Nothing has happened yet, and we owe it to all parties and the
    future of Alaska to make sure we duly consider balancing the need for
    economic development with environmental stewardship.
        I thank Mr. Graves again for yielding and look forward to hearing
    the witness testimony.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Young. I now ask unanimous
    consent for the following statement to be entered into the
    hearing record: A statement from Michael Jackson, a
    fisherperson from Washington State, at the request of Mr.
    Larsen.
        [The information follows:]

       Statement of Michael Jackson, Bristol Bay Driftnet Permit Holder,
            FV Kelly J, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
        I would like to respectfully submit the following testimony
    regarding the proposed Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay, Alaska. I am
    a Bristol Bay salmon commercial fisherman based in Bellingham,
    Washington and have been fishing in Bristol Bay since 1985. I am also
    on the Board of Directors for the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood
    Development Association, which represents Bristol Bay's driftnet permit
    holders. The proposed Pebble Mine threatens a sustainable industry that
    provides good-paying, renewable jobs to thousands of Americans like
    myself. I am deeply concerned with how the Trump Administration is
    handling the Pebble project's permitting process. Since day one this
    process has been rushed and ignores the well-documented science showing
    that the Pebble Mine would cause irreversible harm to Bristol Bay's
    salmon fishery. I urge you and your colleagues to do everything in your
    power to stop this corrupt permitting process from moving forward any
    further. My livelihood and thousands of others depend on it.
        I first started fishing in Bristol Bay as a crewmember. I had
    fished in many different areas in Alaska in many different fisheries,
    but Bristol Bay immediately stood out as unique to me is so very many
    ways. Dangerously quick currents brought about by ridiculously high
    (over 33 feet) tidal extremes, put my safety protocols to the test
    immediately. THAT impressed me. I had fished the Gulf of Alaska and the
    Bering Sea, longlining, crabbing, and seining, harvesting the bounty of
    the sea efficiently and sustainably, but nothing prepared me for the
    sheer volume of sockeye salmon that could fill my net with 20,000
    pounds of fish in just a few minutes. Bristol Bay's sheer abundance
    still holds me in awe. I had--and still to this day--have never seen or
    experienced anything like it. Bristol Bay is Nature at the absolute
    peak of perfection, with sustainability, volume, and beauty on full
    display and available for all to experience. I have raised two sons, 26
    and 23, to join me in the driftnet fishery in Bristol Bay. They operate
    their own boat, own their own permits, and will return every season to
    Bristol Bay, not unlike the migrating sockeye salmon that they come to
    harvest. Bristol Bay is not just a place where my family goes to make a
    living though. Bristol Bay is a place where we as a family come to make
    a Life; a life that I cannot imagine living without the ability to
    participate in this fishery.
        Part of why I fish in Bristol Bay instead of where I live in
    Washington is because Bristol Bay is the last place left in the world
    where we have this muchsalmon abundance. Salmon fisheries elsewhere are
    either gone completely or declining. Bristol Bay is the largest and
    most valuable wild salmon fishery left in the world. In the last few
    years, Bristol Bay has seen record-breaking runs with the second
    largest commercial harvest on record in 2019 \1\. In an average year,
    Bristol Bay's salmon fishery contributes roughly 50% of the world's
    sockeye salmon and generates $650 million in income and $1.5 billion in
    economic activity \2\. The commercial fishery in Bristol Bay has
    existed for over 130 years and today provides more than 14,000 jobs,
    including 8,000 fishing jobs \3\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alaska Department of Fish & Game: www.adfg.alaska.gov
        \2\ Knapp et al. University of Anchorage: Institute of Social and
    Economic Research. April 2013. The Economic Importance of the Bristol
    Bay Salmon Industry.
        \3\ Wink Research and Consulting. 2018. Economic Benefits of the
    Bristol Bay Salmon Industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The economic impacts of Bristol Bay's salmon fishery extend well
    beyond the Bristol Bay region, making it an important contributor to
    our nation's renewable economy. There is a Bristol Bay fishing permit
    holder living in nearly all 50 states. The majority of Bristol Bay's
    non-Alaska resident permit holders reside in Washington state with 769
    commercial fishing permit holders in Washington alone. Combined, \1/3\
    of Bristol Bay's commercial fishermen and \2/3\ of its processing
    workers live in West Coast states (California, Oregon, Washington). In
    addition, the majority of supplies and services used in Bristol Bay's
    fishing and processing industries are purchased in Washington. The
    Puget Sound region in particular has deep ties to the Bristol Bay
    fishing industry given that the majority of Bristol Bay's major seafood
    processors are based in the Seattle area and a substantial percentage
    of Bristol Bay's salmon products are shipped to Seattle for
    reprocessing and distribution to other markets around the country and
    world \4\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\  Knapp et al., The Economic Importance
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All of this is at risk because a foreign junior mining company is
    trying to take advantage of the current political climate and push
    forward an economically unfeasible mine at the expense of our country's
    salmon, jobs, and economy. I'm concerned and confused about why the
    Trump Administration would advance this project despite its lack of
    economic feasibility and despite the 14,000 American jobs at stake.
    Bristol Bay's salmon fishery is a renewable economic engine, and one
    that cannot be replaced. I'm disappointed by how the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers is overseeing the current permitting process, and in
    particular the lack of scientific rigor and accuracy in its Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Army Corps' DEIS is fatally
    flawed and fails to evaluate the true scale and scope of the potential
    impacts that the proposed Pebble project would have on Bristol Bay and
    its wild salmon populations. Ultimately, this is because the DEIS is
    based on a false, ``smaller'' mine plan even though the Army Corps
    itself says in the DEIS that expansion of the project is ``reasonably
    foreseeable.'' In addition, the DEIS downplays many of the direct and
    indirect impacts outlined in the EPA's 2014 peer-reviewed Bristol Bay
    Watershed Assessment and other scientific literature.
        Of particular concern to me and my fellow fishermen are the
    following information gaps and inaccuracies in the DEIS regarding
    potential impacts to Bristol Bay's salmon fishery:

            The risk of a potential tailings dam failure, which would be
            catastrophic for the Nushagak River--one of Bristol Bay's most
            productive salmon river systems. The Army Corps has yet to
            conduct a thorough, long-term assessment of a potential
            tailings dam failure and its impacts, which is inexcusable
            given other recent tailings dam failures and the threats that
            such a failure could have to the communities and industries
            that are downstream. Because of these risks, Bristol Bay's
            drift net permit holders took it upon themselves to hire
            independent earth scientist, Dr. Cameron Wobus, to model
            potential tailings dam failure scenarios and their potential
            impacts. His analysis found that it is likely that Pebble's
            tailings material would reach Bristol Bay \5\ and reinforces
            that a tailings dams failure at the Pebble project would have
            far reaching and long-lasting impacts on the Nushagak River
            drainage and deserves further analysis by the Army Corps and
            Pebble Limited Partnership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Lynker Technologies, LLC. 2019. A Model Analysis of Flow and
    Deposition from a Tailings Dam Failure at the Proposed Pebble Mine.

            The DEIS does not adequately look at the immediate or long-term
            effects of a potential accident or contamination at the Pebble
            Mine site on the value and marketability of Bristol Bay's
            salmon. Instead, the Army Corps makes a sweeping assumption
            that a change in market reception of Bristol Bay's salmon is
            not likely to occur (DEIS 4.6-2). This assumption is ill-
            founded and is in direct contrast to the Pacific Seafood
            Processors Assocation's conclusion that, ``we know from past
            experience, that actual or perceived damage to the purity of
            the waters or fish of the Bristol Bay region would harm the
            marketability of Alaska salmon.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Pacific Seafood Processors Association. June 2017. Position on
    the Pebble Mine Project.

            The DEIS does not include a post-operation reclamation plan or
            wastewater treatment plan. We understand that this is due to
            the fact that the PebbleLimited Partnership has not submitted
            this information to the Army Corps or the State of Alaska,
            which we find unacceptable and questionable given that this is
            standard practice in the industry. Because this project will
            require treatment and monitoring in perpetuity, this
            information must be made available in the DEIS for the public
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            to review and comment on.

        In addition to these information gaps and inaccurate assumptions,
    the DEIS does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars in
    investments made by Bristol Bay's permit holders and seafood
    processors, nor does it evaluate the potential impacts that the Pebble
    project could have on the value of these investments and assets. Every
    Bristol Bay permit holder invests hundreds of thousands of dollars to
    participate in the Bristol Bay commercial fishery, requiring loans that
    depend on a consistent supply of salmon and strong market prices. Any
    loss in fishing income would create financial hardship for these
    fishermen, especially younger fishermen who are just getting
    established.
        Despite our repeated questions and requests for more information,
    the Army Corps continues to push the Pebble Mine forward and is on
    track to make a decision in just a matter of months. It's clear that
    this process is being driven by a foreign mining company and their
    political agenda. That's not how a permitting process should work or
    how our federal agencies should operate. The integrity of this
    permitting process has been compromised and I have no confidence that
    the Army Corps is capable of upholding its responsibilities under the
    National Environmental Policy Act. This permitting process should be
    testing Pebble's assumptions and promises, not taking the Pebble
    Limited Partnership at its word. Americans deserve a rigorous
    permitting process that's transparent, rigorous, and based on the best
    available science and information.
        Protecting Bristol Bay makes sound economic sense, and it's also
    the responsible and right thing to do. As someone who has been able to
    benefit greatly from this renewable resource, it is my personal duty to
    protect it for my sons and future generations. Unfortunately, given the
    Trump Administration's aggressive permitting schedule, we are running
    out of time and only have a few months before the Army Corps makes its
    final decision. Therefore, I ask that you please act quickly to restore
    scientific credibility to this permitting process and not allow the
    Trump Administration to approve this irreversible project that would be
    an economic disaster for our nation.
        Thank you for your time and for taking my testimony into your
    consideration.

        Mrs. Napolitano. We will proceed to hear from our witnesses
    who will testify. Thank all of you for being here. And on the
    panel, we have Mr. Dennis McLerran, Cascadia Law Group; Mr. Tom
    Collier, chief executive officer, the Pebble Partnership; Mr.
    Richard Borden, owner of Midgard Environmental Services LLC;
    Alannah Hurley, executive director, United Tribes of Bristol
    Bay; Brian Kraft, owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge; Mark Niver,
    fisherman, Surrender Salmon Company; and Anisa Costa, chief
    sustainability officer, Tiffany & Co.
        Without objection, your statements will be entered in the
    record. All witnesses will have 5 minutes. You will get the
    warning at 3, and yellow if you follow that.
        Mr. McLerran, you may proceed.

       TESTIMONY OF DENNIS J. McLERRAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY,
       CASCADIA LAW GROUP; TOM COLLIER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
         PEBBLE PARTNERSHIP; RICHARD K. BORDEN, OWNER, MIDGARD
    ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LLC; ALANNAH HURLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
       UNITED TRIBES OF BRISTOL BAY; BRIAN KRAFT, OWNER, ALASKA
      SPORTSMAN'S LODGE; MARK NIVER, BRISTOL BAY DRIFTNET PERMIT
         HOLDER, FV SURRENDER; AND ANISA KAMADOLI COSTA, CHIEF
                 SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER, TIFFANY & CO.

        Mr. McLerran. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman
    DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Westerman, and
    members of the committee. I am Dennis McLerran. I am the former
    EPA regional administrator during the Obama years.
        Back in May of 2010, several federally recognized Tribes,
    and some of the folks in this room, presented EPA with
    petitions asking that we use our congressionally granted
    section 404(c) authority under the Clean Water Act. They
    petitioned us with some very heartfelt and legitimate concerns
    about what the impacts of large-scale mining on the Bristol Bay
    watershed might be. When we heard those concerns from those
    folks, we spent many months deciding how to respond to those
    petitions. They wanted us to use section 404(c) of the Clean
    Water Act. We decided that instead of immediately using section
    404(c) of the Clean Water Act, we would do a scientific
    assessment, an ecological risk assessment of the risks to the
    watershed and to the salmon resources in the watershed from
    large-scale mining.
        And as Madam Chairwoman and Chair DeFazio have said, this
    is a very rich area. The Bristol Bay watershed supports over
    14,000 jobs from fishing, full- and part-time. It is a very
    robust fishery that has been a sustainable fishery, and it is
    an area with one of the last intact salmon-based cultures in
    the world, and so the petitions to us were very heartfelt.
        When we get the science, we committed to a very expansive
    and extensive public process around that. We reviewed the best
    available science from fisheries; scientists have been working
    in the watershed for over 30 years. We reviewed all the
    literature. We brought together a group of very talented
    scientists to prepare the watershed assessment. We released two
    drafts of the watershed assessment for public comment. We had a
    large series of public meetings in Alaska. We received over 1
    million public comments on the science that was done. In
    developing the assessment, we also did an extensive independent
    peer review of the science that was done. So we followed EPA's
    and OMB's highly influential scientific assessment guidelines
    and independently peer reviewed the work in two rounds.
        The Bristol Bay assessment found that the Bristol Bay
    watershed, while enormously productive, was also enormously
    vulnerable to the impacts of large-scale mining. And the owners
    of the Pebble Mine claims have, in their own report filed with
    the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011, identified the
    pathway there for a mine of unprecedented scope and scale in
    North America. The Bristol Bay assessment found that the
    watershed, while enormously productive, ecologically is deeply
    vulnerable to the impacts of large-scale mining. The assessment
    concludes that a large-scale mine at the Pebble site would pose
    risk to salmon and to communities in the Bristol Bay watershed
    that have depended on the salmon for thousands of years.
        And EPA ultimately decided once that 3-year process of
    developing the science and getting extensive public comment on
    it, that the impacts of the Pebble Mine would create
    unacceptable adverse impacts on fishery resources unless limits
    were placed on the scale of mining at the site. And EPA issued
    a proposed determination that would have protected Bristol Bay
    and placed limits on the scope and scale of the mining, the
    amount of stream-miles that could be lost, the amount of
    wetlands and lakes and ponds that could be destroyed. And that
    process did not prevent Pebble from applying for a permit with
    the Corps of Engineers. It was not a veto, and it did leave the
    pathway open for a Corps permit application.
        However, despite Pebble having come to me multiple times,
    and come to Members of Congress and the public and saying they
    were going to file a permit application likely during the
    pendency of us doing the science, they didn't initiate that
    permitting process until 2018. And the Corps of Engineers, as
    has been mentioned in an extraordinarily rapid timeframe, has
    moved to issue a draft environmental impact statement, a deeply
    flawed draft environmental impact statement that has received
    adverse comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, from EPA region
    10, from many members of the public.
        So we felt that we did very strong science. I feel that the
    Corps of Engineers has not done justice in using NEPA in the
    appropriate way here. They have done a very fast and slipshod
    process that is deeply flawed.
        In conclusion, the Pebble Deposit is located at the
    headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers. They produce 50
    percent of Bristol Bay's salmon, which produces 50 percent of
    the world's wild sockeye salmon, and this mine would have
    significant impacts, and just as importantly, it would open up
    the watershed to become a mining district because it would put
    in the roads and the infrastructure that would allow other
    mines, and there were many other deposits in the watershed that
    would be developed.
        So, I implore the committee to explore this more deeply,
    get the Corps of Engineers through an appropriate process, and
    move this forward.
        [Mr. McLerran's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Dennis J. McLerran, Environmental Attorney,
                               Cascadia Law Group
        Good morning Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
    Member Graves, Ranking Member Westerman and Members of the Committee. I
    am Dennis McLerran, the former Regional Administrator for EPA Region
    10, which covers the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska and
    271 Tribal governments within those four states. Today I would like to
    describe the work EPA completed regarding the proposed Pebble Mine in
    Alaska during my time at EPA and some relevant details regarding the
    current status of the evaluation of the Pebble Mine proposal by the
    Corps of Engineers. I was at Region 10 from February 2010 until late
    January 2017 when EPA prepared the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and
    later issued a ``Proposed Determination'' to protect salmon resources
    within the watershed.
        In May of 2010, several federally recognized tribes from the
    Bristol Bay watershed in Alaska petitioned EPA to use its Clean Water
    Act Section 404(c) authority to restrict the discharge of fill material
    from the proposed Pebble Mine. EPA also received similar requests from
    a diverse group of stakeholders, while others requested that EPA
    refrain from taking action.
        The groups that petitioned for EPA's use of Section 404(c)
    expressed deep and legitimate concerns that the largest open pit mine
    ever proposed in North America would be destructive of the fisheries
    within one of the Western Hemisphere's most productive and vulnerable
    watersheds.
        The economic and cultural value of the Bristol Bay watershed is
    immense. Data from the region shows that Bristol Bay fisheries support
    about 14,000 full- and part-time jobs and generate over $480 million in
    direct economic expenditures and sales. In addition, for over 4,000
    years, it has served as a significant subsistence fishery to Alaska
    Native people, who are among the last remaining salmon-based
    subsistence cultures in the world. For these reasons, EPA took very
    seriously the local concerns raised about a mining project that had the
    potential for significant environmental harm to this valuable and
    vulnerable ecosystem.
        After receiving the petitions, EPA staff and management visited the
    watershed and deliberated for months about how to respond to the
    requests. We decided not to initiate EPA's Section 404(c) authority at
    the time of the petitions. Instead, we wanted to develop a solid
    understanding of the watershed and the potential risks of proposed
    mining activities to fisheries and native cultures before deciding
    whether or not to exercise our authorities.
        In February 2011, consistent with Clean Water Act Section 104, I
    announced EPA's intent to conduct an ecological risk assessment. The
    purpose was to characterize the biological and mineral resources of the
    Bristol Bay watershed, to increase understanding of the potential risks
    of large-scale mining on the region's fish resources, and to inform
    future decisions by government agencies and others related to
    protecting and maintaining the physical, chemical and biological
    integrity of the watershed.
        To help collect, evaluate and summarize information regarding the
    Bristol Bay watershed and to assess potential risks to salmon and other
    resources, EPA brought in scientists from multiple federal agencies and
    also reviewed the best scientific literature available regarding the
    Bristol Bay fishery. EPA's Headquarters Office of Research and
    Development led the preparation of the watershed assessment along with
    a team assembled by Region 10.
        Consistent with EPA's authorities under the Clean Water Act, EPA
    committed to an expansive public process to provide an opportunity to
    engage with all interested stakeholders. For example, EPA consulted
    with 20 tribes from the watershed, most of whom supported EPA's
    proposed assessment but also with some that did not. EPA also formed an
    intergovernmental technical team to get input from federal agencies,
    the State of Alaska and tribal governments in the Bristol Bay
    watershed.
        EPA also released two drafts of the assessment for public comment.
    In total, eight public meetings were attended by approximately 2,000
    people, and more than 1.1 million comments were submitted. The Pebble
    Partnership itself submitted over 1,300 pages of written comments on
    the first draft and over 450 pages on the second draft and participated
    in the public meetings.
        EPA staff, including EPA's Administrator and me, met with Pebble
    Executives, state officials and other interested parties to solicit
    their input. We even invited the State of Alaska to partner with EPA in
    preparation of the scientific assessment.
        In addition to creating and maintaining an open and transparent
    process, EPA also sought to guarantee that the assessment incorporated
    high quality data and that all findings were scientifically sound. In
    developing the assessment EPA followed all data quality and peer-review
    requirements for a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment, as
    outlined by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
        The Agency also conducted an extensive peer-review with 12
    independent experts in mine engineering, salmon fisheries biology,
    aquatic ecology, aquatic toxicology, hydrology, wildlife ecology and
    Alaska Native cultures. And, at a day-long public meeting in Alaska in
    August 2012, Pebble and other stakeholders provided feedback directly
    to the independent peer-reviewers. An independent review by EPA's
    Inspector General, which was requested by the Pebble Partnership,
    confirmed that the Agency followed all applicable processes and
    procedures.
        Opening of the Pebble Deposit would ultimately result in the
    largest open pit porphyry gold and copper mine in North America in one
    of the most productive and sensitive intact salmon ecosystems on the
    planet. The owners of the Pebble Mine claims have, in their own Wardrop
    Report filed with the SEC in 2011, identified the pathway for a mine
    unprecedented in scope and scale in North America. The infrastructure
    to support the Pebble mine would include transportation into the heart
    of the watershed and a gas pipeline and power plant that would open the
    surrounding area to creation of a large mining district. Almost half of
    the world's sockeye salmon are harvested in Bristol Bay and the Pebble
    Deposit is located at a very vulnerable location--the headwaters of the
    Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers.
        The Bristol Bay watershed assessment evaluated several different
    mining scenarios for the Pebble Deposit. Two of the scenarios were
    based on mining plans filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC) in the Wardrop Report prepared by consultants for Northern
    Dynasty Minerals, the owner of the Pebble mining claims. A third mining
    scenario was added to the assessment based on peer-reviewer's comments
    that the evaluation should consider a first phase mine that would be
    based on the average size of porphyry gold and copper mines worldwide.
        The Bristol Bay assessment found that the Bristol Bay watershed,
    while enormously productive ecologically, is also deeply vulnerable to
    challenges posed by the construction and operation of a large mine at
    the Pebble Deposit. The assessment concludes that a large-scale mine at
    the Pebble site would pose risks to salmon and the communities that
    have depended on the salmon for thousands of years.
        Based on the mine sizes evaluated, EPA estimated that from 24 to 94
    miles of salmon-supporting streams and 1,300 to 5,350 acres of
    wetlands, ponds and lakes would be destroyed. And extensive quantities
    of mine waste, leachates and wastewater would have to be collected,
    stored, treated and managed during mining operations and long after
    mining concludes.
        EPA ultimately decided that the impacts of mining at the Pebble
    Deposit would create unacceptable adverse impacts on fishery resources
    unless limits were placed on the scale of mining at the site. EPA
    Region 10 proposed use of Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to
    place those limits. Section 404(c) specifically authorizes EPA to
    prohibit the specification of--or deny or restrict the use of any
    defined areas as a disposal site for dredged or fill material whenever
    the Administrator determines that such disposal would cause
    unacceptable adverse effects. The Proposed Determination would have
    protected Bristol Bay and placed limits on the amount of stream miles,
    wetlands, lakes and ponds that could be destroyed based on the smaller
    mining scenario added during the peer review process.
        EPA's watershed assessment process and proposed 404(c) action did
    not prevent the Pebble Partnership from applying to the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers for permits. Both the watershed assessment process and the
    404(c) procedural rules provided numerous opportunities for public
    comment and interaction. At numerous times before and after
    commencement of the watershed assessment process, the Pebble
    Partnership informed EPA that an application would be filed for a Corps
    permit during the timeframe of the assessment process. However, Pebble
    did not file a permit application until after completion of the
    assessment and issuance of the Proposed Determination.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process was not
    initiated by Pebble until 2018. The Corps of Engineers, in an
    extraordinarily rapid timeframe, issued a Draft EIS for public comment
    in March 2019. The Corps has received extensive negative comments on
    the analysis and content of the Draft EIS from the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, EPA Region 10, members of Congress and many others.
    Some key flaws of the Draft EIS are that the process for preparation
    has been inappropriately accelerated and that the analysis is
    superficial and not based on plans that provide sufficient detail for
    proper evaluation. The primary analysis under the Draft EIS is for a
    much smaller mine than is likely to be ultimately pursued at the site
    based on representations Northern Dynasty has made publicly and in the
    Wardrop Report filed with the SEC. Later, larger mine phases would have
    much greater adverse impacts on fishery resources.
        The DEIS also indicates that the mine proponents would use
    compensatory mitigation to address adverse impacts on fisheries but
    does not propose any specific plans or projects for such mitigation.
    Based on the discussions EPA had with fisheries scientists who have
    studied the Bristol Bay fishery for many years, compensatory mitigation
    would not be effective in this largely pristine watershed. Compensatory
    mitigation is a technique normally applied to restore habitat that has
    been disturbed and there would be few, if any, opportunities for such
    projects in a largely pristine watershed.
        In addition, EPA has now withdrawn the Proposed Determination from
    EPA Region 10 under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. This comes
    after now departed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt initially proposed
    withdrawal of the Proposed Determination in 2017 and then reversed
    course after receiving extensive negative public comments on the
    proposed withdrawal. Only recently, after President Trump reportedly
    met with Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, did EPA Headquarters direct EPA
    Region 10 to consider withdrawal of the Proposed Determination. The
    current Regional Administrator for EPA Region 10 quickly withdrew the
    Proposed Determination after a Headquarters memo directing
    reconsideration. The withdrawal action was taken without any
    opportunities for public comment or due process in a manner totally
    inconsistent with how past work regarding Bristol Bay has been
    conducted.
        In conclusion, the Bristol Bay watershed is a uniquely productive
    and fragile resource. The Pebble Deposit is located directly at the
    headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers, which produce nearly 50
    percent of the salmon in the Bristol Bay system. Mining at the scale
    planned for Pebble at the extremely sensitive location of the mineral
    deposit would result in significant harm to the world-class fisheries
    of the watershed. And, just as importantly, would open the central
    portion of the watershed to become a mining district with Pebble's
    development of road access, a power plant and other mining
    infrastructure. Northern Dynasty Minerals has aggregated a large area
    of mining claims beyond the Pebble Deposit and there are many other
    undeveloped mineral deposits in the unprotected area between Lake Clark
    National Park and Wood-Tikchik State Park. Loss of one of the world's
    last remaining salmon strongholds is simply unacceptable and that is
    why EPA during my tenure decided to take action to protect Bristol Bay
    fisheries. The mining proposed at the Pebble Deposit requires a better
    process of evaluation than what has been done so far under the Corps of
    Engineers' Draft EIS. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
    every year in attempts to recover endangered salmon and restore salmon
    habitat in the Pacific Northwest and California and we should not allow
    the mistakes of the past to be repeated in Bristol Bay.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Next, we will have Mr. Tom Collier. Your testimony, please.
        Mr. Collier. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today
    on this important issue.
        For over 15 years, there has been a raging debate about
    whether you can build a copper mine 200 river-miles away from
    Bristol Bay without doing significant damage to the salmon
    fishery in Bristol Bay. But today, I am here to tell you that
    that debate is now over. In February, the Corps of Engineers
    issued, for the very first time, an independent, transparent,
    comprehensive review of all of the science and concluded
    unequivocally, and repeatedly, that building Pebble Mine will
    not cause any damage to the fishery in Bristol Bay. That is the
    conclusion it reached.
        Now, I wasn't surprised that that conclusion was reached
    and not because of the reason mentioned by the chairman of the
    committee. It is because we changed the project that we
    submitted. The project that was submitted was de-risked. We
    listened to the concerns that had been expressed by the
    agencies, and we listened to the concerns that were expressed
    by the opponents, and I personally managed a total and complete
    redesign of this project. It is smaller. There is no cyanide.
    It is out of the Upper Talarik Creek. There are no waste rock
    piles, completely redesigned the tailings facilities, and
    redesigned the water management system. This project is
    dramatically different from anything that was looked at by EPA
    in its Bristol Bay watershed assessment.
        What we are really here today, I think, to talk a lot about
    is EPA's decision to withdraw the proposed determination. And
    the question is, was that an appropriate decision for them to
    make? I not only think that decision was appropriate, I think
    it was outrageous that the proposed determination had ever been
    issued in the first place for a bunch of reasons. But let me
    just talk about one. I have listed many of them in my written
    statement.
        The Bristol Bay watershed assessment was a predetermined
    outcome, and the process was manipulated to reach that outcome,
    and I am not the only one that has reached that conclusion.
    That conclusion's been reached by a number of folks that have
    taken a strong look at it. And there are lots of examples of
    this having been done, but let me just give you one. It is my
    favorite.
        When the senior Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, wrote
    a letter to EPA after Mr. McLerran had decided to initiate the
    Bristol Bay watershed assessment, she congratulated the agency
    for finally agreeing to do an extensive study of the science so
    that any decision with respect to vetoing or not vetoing the
    mine could be based upon science, and that letter was
    circulated among the senior officials in the Department of EPA.
    And then one of them sent an email to another, and that email
    said, quote, ``Obviously, that's not what we have in mind,''
    closed quote. In other words, they had already made up their
    mind. They knew what they were going to do. They were going to
    veto this project, and they were going to do a scientific study
    to justify the veto, and that is what we did.
        But that is not the basis for the withdrawal that occurred
    in July of the proposed and preemptive veto of this project.
    The basis of that withdrawal is process. You need to follow the
    process. We have a statute. The statute says do an EIS. They
    didn't do an EIS. In fact, at about the same time Mr. McLerran
    was deciding to do the first ever in the history of the Clean
    Water Act, preemptive veto of a major project, his colleague,
    in region 9, was faced with a request to do the same thing; and
    his colleague declined to do a preemptive veto of the Rosemont
    mining project in Arizona. And what he said was, I want to have
    all the information on the table before I make a decision. I
    want to have an EIS on the table. I want to see the applicant's
    permitting process, because I think it would be, and these are
    his words, impossible to make such a decision without having
    all that information on the table. And that is what EPA did,
    and that is the reason the proposed veto, preemptive veto, was
    withdrawn. Thank you.
        [Mr. Collier's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Tom Collier, Chief Executive Officer, Pebble
                                  Partnership
        Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name
    is Tom Collier, and I am the CEO of the Pebble Limited Partnership,
    based in Anchorage, Alaska. I'm grateful that you included me as a
    witness in this important hearing.
        For over 15 years, a battle has been fought over whether building a
    copper mine over 200 river miles from Bristol Bay in Alaska would
    significantly damage the salmon fishery in that region.
        The debate is now over.
        In February of this year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (``the
    Corps'') issued its draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
    proposed Pebble Mine and unequivocally concluded that the project will
    not harm the Bristol Bay fishery.
        We were confident that the Corps would reach this conclusion. Why?
    This conclusion was the result of several factors: First, the citizens
    of Alaska voiced concerns over the Pebble Project, and we have listened
    to them. Second, we have taken several steps to de-risk our mining
    plans. And finally, the Corps has led a process that to date has placed
    science over politics. It is certainly not because, as some have
    suggested, the Trump Administration orchestrated any sort of political
    fix. There is not a shred of evidence showing any inappropriate conduct
    in this process, which stands in stark contrast to what was uncovered
    from the EPA of the previous administration.
        I would like to talk about what the Pebble Partnership has done to
    improve its plans and dispel some of the myths associated with the
    Corps' work to date. Pebble has planned a smaller, smarter mine. In
    response to concerns voiced by various stakeholders, we have reduced
    the mine size to a footprint that even EPA's rigid Proposed
    Determination would nearly have allowed to proceed through the NEPA
    permitting process. The Proposed Determination was based on three
    hypothetical mining plans of differing sizes and stated that EPA would
    not object to an application being considered for permitting a mine
    smaller than the smallest hypothetical EPA mine. Pebble's new mine, at
    an equivalent footprint of just 5.2 square miles, is 75% smaller than
    the largest mine in the Proposed Determination, 48% smaller than the
    medium mine, and slightly larger than the smallest mine evaluated. A
    significant factor in reducing Pebble's footprint is the elimination of
    permanent waste rock storage on the surface, which further
    substantially reduces post-closure water management requirements.
        In response to public concerns, Pebble has also committed to using
    zero cyanide, thus there will be no secondary gold recovery. To be
    clear, cyanide is used safely at industrial facilities and mines
    throughout the world, including in Alaska. But Pebble has heard the
    community's concerns and has completely eliminated spill and post-
    closure cyanide risks. This means that Pebble is walking away from 15%
    of the gold that, at this time, cannot be recovered without using
    cyanide.
        In addition, Pebble has incorporated a drained storage method for
    its bulk tailings, eliminating concerns that a disaster such as that
    which occurred at Mt. Polley could happen here. Some Pebble opponents
    have falsely claimed that the firm designing Pebble's tailings storage
    facility, Knight Piesold, also designed the failed TSF for Mt. Polley.
    In fact, although Knight Piesold designed the original facility, they
    later left the project, after which the design was radically altered
    with weaker, steeper slopes used for tailings storage.
        The operator at Mt. Polley permitted excessive water storage, far
    exceeding what Knight Piesold had designed originally. David Chambers
    of the Center for Science in Public Participation, who has for years
    opposed Pebble, even admitted that ``if the original design had been
    followed [i.e., Knight Piesold's design], the failure would not have
    occurred'' at Mt. Polley. Pebble's state of the art, ``buttressed flow-
    through embankment'' design will minimize water storage, maximize
    stability, facilitate dry closure, and diminish the need for long-term
    water treatment.
        Pebble has also developed state-of-the-art methods for dealing with
    potentially acid-generating (``PAG'') tailings and waste rock. They
    will be stored subaqueously, preventing oxidation of potentially
    reactive materials. They will be stored in a fully lined tailings
    storage facility. Upon closure, PAG tailings and waste rock will be
    transferred to the former open pit, and this permanent subaqueous
    storage further prevents oxidation. There is thus no risk of PAG
    tailings being released into the environment.
        The Pebble Mine will feature an optimized water management strategy
    with the potential to have a positive impact on some fish habitats.
    Based on more than 75 years of high-quality hydrological records,
    Pebble has designed a system with enhanced management capacity to
    address both extreme climate events and long-term climate variations.
    The water management system will have multiple, redundant environmental
    safeguards and will meet the most stringent water quality guidelines.
        Pebble will utilize strategic water releases designed to optimize
    downstream fish habitat conditions. Unlike the scenarios analyzed in
    the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and Proposed Determination,
    Pebble's permit application calls for no mine facilities in the Upper
    Talarik Creek or Kvichak River watersheds. Mine development will occur
    only within two small creeks within the Nushagak River drainage: the
    North Fork Koktuli and the South Fork Koktuli.
        The NFK and SFK produce just 0.08% of Bristol Bay sockeye. The area
    streams contribute negligible salmon habitat relative to the entire
    watershed. Habitat availability is not a limiting factor for Bristol
    Bay sockeye or Chinook.
        One of my fellow panelists today, former EPA Regional Administrator
    Dennis McLerran, has called Pebble's permit application the ``camel's
    nose under the tent,'' which I suppose means that he believes that
    Pebble plans on shoehorning in a larger project despite the fact that
    we have scaled back the footprint in the mine plan currently before the
    Corps of Engineers. I have several responses.
        First, I believe it shows the level of desperation that the Pebble
    opposition has reached. Think about it: to oppose this permit
    application, they are forced to argue that it must in fact be far
    different than what is actually proposed. In other words, they are
    struggling to find problems with what is currently pending before the
    Corps.
        Pebble has no current plans, in this application or in any other
    way, for expansion. If expansion did become feasible, new permits would
    be required. The permit applicant would have to go through the same
    rigorous procedure that Pebble is now going through. Any concerns with
    scope or environmental risk can be addressed in that new permitting
    process. If the Corps grants Pebble's current permit application,
    nothing in that permit suggests a carte blanche to expand. Any future
    mining projects in the area would therefore be evaluated on their own
    merits based on then-existing conditions when and if future
    applications are submitted to the relevant permitting agencies.
        The Corps' EIS and NEPA processes to date have been comprehensive
    and complied with all statutory requirements. Those calling this
    process ``rushed'' are clearly unaware of how these decisions work.
    Charts 1 and 2 demonstrate that the process has been anything but
    rushed. In length of comment period and draft EIS itself, the Corps'
    work here has been thorough, transparent and deliberate, and several
    major projects went through this same process even faster. For example,
    as the chart shows, the Pogo, Kensington, and Red Dog Mines, as well as
    several major oil and gas projects in Alaska, all received major
    federal permits within about three years.

          Haile Mine: the EIS process for the Haile Mine in South
    Carolina began July 2011, and the FEIS was published less than three
    years later in June 2014.
          Pogo Mine: In August 2000, Teck-Pogo Inc. applied for a
    Section 404 permit for a proposed underground cut-and-fill gold mine on
    State of Alaska-owned land in the Goodpaster River Valley. EPA, in
    close consultation with the USACE, published a Draft EIS in March 2003,
    then a final EIS in Sept. 2003--three years and a month after the
    application.
          Kensington Mine: In 2001, Coeur Mining redefined the
    scope for its development of an underground gold mine within the
    Tongass National Forest outside of Juneau. This necessitated a new NEPA
    review, which was completed three years later in December 2004.
    Chart 1
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chart 2
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Red Dog Mine: EPA prepared the Supplemental EIS for the
    expansion of the Red Dog Mine into the Aqqaluk deposit in northwest
    Alaska. The permitting process started in mid-2007 and the EIS was
    finished during Fall 2009, taking just over two years. USACE was a
    cooperating agency.
          Point Thomson: The Corps was the lead agency for the EIS
    for the development of ExxonMobil's Point Thomson oil facility on the
    North Slope of Alaska. The EIS process began in late 2009 and the Final
    EIS was issued mid-2012, taking approximately two and a half years.

        Furthermore, this is undoubtedly one of the most transparent NEPA
    processes ever conducted. All documents and supporting information,
    including any Request for Information, are posted to the EIS website in
    near real time and accessible to anyone who is interested.
        The goal of NEPA has always been to foster better decisions, not
    merely add unnecessary process. The Corps' actions here show that it is
    committed to quality decision-making. The Corps is closely coordinating
    with numerous federal, state, and local agencies, including the State
    of Alaska and native Alaskan entities. Two Bristol Bay area tribes are
    cooperating agencies for the EIS, and the Corps' is also engaging in
    government-to-government consultation with a broad range of tribes in
    the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas. To date, the Corps consulted with
    24 federally recognized tribes.
        Criticisms of the contents of the DEIS are similarly off base.
    First, many Pebble opponents have claimed that the DEIS has ignored
    several topics, but if they actually reviewed the documents, they would
    know that is not the case.

          Mitigation
            Chapter 5 and Appendix M of the DEIS confirm
    significant mitigation measures were incorporated into Pebble's permit
    application. More are being included based on input from the DEIS
    review.
            The DEIS summarizes 70 different Pebble-proposed
    mitigation measures.
            The DEIS includes a draft Compensatory Mitigation Plan.
            The Final Environmental Impact Statement will have a
    detailed compensatory mitigation plan with specific mitigation
    proposals included.
          Climate Change
            The DEIS provides a detailed description of different
    long-term climate change models and widely varying predictions of
    precipitation patterns.
            The Corps confirmed the reasonableness of Pebble's mine
    design for foreseeable climate change scenarios.
          Wetlands impacts
            The DEIS describes the affected environment for
    wetlands and other waters, which includes vegetated wetlands, ponds,
    lakes, streams, rivers, and marine and estuarine waters.
            The DEIS also describes potential environmental
    consequences from the project on wetlands and other waters.
            These assessments were based on USGS Hydrologic Unit
    CodeTenth Level watersheds.
            The DEIS separately addresses navigable waters and
    potential impacts related to transportation and navigation.
            The DEIS summarizes the key issues for wetlands and
    other waters and the key issues for transportation and navigation.
            Additionally, the mine site area has some of the most
    comprehensive wetland mapping ever collected for a mining project in
    Alaska. This mapping was prepared by independent third-party
    consultants.
          Fish Populations
            The DEIS summarizes and tabulates extensive
    quantitative analyses of fish habitat conditions based on widely
    accepted flow/habitat modelling methods and supporting intensive
    physical, chemical, and biological river survey data.
            There is enough information on fish populations in the
    record, including that found in Pebble's environmental baseline
    documents, to allow a final EIS to address any possible request for
    additional analysis.
          Risks to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
            The DEIS relies on extensive scientific data and
    industry accepted methodologies to provide a robust level of analysis
    for such concerns.
            For the assessment of impacts to recreational and
    commercial fishing, the DEIS covers all river systems hydrologically
    connected to the project that contribute to the Bristol Bay salmon
    fishery and to the Cook Inlet saltwater environment.
            The DEIS's analysis area includes commercial and
    recreational fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game commercial
    registration Area T and Area H, the Cook Inlet Management Area
    (including associated federal waters) and the ADF&G Statewide Harvest
    Survey areas S, T, N, and P.
            Under each of the alternatives (and their variants)
    proposed for the project, the DEIS examines impacts to commercial
    fisheries and recreational fisheries resulting from the mine site,
    transportation corridor, port site, and pipeline route.
            The DEIS also provides a cumulative impacts analysis on
    commercial and recreational fisheries, examining issues concerning
    productivity losses, fragmentation of habitat, changes in wetland types
    and loss or degradation or ecosystem functions.
          Impacts to Wildlife
            The DEIS provides a description of the birds,
    terrestrial mammals, and marine mammals that are known or have the
    potential to occur in the project area.
            The DEIS describes the potential environmental
    consequences of the project to non-federally listed birds, terrestrial
    wildlife, and marine mammals and their habitats.
            The DEIS addresses impacts to certain species of
    terrestrial wildlife, including the caribou, moose, bear, gray wolf,
    and small terrestrial vertebrates.
            The DEIS addresses specific species, including the Cook
    Inlet beluga whale, humpback whale, fin whale, Steller sea lion,
    Northern sea otter, and Steller's eider. Furthermore, the USACE is
    consulting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
            In addition, for the final EIS, Pebble has prepared
    updated biological assessments for species under each agency's
    jurisdiction.
          Fugitive Dust
            The DEIS addresses fugitive dust in various sections,
    such as in relation to the spill risk, impacts of the project on water
    and sediment quality, potential environmental consequences from the
    project on vegetation, and potential impacts on soil.
            The DEIS recognizes that the project design
    incorporates various measures to minimize fugitive dust. Notably,
    Pebble's proposed mitigation measures include the use of locked
    containers to transport concentrate from the mill to the ship and
    developing a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, which would address fugitive
    dust emissions created by construction, operations, and closure
    activities.
            This plan, which will be in place before construction
    begins, ``would describe the equipment, methodology, training, and
    performance assessment techniques that would be used for controlling
    fugitive dust from site activities and wind erosion.''
            Additionally, best management practices would be
    implemented for fugitive dust management, and methods would be
    established in order to control dust from various sources, including
    vehicle travel on unpaved roads, material handling, and wind erosion
    from disturbed areas.
          Transportation Corridor
            The DEIS describes both the existing environment that
    would be affected by the transportation corridor alternatives and the
    potential impacts on environmental resources.
            For example, the DEIS discusses the magnitude and
    extent of impacts from construction of the transportation corridor in
    relation to wetlands and other waters.
            The DEIS also summarizes key issues for wildlife
    resources by project component, including the transportation corridor
    and describes the potential effects on soils along the transportation
    corridor.
          Spill Risk
            The DEIS specifically addresses the spill risk for the
    following substances, which were selected based on their spill
    potential and potential consequences: diesel fuel, natural gas, copper-
    gold ore concentrate, chemical reagents, bulk and pyritic tailings, and
    untreated contact water.
            The DEIS also addresses a broad range of topics related
    to spills, including the probable outcomes that would result from a
    release into the environment, data on past spills, organizations or
    plans that may be available as resources in the event of a spill,
    mitigation and minimization design features or practices, hypothetical
    spill scenarios, and the potential impacts from each scenario.
          Environmental Justice
            The DEIS includes a significant examination of
    environmental justice issues, framing the analysis as an intersection
    between various resource topics, including subsistence users,
    subsistence resources, cultural practices, socioeconomic
    characteristics, and community health, with a potential for both
    beneficial and adverse impacts.
            The DEIS examines socioeconomic impacts associated with
    population, housing, and employment; subsistence resources and harvest
    patterns for subsistence-based communities in the EIS analysis area;
    project-related impacts to human health (including effects from changes
    in air quality and water quality, and concerns about contamination and
    subsistence food consumption).
            Further, each project alternative is evaluated for
    potential disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income
    communities at issue.
          Subsistence
            The DEIS analysis area for subsistence issues includes
    the subsistence resources that could be affected by the proposed mine
    site, port, transportation corridor and natural gas pipeline corridor
    for each alternative presented.
            The review includes habitat and migration routes for
    subsistence resources, community subsistence search and harvest areas,
    and areas used by harvesters to access resources.
            The DEIS includes a focus on subsistence activities in
    indigenous communities, reviewing traditional ecological knowledge and
    the culture value of subsistence in developing the analysis on
    subsistence. The analysis also accounts for the cyclical harvest
    pattern of seasonal round.
            The DEIS goes on to examine the impacts of the project
    on subsistence in communities near Iliamna Lake, in the Kvichak and
    Nushagak river drainages, and on the southwest coast of the Kenai
    Peninsula, assessing the magnitude, geographic extent and duration of
    impacts for each project phases.
          Geochemistry
            The DEIS covers the existing geochemistry of the mine
    site.
            The DEIS also discusses in detail geochemistry with
    respect to surface water quality impacts, tailings releases, and
    spilled concentrate.
            Pebble's environmental baseline documents further delve
    into geochemistry issues.

        Second, many critics have claimed that their comments were ignored
    or disregarded. Again, if those critics read the DEIS. they would see
    that the opposite is true. It is important to remember that the DEIS is
    just a draft, and the Corps can and will bolster the document before
    releasing a final EIS. The Corps is already gathering substantial data
    on many issues to add to the FEIS. For example:

          Reclamation: PLP has provided for the Corps a draft
    Reclamation and Closure Plan that meets State of Alaska formatting
    requirements in support of the FEIS.
          Compensatory Mitigation: PLP has developed a revised
    compensatory mitigation plan, which the Corps will evaluate for the
    FEIS.
          Biological Assessment: PLP agreed to develop a revised
    biological assessment and work with US Fish and Wildlife Service on
    mitigation measures and effects decisions to address Endangered Species
    Act concerns.
          TSF Design/Spill Risk: The Corps has facilitated
    technical working group meetings with cooperating agencies to address
    these issues.
          Groundwater Impacts: Pebble and its contractors have
    developed an updated groundwater model, which is now being utilized to
    generate data in response to a request for information from the Corps.
          Wetlands: Supplemental wetland mapping from the 2019
    field season will fill data gaps for the final EIS.

        Another concern expressed today has been whether EPA withdrawing
    its preemptive, unprecedented veto (also known as the Proposed
    Determination) was the correct decision. There can be no question that
    it was.
        First, the entire Proposed Determination was the epitome of bad
    process--a lack of statutory authorization, no valid scientific record
    to speak of, and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats trying to
    regulate a major economic development project out of existence.
        In the 47-year history of the Clean Water Act, EPA has never used
    Section 404(c) preemptively--that is, without a permit application
    reviewed by the Corps. As you can tell from Chart 3, EPA has only used
    the power 13 times. In 11 of the 13 instances, EPA had a full permit
    application record to review before it issued its veto. In the
    remaining 2 vetoes, unique circumstances existed to make the decision
    to veto wholly different than exists here.

          First, in the Bayou aux Carpes project in Louisiana, EPA
    was reviewing a project proposed by the Corps itself, so of course the
    processes for approval were different. As a federal court reviewing the
    issue noted, the Corps does not apply to itself for a permit.
    Additionally, the project approval process began before the passage of
    the Clean Water Act. There actually was a permit application to review;
    it was by the local parish under the Rivers and Harbors Act as well as
    a related permit application under the Clean Water Act that the Corps
    had denied.
          Second, for the veto related to a development site near
    the Everglades in the 1980s, EPA determined that the permit application
    would be identical to applications submitted for two neighboring sites.
    All three locations were considered ``similar pieces of the East
    Everglades wetlands complex with similar ecological values.'' When EPA
    moved to veto the Corps' pending 404 permits for the first two
    projects, it vetoed the third at the same time because it deemed them
    to have the same characteristics as the other two properties.

        Finally, EPA has even admitted that its actions lacked precedent.

          A briefing paper prepared in 2010, prior to the BBWA,
    noted that the contemplated preemptive veto had ``[n]ever been done in
    the history of the CWA.''
          The paper also correctly predicted that, given the
    unprecedented use of the authority, there was ``[l]itigation risk.''

        The preemptive veto is rarely used for a simple reason: In addition
    to it being bad policy to make major regulatory decisions on the basis
    of zero project-specific information, the Clean Water Act does not
    authorize a preemptive veto. The language of the statute itself
    contemplates a permit application before EPA can exercise its narrow
    veto authority. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to issue
    permits ``for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
    navigable waters at specified disposal sites.'' 33 U.S.C.  1344. EPA's
    authority is narrow and must be based on a permit application, as the
    statute only allows the Agency to ``prohibit the specification'' or
    ``deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification.'' EPA
    can only take this action after determining that the discharge ``into
    such area'' will have an unacceptable adverse effect on the
    environment.
    Chart 3--USEPA CWA Section 404(c) Final Veto Actions
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The legislative history of the Clean Water Act and major cases
    interpreting it confirm that it was not intended to allow for
    preemptive vetoes. When Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, it
    expressly declined to give EPA complete authority over the issuance of
    permits, dividing up responsibilities between EPA and the Corps. The
    Senate Debate on the Conference Report contemplated that there would be
    a permit application before any 404(c) action ``because the permit
    application transmitted to [EPA] for review will set forth both the
    site to be used and the content of the matter of the soil to be
    disposed.''
        The United States Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act
    ``gives EPA authority to `prohibit' any decision by the Corps to issue
    a permit for a particular disposal site.'' Coeur Alaska Inc. v.
    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261, 274 (2009). The
    D.C. Circuit, in its ruling upholding that EPA could issue a veto even
    after the Corps has issued a permit, had before it a ``retroactive''
    veto, not a preemptive veto such as Pebble faced. Indeed, the Court
    focused on the fact that in the Mingo Logan case, the disposal site was
    specified in the permit, meaning that EPA could only withdraw post-
    permit. See Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d 608, 614 (D.C. Cir.
    2013). The case does not address a preemptive veto, which would raise a
    host of different questions than those addressed by the Mingo Logan
    court.
        The Proposed Determination was also faulty process because it
    deliberately avoided NEPA and an EIS, which together comprise a
    superior, time-tested means of evaluating major development projects.
    Internal EPA emails make clear that the Agency had no intention of ever
    getting to a NEPA process. When Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
    suggested that EPA's decision to conduct the BBWA in February 2011
    meant no preemptive action would occur until all the science had been
    evaluated, an EPA official stated ``her statement would suggest no
    404(c) would be done until all the science is in (EIS?). Obviously,
    that's not what we have in mind . . .''
        NRDC, a vocal opponent of the Pebble Project, has long referred to
    NEPA as the Magna Carta of environmental protection and ``democratic at
    its core.'' But now, when presented with an opportunity to put NEPA to
    work doing the exact project analysis for which it was designed, NRDC
    has shown its true colors: it only likes NEPA when it can be used to
    block a project.
        Not all EPA regional administrators during the Obama Administration
    believed the statutory federal permitting process could be disregarded
    like Mr. McLerran did. In 2016, then-Region 9 Administrator Jared
    Blumenfeld, when asked if EPA would veto a second permit for the
    Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona, stated that he could not say if EPA
    was considering a veto until the Corps indicates that it intends to
    issue one. According to Blumenfeld, EPA needs ``a complete record'' to
    ``see the entire body of information'' and in the absence thereof, it
    would be ``irresponsible to make a statement'' regarding a veto. As
    Blumenfeld aptly put it: ``Prejudging is actually not useful for EPA.''
        Allowing the Proposed Determination to stand would have set a far-
    reaching, negative precedent for federal land use decisions. Using the
    Clean Water Act in this way is essentially the Antiquities Act on
    steroids. EPA--without statutory authority--grabbed the power to turn
    private and state land into a national park without any adequate
    stakeholder involvement or process.
        Make no mistake: federal zoning authority is what EPA explicitly
    wanted with this decision. One of the early, pre-BBWA EPA briefing
    papers stated that an advantage of a preemptive veto of Pebble was that
    it would ``serve as a model of proactive watershed planning for
    sustainability.''
        The bottom line is that the bad process and lack of statutory
    authority alone are solid reasons to withdraw the Proposed
    Determination. But if you look at how EPA actually crafted its Clean
    Water Act Section 404(c) veto, you will see the most shoddy and corrupt
    federal agency analysis that I have ever seen in more than 40 years
    working in environmental regulation.
        EPA's action was initiated not by the public or an independent
    tribal petition as claimed, but by a rogue EPA staffer who colluded
    with a known anti-mining activist to improperly petition his own
    agency. In 2009, EPA Region 10 ecologist Phil North concluded his
    agency should use its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water
    Act to veto Pebble. North advocated for a pre-emptive 404(c) veto
    throughout the agency, including to then-Administrator Lisa Jackson in
    early 2010.

          According to sworn deposition testimony, by 2010 North
    had convinced two high ranking EPA Region 1O staff members (Richard
    Parkin and Michael Szerlog) that the project should be preemptively
    vetoed. EPA determined it needed political cover to kill Pebble, so it
    conspired with anti-mine activists to orchestrate a ``tribal petition''
    as a pretext to initiate a process.
          North worked secretly with Geoff Parker, a known Pebble
    critic and attorney for several Alaska Native Tribes, to draft a
    petition for submission by some tribes. In an email uncovered by the
    House Oversight Committee, some within EPA expressed concern over the
    level of access and influence Parker had within EPA.
          EPA ``lost'' Phil North's computer hard drive for a
    critical two-year period when North and others regularly used personal
    email to conduct Pebble-related business.

        Even before receiving the petition and without any scientific
    study, EPA started drafting internal policy documents to facilitate
    preemptive action against Pebble.

          In 2010, a budget was prepared to secure funds to
    preemptively veto Pebble. EPA developed an ``options paper'' in
    consultation with Parker outlining the various paths EPA could take to
    a veto.
          Other federal agencies were looped in: a 2010 US Fish &
    Wildlife Service memo describes how EPA had made up its mind to veto
    the project.

        From the very beginning of the BBWA process, EPA stacked the deck
    against Pebble by placing avowed Pebble opponents in prominent
    positions drafting the BBWA.
          Richard Parkin
            Region 10's Richard Parkin, placed in charge of the
    BBWA, believed as early as 2010 that Pebble should be vetoed and
    campaigned aggressively within EPA for that result.
            At an early community meeting about the BBWA, Parkin
    even admitted that politics were ``as big or bigger factor'' than
    science in evaluating Pebble.
          Phil North
            North testified that he opposed Pebble very early and
    began campaigning within EPA in 2009 for an eventual veto.
            North even worked with Geoff Parker, a known Pebble
    critic and attorney for several Alaska Native Tribes, to draft a
    petition on behalf of those tribes urging EPA to veto Pebble. In other
    words, North engaged in a clandestine lobbying effort of his own
    agency, and EPA 's Inspector General determined that this constituted a
    ``possible misuse of position.''
            North was named ``technical lead'' for the BBWA.
          Michael Szerlog, head of Region 10's Aquatic Resources
    Unit, testified that he too became opposed to Pebble before the BBWA.

        EPA was also sure to load the BBWA team with Pebble opponents from
    outside the Agency.

          Ann Maest
            EPA incorporated hydrologist Ann Maest's work after
    meeting with her numerous times and noting her bias against Pebble.
            The second draft of the BBWA was released after Maest
    was forced to admit in federal court to having falsified scientific
    reports in other litigation.
            In this other litigation, the U.S. District Court for
    the Southern District of New York ruled that a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian
    judgment against Chevron, in which Ann Maest served as Plaintiff's #2
    environmental consultant, was the product of fraud and racketeering
    activity by the Plaintiff's legal team. Maest declared under oath, ``I
    disavow any and all findings and conclusions in all my reports and
    testimony on the Equator Project.''
            EPA covered up Maest's role by removing explicit
    citations to her work in the BBWA, but not the underlying information.
          EPA chose University of Washington professor Thomas Quinn
    as a BBWA contributor, despite having participated in numerous
    briefings in which he advocated strongly for a preemptive veto,
    including one instance in which Quinn was forced to apologize for his
    aggressiveness during a briefing.
          EPA hired Alan Boraas to conduct subsistence and
    traditional use studies for the BBWA, despite Boraas having previously
    published several anti-Pebble editorials.
          EPA picked Phil Brna, a USFWS employee, to co-author a
    major appendix to the BBWA, despite his previously expressed excitement
    at the possibility of a veto. In an email, Brna stated: ``[t]his [i.e.,
    a decision barring Pebble] is going to happen and it's going to get
    bloody. I am looking forward to it!''

        The BBWA began with anti-mine material, drawing heavily on the
    resources of ENGOs and activists and developed in close coordination
    with them. EPA shared with ENGOs an outline of the BBWA nearly a year
    before it announced the study. EPA planned to mimic a ``risk
    assessment'' by The Nature Conservancy (``TNC'') that had an extreme,
    negative view of Pebble. Before the launch of the BBWA in early 2011,
    EPA scheduled several briefings with anti-Pebble groups and invited
    anti-mine scientists to ``summarize the TNC risk assessment and how it
    supports 404(c).'' TNC has bragged that its ``science work is flowing
    directly into EPA's assessment of mining risk.'' Over the course of the
    BBWA (2011-2014), EPA communicated hundreds of times with anti-Pebble
    activists and scientists to share campaign information, technical
    studies and other intelligence relevant to EPA's 404(c) strategy.
        Other EPA officials were similarly conflicted. Nancy Stoner, EPA's
    former Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, had previously worked
    for NRDC for over a decade. Despite NRDC's active opposition to Pebble,
    in which she participated while at the organization, Stoner did not
    recuse herself from Pebble-related matters at EPA. In fact, in response
    to a meeting request from NRDC leaders in June 2010, Stoner had to bend
    over backwards to keep an appearance of impartiality, stating in an
    email ``I passed along your request to others here. I am not supposed
    to set up meetings with NRDC staff, but can attend such a meeting if
    there are enough others in attendance.'' Despite recognizing this
    conflict, she continued to work on Pebble-related projects.
        What we know about EPA's wrongdoing in the Proposed Determination
    process may in fact only be the tip of the iceberg due to shoddy and
    perhaps nefarious record-keeping.

          Phil North and others regularly used personal email to
    communicate, including on Pebble-related matters, but EPA has never
    conducted a full search of personal emails.
          Somehow, EPA even ``lost'' North's computer hard drive
    spanning a full two-year period when he was working on Pebble matters.
          In an email uncovered by the House Oversight Committee,
    Richard Parkin indicated that staff members may have routinely taken
    sham steps to avoid FOIA disclosure, asking an attorney, ``Should [our]
    subject line include something like Atty/Client Privileged or whatever?
    Should we just do that routinely?''

        Not surprisingly, this predetermined, rushed process produced a
    scientifically indefensible Assessment and Proposed Determination. With
    no actual permit application to review, EPA designed hypothetical
    mining scenarios that it knew would have adverse impacts. EPA admitted
    the scenarios ``are not based on a specific mine permit application and
    are not intended to be the detailed plans by which the components of a
    mine would be designed.'' For just one example, EPA's hypothetical mine
    scenarios did not include the standard robust compensatory mitigation
    that is required for any project.
        Peer reviewers criticized the reliance on hypothetical mine
    scenarios, stating ``because of the hypothetical nature of the approach
    employed, the uncertainty associated with the assessment, and therefore
    the utility of the assessment, is questionable.'' EPA continued to use
    hypothetical mine scenarios that did not reflect modern engineering or
    environmental management because it knew that doing so would result in
    exaggerated environmental impacts and overstated risks, ensuring it
    could justify its proposed pre-emptive veto.
        The water release scenario in the BBWA shows how the hypothetical
    mines were practically designed to fail. The BBWA assumed that the
    Pebble Mine would release surplus water into only two of three
    available streams. Despite no logical, scientific, or legal basis for
    assuming such a release system, EPA chose to adopt it so that the BBWA
    could overstate impacts on downstream aquatic habitats. If, instead,
    EPA had chosen to assume that surplus water would have been released
    strategically, as is the case with Pebble's proposed plan, it would
    have concluded, for each hypothetical mine scenario analyzed, that the
    changes in stream flow would have involved a relatively high level of
    ecosystem protection, rather than finding a potentially adverse impact
    on the surrounding ecosystem. The obvious explanation for the BBWA's
    surplus water release scenario, therefore, is that EPA was designing a
    mine to fail.
        EPA even manipulated the peer review process to hide these glaring
    problems. Each time the BBWA underwent a peer review, reviewers pointed
    out its serious shortcomings. The following are quotes from various
    peer reviewers.

          ``I find this report, by its nature, to be very biased.''
          This report ``is clearly intended to convince the reader
    that the Pebble Mine should not be permitted to operate'' and ``lacks
    impartiality.''
          ``[S]ome of the comments read like editorial opinions
    rather than reporting scientific results.''
          One reviewer noted the BBWA's conclusions were ``not
    appropriate for a document that is intended to provide a scientific and
    technical foundation for future decision making.''
          Another concluded, ``Although interesting, the potential
    reality of the assessment is somewhat questionable. It is also unclear
    why EPA undertook this evaluation, given that a more realistic
    assessment could probably have been conducted once an actual mine was
    proposed and greater detail about operational parameters available.''

        EPA designed a peer review process that was contrary to its own
    regulations and guidelines so the many flaws in its BBWA study would
    remain hidden.

          In violation of its own guidelines, EPA had excessive
    contact with peer reviewers.
          EPA short-circuited the peer review process, limiting
    both oral and written submissions during public meetings.
          When EPA released the second draft of the BBWA, it had
    expanded from 339 pages to 618, and included an entirely new
    hypothetical mine scenario. This was not a second draft; it was an
    entirely new document which EPA should have peer reviewed. Not
    surprisingly, EPA ignored requests that it conduct a full peer review
    of the new document.
          EPA allowed peer reviewers to review only a limited set
    of materials in a limited amount of time and permitted them to address
    only specific questions selected by EPA.
          EPA ignored peer reviewers when they complained about the
    process and the insufficient time given for review.
          EPA tried to mollify peer reviewers' concerns by
    misleading them with promises that the BBWA would not be used for a
    regulatory decision. In response to peer review comments, EPA stated 67
    times that the BBWA was not intended to be a decision document, even
    though it ultimately relied on it exclusively in issuing preemptive
    restrictions on Pebble.

        In short, the Trump Administration has not overturned science with
    this decision. To the contrary, by withdrawing a shoddy and corrupt
    decision and allowing the statutorily-mandated federal permitting
    process to proceed, this Administration has in fact injected more--and
    better--science into the process.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee and
    to address many of the myths that opponents are trying to build around
    the Pebble mine. We are dedicated to building a mine that can deliver
    the economic benefits that Alaskans so desperately need while ensuring
    that we do no damage to the fishery that is vital to the life of our
    State.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    sir, and we now will have Mr. Richard Borden. You may proceed.
        Mr. Borden. I would like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano,
    Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the subcommittee for
    the opportunity to present this testimony.
        I am a geologist, environmental scientist, and manager with
    over 30 years of experience in the mining and consulting
    industries, including 23 years with Rio Tinto. During my
    career, I have performed permitting, evaluation, design and
    environmental work at more than 50 mines and mining projects
    across the world.
        I believe mining is essential to sustain our society, and
    that most commercially viable ore deposits should be developed.
    However, that does not mean that all ore bodies should be
    developed regardless of their negative environmental,
    commercial, or social impacts.
        The Pebble project is located in the most sensitive,
    globally significant, and challenging environmental setting of
    any mining project I have ever reviewed. It will be extremely
    difficult to construct, operate, and close a commercially
    viable mine in this setting that does not do permanent material
    harm to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.
        Risks associated with the smaller 20-year mine proposed by
    the Pebble Partnership have been reduced, but by no means have
    they been eliminated. Even if everything goes exactly according
    to plan, the proposed mine would disturb 14 square miles of
    land and 8 miles of salmon-bearing rivers and streams. It would
    create a very large contaminated water treatment liability
    which will persist for many decades to centuries after closure.
        Despite these challenges, the environmental impact
    statement, or EIS, is scheduled for completion in less than
    half the time of a typical new mining project. This overly
    rushed process has contributed to the deeply flawed draft EIS
    that was released 6 months ago. Much of the EIS analysis
    contains insufficient detail to determine if the planned
    actions are equate or practicable.
        There are significant omissions. The document commonly
    understates potential impacts. In a number of significant
    instances, the conclusions are clearly wrong. Based on my
    experience, the draft EIS does not even meet industry standard
    practice.
        The proposed EIS project only mines about 10 percent of the
    total resource, and by necessity, must process relatively low
    grade ore. It would produce only half as much metal for sale as
    the smallest Pebble Mine plan that has undergone a rigorous,
    independent, and publicly available financial evaluation. This
    represents a loss of roughly $15 billion in revenue.
        Based upon a careful review of the available financial
    data, it is my professional opinion that the mine plan being
    evaluated by the EIS is, most certainly, not economically
    feasible. I have estimated the proposed project to have a net
    present value of approximately negative $3 billion.
        The financial analysis for the 20-year mine plan provided
    in the draft EIS by the Pebble Partnership is deeply flawed. It
    ignores smelting and refining costs, understates capital and
    operating costs, and fails to provide even a placeholder cost
    for closure.
        This represents a fatal flaw in the process because a
    larger mine would almost certainly need to be constructed in
    order to obtain a positive rate of return on the very large
    initial capital investment, which is almost certain to exceed
    $6 billion.
        The current EIS is, thus, almost certainly not evaluating
    the true environmental impacts and risks associated with the
    viable mining project. Even a small expansion of the project to
    extract 20 percent of the ore body would almost double the size
    of the disturbed footprint, quadruple water quality risks, and
    likely spread large-scale impacts into three different river
    drainage basins.
        Before closing, I also feel obligated to point out two of
    the more significant problems provided by Mr. Collier's written
    testimony. The examples cited in his EIS timeline are
    misleading. They are mostly oil and gas projects, or mines that
    are 10 to 1,000 times smaller than the proposed Pebble project.
    They all have a very different, and generally, a much lower
    risk profile, so it is no surprise they were completed more
    rapidly. The closest analog cited is the Donlin Mine EIS which
    took 6 years to complete, compared to the 2 years allotted for
    Pebble.
        The written testimony is also completely silent about the
    economics of the small mine being permitted, and that will
    almost certainly lose billions of dollars without a major
    expansion. In fairness to the EIS process, the investment
    community, and local stakeholders, I would urge the Pebble
    Limited Partnership to clearly demonstrate that the 20-year
    mine plan detailed in the EIS is financially viable. Thank you
    for the opportunity to speak with you.
        [Mr. Borden's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Richard K. Borden, Owner, Midgard Environmental
                                  Services LLC
        I would like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
    Westerman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    present this written testimony on the ``Pebble Mine Project: Process
    and Potential Impacts.''
        During my 30-year career I have performed permitting, design and
    environmental work at more than fifty mines and mining projects across
    the world. The Pebble Project is located in the most sensitive,
    globally significant and challenging environmental setting of any
    mining project I have ever reviewed. It will be extremely difficult to
    construct, operate and close a commercially viable mine in this setting
    in a way that does not do permanent material harm to the salmon
    fishery. Even the smaller 20-year mine proposed for permitting by the
    Pebble Partnership would create very large environmental impacts and
    risks in the heart of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.
        Despite these challenges, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    is scheduled for completion in less than half the time of a typical
    mine EIS. This overly rushed process has contributed to the deeply-
    flawed draft EIS that was released six months ago. I have provided
    almost 50 pages of detailed technical comments on the draft EIS to the
    Army Corps of Engineers in six separate letters. Much of the EIS
    analysis contains insufficient detail to determine if the planned
    actions are adequate or practicable; the document commonly understates
    potential impacts; essential analyses and designs are deferred to the
    post-EIS permitting period; and in a number of significant instances,
    the conclusions are clearly wrong. The draft EIS clearly does not meet
    industry standard practice.
        The proposed EIS project only mines about ten percent of the total
    Pebble resource and by necessity must process relatively low-grade ore.
    It would produce only half as much metal for sale as the smallest mine
    plan that has undergone a rigorous, publicly available financial
    evaluation by an independent engineering consulting firm. The proposed
    EIS project by itself is also not the world class resource which is
    being advertised. Without a significant expansion it is not even in the
    top 25 ore bodies in the world for contained copper or gold.
        Based upon a careful review of the available financial data, it is
    my professional opinion that the mine plan being evaluated by the EIS
    is almost certainly not economically feasible, with an estimated
    negative net present value of three billion dollars. This represents a
    fatal flaw in the EIS because a larger mine would almost certainly need
    to be constructed in order to attain a positive rate of return on the
    very large initial capital investment. The current EIS is thus almost
    certainly not evaluating the true environmental impacts and risks
    associated with a viable mining project. Even a small expansion of the
    project to extract 20% of the ore body would almost double the size of
    the disturbed footprint, quadruple water quality risks and likely
    spread large-scale impacts into three different river drainage basins.
                            Professional Background
        I am a geologist, environmental scientist and manager with over
    thirty years of experience in the mining and consulting industries.
    During my 23 years with the global mining company Rio Tinto I
    participated in and contributed to more than twenty financial and
    technical assessments of new major capital projects, divestments and
    potential acquisitions. This included over seven years as Head of
    Environment for Rio Tinto's Copper, Copper & Diamonds and Copper & Coal
    Product Groups. I have published numerous papers on mine environmental
    performance and management in peer reviewed scientific journals,
    conference proceedings and books. I am intimately aware of the
    environmental challenges, issues and costs posed by the responsible
    development, operation and closure of large copper mines.
            Pebble Project Environmental Setting, Impacts and Risks
        The Pebble copper-gold ore body is located on a drainage divide
    between the headwaters of three important river systems in the center
    of the Bristol Bay watershed. This watershed hosts the globally
    significant Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Salmon are very sensitive to
    direct disturbance and to water quality changes within spawning rivers
    and surrounding wetlands. Most of the deposit is chemically reactive
    and would be prone to acid rock drainage formation if exposed to
    surface weathering conditions by mining. The site also has a very wet
    climate and is in a pristine, remote and seismically active location.
    All of these factors contribute to the very high innate environmental
    risk posed by any development of the ore body. Any commercial mining
    would, by necessity, result in widespread direct disturbance to
    wetlands, streams and upland areas. It would also create a contaminated
    water management liability which will certainly persist for decades and
    likely persist for centuries after mining is completed.
        The mine plan submitted for the EIS by the Pebble Partnership seeks
    to control these environmental impacts and risks by 1) only mining ten
    percent of the ore body; 2) minimizing the disturbed footprint; and 3)
    implementing design and engineering controls. These efforts have
    reduced, but by no means have they eliminated all the impacts and risks
    associated with the project. The 20-year mine plan proposed for the EIS
    would still result in direct disturbance of roughly 14 square miles and
    the permanent loss of eight miles of salmon river and stream habitat.
    Approximately 13,000 gallons per minute of contaminated water would
    need to be reliably captured and treated during operations and over
    5000 gallons per minute would need to be managed in perpetuity after
    closure. Over one billion tons of bulk tailings would also need to be
    managed in perpetuity. The closure of the small mine would be complex
    and the total closure cost liability created would almost certainly
    exceed 1.5 billion dollars. As shown in the table below, if an
    economically-viable full scale mine were ever developed at the site,
    most impacts and risks would increase by factors of three to five times
    and some would increase by more than one hundred times compared to the
    mine plan currently being evaluated by the EIS process.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Proposed 20-year EIS      Expanded 78-year
                                                     mine plan         Development Scenario      Relative increase
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Direct Disturbance         14 square miles       > 46 square miles       3.3 times greater
     Permanent Direct Wetland Disturbance        5.5 square miles       > 19 square miles       3.5 times greater
                               Permanent Loss 8 miles of streams and  42 miles of streams         5 times greater
                                                           rivers              and rivers
                 Bulk Tailings Production       1140 million tons       5700 million tons         5 times greater
              Pyritic Tailings Production        155 million tons        800 million tons         5 times greater
           Non-Acid-Generating Waste Rock         95 million tons      13600 million tons       140 times greater
                                Production
    Acid-Generating Waste Rock Production         50 million tons       3400 million tons        70 times greater
       Fugitive Dust and Mobile Equipment     250,000 tons/day of     900,000 tons/day of       3.6 times greater
                                 Emissions         material moved          material moved
                       Open Pit Footprint               608 acres              3600 acres         6 times greater
           Maximum Pit Groundwater Inflow        2400 gallons per      12,000 gallons per         5 times greater
                                                           minute                  minute
          Operational Spill Risk Duration                20 years                78 years       3.9 times greater
                Green House Gas Emissions     > 22 million tons of    > 160 million tons of       7 times greater
                                                  CO2 equivalents         CO2 equivalents
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Pebble Project Draft EIS; Wardrop, Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, 2011 (commissioned by
      Northern Dynasty Minerals); and independent calculations

    Pebble Mine Project Economics
        In 2011, Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited commissioned Wardrop (an
    independent mining engineering consulting firm) to complete a
    ``Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project''. This study performed
    financial evaluations on 25-, 45- and 78-year mine scenarios that
    targeted approximately 17, 32 and 55% of the total ore body
    respectively. This is the last publicly available, rigorous and
    independent economic evaluation of the Pebble ore body. The 20-year
    mine plan being evaluated by the EIS only produces half as much metal
    for sale as the smallest mine plan evaluated by Wardrop. In sum the
    value per ton of ore mined by the 20-year EIS mine plan is also about
    21% lower than the average ore mined by the 25-year Wardrop plan. Given
    both project scenarios would have roughly the same very high initial
    capital costs for infrastructure construction, this has a profound
    negative impact on the likely economics of the mine being evaluated by
    the EIS. A comparison of the profits generated by concentrate sales
    from the two projects can be made using the life of mine average net
    smelter return per ton of ore calculated in 2011 minus the average
    total operating costs per ton of ore. For the 25-year mine plan this
    equates to $32 billion and for the 20-year mine plan this equates to
    $17 Billion. Thus, the mine currently being evaluated in the EIS
    process makes $15 billion less profit from concentrate sales. When this
    difference is apportioned by year and a discount rate of seven percent
    per year is applied, this equates to a five-billion-dollar reduction in
    net present value (NPV) between the 25-year plan evaluated in 2011 and
    the 20-year EIS case. It is certainly acknowledged that these are
    approximate, back-of-the-envelope calculations but the strategic
    implications for overall project economics are significant and will be
    extremely difficult to offset.
        The initial mine construction costs assumed by Wardrop were
    anomalously low compared to other large copper mines that have been
    studied or built over the past five to ten years. Part of the apparent
    discrepancy in capital cost can be attributed to the removal of $1.3
    billion in capital from the 2011 Wardrop construction cost estimate
    because ``it has been assumed in the financial evaluation that the
    Pebble Partnership will enter into strategic partnerships as needed to
    develop, finance and operate a number of infrastructure assets--
    including the transportation corridor (port and road) and the power
    plant.'' However, it is unclear who would partner with the Pebble
    project in order to provide this extra capital. As such, this
    assumption is considered speculative. Adding this $1.3 billion back
    into the capital cost estimate for the Pebble 25-year mine case brings
    the total construction cost up to six billion dollars which is a little
    more in line with other recent mining projects.
        The Wardrop study also significantly underestimated annual water
    treatment costs and did not include even a placeholder cost for closure
    of the Pebble mine. As shown in the table below, when the higher
    construction costs; higher operational expenditures for water
    treatment; closure costs and much lower revenue from concentrate sales
    are factored into the Wardrop study's 25-year mine plan economic
    evaluation, the 20-year mine plan being considered by the Pebble EIS
    has a negative NPV of approximately three billion dollars. This should
    only be considered a conceptual level approximation of the project's
    actual NPV. While a new rigorous economic evaluation may make the NPV
    less or more negative, I believe it is very unlikely to make the
    project have a positive rate of return on what is likely to be an
    extremely large and risky capital investment.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NPV
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimated NPV of the 2011 Wardrop 25-Year Mine Plan.      +$3.8 Billion
    Capital for Access Corridor and Power Plant added         -$1.3 Billion
     back into construction cost........................
    Lost revenues from decreased concentrate sales......        -$5 Billion
    Refined operational water treatment costs...........      -$0.3 Billion
    Discounted Closure Cost.............................      -$0.4 Billion
    Conceptual NPV of the EIS 20-Year Mine Plan.........        -$3 Billion
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The conceptual financial analysis provided by the Pebble Limited
    Partnership for the 20-year mine plan in the draft EIS is fatally
    flawed. It ignores smelter and refining costs, understates capital and
    operating costs and fails to provide even a placeholder cost for
    closure. With the incorporation of just these limited corrections, the
    Pebble Limited Partnership financial evaluation also has a strongly
    negative net present value. The draft EIS is thus evaluating a mine
    plan that does not meet its own alternatives screening criteria
    including the requirement that each alternative be ``practical or
    feasible from the technical and economic standpoint''.
        If the base case mine plan assumed for the EIS is not economic,
    then the entire permitting process is compromised because the impacts
    and risks being evaluated are much smaller than those required for a
    full-scale economically viable project. In other words, the EIS is not
    evaluating the ``least environmentally damaging practicable
    alternative.'' This situation would also place prospective developers
    in a difficult situation because in order to create a profitable
    operation they would either need to 1) immediately begin a new EIS for
    a larger economically viable mine plan or 2) knowingly permit, fund and
    build an uneconomic mine in the hopes that a later EIS and permitting
    process would allow a larger, economically viable operation.
        For additional detail of the full economic evaluation submitted to
    the Army Corps of Engineers during the draft EIS public comment period
    see Appendix A attached to this written testimony.
    Environmental Impact Statement Process
        The draft EIS document for the Pebble Project was written in only
    eleven months. This is almost three times faster than the 2.6 years to
    complete the average draft EIS in the United States between 2010 and
    2017 (Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental
    Quality, December 2018). This short timeline is unprecedented for such
    a large, complex mining project which will have unavoidable, material
    and long-term impacts to a sensitive, globally significant ecosystem.
    It has almost certainly compromised the technical rigor and reliability
    of the EIS process.
        Based upon a careful review of the Pebble Project draft EIS it is
    my professional opinion that the document and associated analysis is
    fatally flawed. The draft EIS contains an unacceptable number of
    deficiencies, omissions and errors. Due to the global significance of
    the salmon fishery, any EIS within the Bristol Bay watershed should be
    held to the highest standard, but the Pebble draft EIS does not even
    meet industry standard practice. Much of the analysis contains
    insufficient detail to determine if the planned actions are adequate or
    practicable; the document commonly understates potential impacts;
    essential analyses and designs are deferred to the post-EIS permitting
    period; and in a number of significant instances, the conclusions are
    clearly wrong. The analysis of key project components such as water
    management, geotechnical stability, reclamation & closure, wetlands
    mitigation and air quality are clearly inadequate. In particular the
    failure to consider the profound impacts that would result from large-
    scale catastrophic tailings dam failure means that the draft EIS
    ignores one of the largest environmental risks posed by the project.
    The cumulative effects evaluation of the more-credible 78-year mine
    plan significantly understates and, in some cases, grossly
    underestimates the much larger impacts and risks associated with an
    expanded mining operation. There are also several important
    alternatives which could significantly reduce the environmental impacts
    and risks of the project which were either not evaluated or were
    eliminated prematurely.
        I have provided almost 50 pages of detailed technical comments on
    the draft EIS to the Army Corps of Engineers in six separate letters.
    These letters are publicly available at the Army Corps Pebble Project
    EIS website and are also attached as Appendix A to this written
    testimony. Given the substantial flaws in the draft EIS, I have urged
    the Army Corps of Engineers to restart the process with an analysis
    based on an economically-credible mine plan; and supported by an
    independent, rigorous economic analysis to demonstrate that the project
    is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The EIS
    process will be severely compromised if the deficiencies of the current
    document are not fully addressed. This would almost certainly require,
    as a minimum, the completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
    Statement.
                                   appendix a
      technical comment letters on the pebble project draft environmental
                                impact statement
    submitted to the united states army corps of engineers during the 2019
                             public comment period
        [The comments are retained in committee files and are available
    online at the U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository at
    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW02/20191023/110065/HHRG-116-PW02-
    Wstate-BordenR-20191023.pdf beginning on page 7, as well as at https://
    pebbleprojecteis.com/publiccomments/drafteiscomments.]

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Borden.
        I now recognize Alannah Hurley, and you may proceed.
        Ms. Hurley. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chair
    DeFazio, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the
    subcommittee. I thank you all for having me here today. My
    Yup'ik name is Acha [phonetic], and my Irish name is Alannah
    Hurley, and I am executive director for the United Tribes of
    Bristol Bay.
        And UTBB is a Tribal consortium whose mission is to defend
    our indigenous way of life by protecting our traditional lands
    and waters. The Yup'ik, Denaina, and Alutiiq peoples of Bristol
    Bay represent three of the last remaining salmon cultures on
    the planet. We are salmon people, but salmon are more than food
    for us. Salmon are central to our cultural identity, our
    spirituality, and our sacred way of life that has made us who
    we are for thousands of years in the Bristol Bay region.
        Pebble's proposal to build a mine at the heart of our
    watershed has been a dark cloud over Bristol Bay for the last
    15 years. As proposed, the mine would permanently impact
    thousands of acres of pristine lands and waters that sustain
    the world's greatest salmon habitat. While our people have
    opposed Pebble for nearly two decades, our recent experience
    with the Army Corps of Engineers has made it clear to us, the
    Government is paving the way for Pebble, regardless of the
    consequences.
        Despite the Corps statement that it is committed to a
    thorough, fair, and transparent review of Pebble, our Tribes'
    experiences in the environmental review process demonstrate it
    is merely paying lip service to its statutory obligations and
    its trust responsibility to our Tribes. Despite two of our
    member Tribes' significant efforts to work as cooperating
    agencies, the Corps has erected substantial barriers to their
    meaningful participation. The Corps has dismissed the Tribes'
    concerns and failed to provide the information necessary to
    meaningfully evaluate impacts, impacts to our people.
        Additionally, throughout this process, the Corps has
    repeatedly failed to meaningfully consult with Tribes on a
    Government-to-Government basis. We have extended countless
    invitations to the Corps to visit our communities, see and
    witness our way of life, and to engage in open dialogue about
    these issues that are most important to our people. Yet, the
    Corps continues to be unresponsive to these requests.
        The posters you see here today are prime examples of how
    information is routinely kept hidden from the public eye. As a
    result, Tribes are forced to rely on the media for critical
    information the Government should be providing directly to
    Tribes. This is unacceptable, and it really sends a clear
    message to our Tribes that the Corps' recitals of its
    obligations are nothing but hollow words, words so hollow that
    a senior Corps official in Alaska could not get through
    prepared remarks at the end of a draft EIS hearing in
    Dillingham last spring without weeping and having to turn it
    over to another official.
        After nearly 2 years of this treatment by the Corps,
    Bristol Bay's Tribes are continually left with the lingering
    question of why. Why is the Army Corps rushing a timeline that
    doesn't match up with any realities in Bristol Bay? Studies
    remain undone, data gaps remain unfilled, and the draft EIS has
    been universally condemned by the scientific community, by
    other Federal agencies, and by our people for its lack of
    thorough analysis of this project and its impact to the people
    of Bristol Bay. Why is it that major announcements and agency
    decisions are known to Northern Dynasty shareholders who
    actively discussed this knowledge in online investment forums
    before those decisions are publicly announced? And why is it
    that Bristol Bay's first people to whom this Federal Government
    owes a sacred trust responsibility are continually treated as
    second-class citizens by agencies of the United States?
        We are not a box to be checked, we are not an obstacle to
    overcome, and we are not enemies to be defeated. We are the
    indigenous people of Bristol Bay. Our culture is not for sale,
    and we deserve to be heard, we deserve to be respected, and we
    will not be brushed aside. We have inherited the responsibility
    to be strong stewards of Bristol Bay, and we will not stop
    fighting until our homeland is protected from the Pebble Mine.
        I am not here to debate the shape shifting size and scope
    of whatever size and scope the Pebble Mine is peddling,
    depending on the month. I am here to tell you that any mine in
    Bristol Bay threatens our very existence as indigenous peoples.
    If Pebble is developed, there is no doubt it will forever
    change who I am, who my people are, where I come from, and it
    will rob our children's children of their right to continue
    being Native people as we have for thousands of years in
    Bristol Bay. I cannot accept that, our people cannot accept
    that, and this committee should not accept that.
        The Corps has made it clear that our people, science, and
    fact do not matter in this process, so we plead with this
    committee to do everything in its power to hold this
    administration accountable. This must be done to ensure the
    traditional and natural resources of Bristol Bay wild salmon
    are protected. Please uphold your responsibility to our Tribes
    and put an end to this culture of corruption. [Speaking in
    Native language.] Thank you for having me.
        [Ms. Hurley's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Alannah Hurley, Executive Director, United Tribes
                                 of Bristol Bay
                                I. Introduction
        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee
    Chairwoman Napolitano, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Westerman, my
    name is Alannah Hurley and I am the Executive Director of the United
    Tribes of Bristol Bay (UTBB), a tribally chartered consortium of
    fifteen federally recognized tribes in Bristol Bay.\1\ Each member
    tribe passed a tribal resolution delegating its governmental powers to
    UTBB to implement the Bristol Bay Regional Visioning Project, a region-
    wide action plan developed by Bristol Bay's tribal communities focused
    on improving economic development opportunities, preserving cultural
    and subsistence resources, and increasing educational opportunities for
    tribal youth. UTBB is organized as a consortium of tribal governments
    working to protect the traditional way of life of the indigenous people
    of Bristol Bay and the natural resources upon which that way of life
    depends. UTBB's mission is to advocate for sustainable communities
    through development consistent with our traditional values.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ UTBB's member Tribes include: Aleknagik Traditional Council,
    Chignik Lake Tribal Council, Clark's Point Village Council, Curyung
    Tribal Council, Ekuk Village Council, Levelock Village Council,
    Manokotak Village Council, New Koliganek Village Council, New Stuyahok
    Traditional Council, Nondalton Village Council, Pedro Bay Village
    Council, Pilot Point Tribal Council, Portage Creek Village Council,
    Togiak Traditional Council, and Twin Hills Village Council. Each is a
    federally recognized Indian tribe. Indian Entities Recognized by and
    Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, 84 Fed. Reg. 1,200, 1,204-05 (Feb. 1, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Yup'ik, Dena'ina, and Alutiiq peoples of Bristol Bay represent
    three of the last remaining ``salmon cultures'' in the world.\2\
    Extending from time immemorial to the present, salmon has been the
    foundation of Alaska Native cultures in the region. Today, salmon makes
    up nearly 82% of the subsistence diet in the region.\3\ Individuals
    practicing a subsistence way of life devote innumerable hours per year
    preparing nets, boats, smokehouses, and other equipment just in
    preparation for the summer salmon runs.\4\ The subsistence way of life
    is viewed as full-time job and wealth is often defined it in terms of a
    full freezer or a good stockpile of subsistence foods.\5\ Beyond
    subsistence harvests, salmon also serves an important cultural role.
    Salmon is more than food for us. Catching, preserving, and eating
    salmon are part of a genuine and treasured way of life. A way of life
    that we desire to keep living and have worked diligently to protect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an Assessment of
    Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska
    App. D, at 11 (2014) (EPA 910-R-14-001B).
        \3\ Id. at 78.
        \4\ Id. at 85.
        \5\ Id. at 85, 88.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The proposed Pebble mine poses a serious threat to the
    extraordinary natural resources of Bristol Bay and our traditional ways
    of life that depend upon those resources. The pristine ecosystems in
    the Bristol Bay watershed are critical to the continued health of
    salmon populations in the region. Pebble Limited Partnership is
    proposing to build one of the largest open-pit mines in North America
    in the heart of the Bristol Bay watershed. As proposed, the mine would
    adversely and permanently impact Bristol Bay's extraordinarily
    productive system of streams, wetlands, and uplands that support the
    world's largest salmon fishery. As part of the proposed development of
    Pebble mine, Pebble Limited Partnership submitted a permit application
    to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or USACE) to discharge fill
    material into and perform work within the waters of the United
    States.\6\ Despite the Corps' statements that it is committed to a
    thorough, fair, and transparent review of the proposed Pebble mine, our
    Tribes' experiences participating in the environmental review process
    as cooperating agencies and interacting with the Corps on a government-
    to-government basis clearly demonstrate that the Corps is merely paying
    lip service to its statutory obligations and its trust responsibility
    to our Tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Public Notice of Application for
    Permit, POA-2017-271 (Jan. 5, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                II. Treatment of Tribes as Cooperating Agencies
        Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Corps is required
    to conduct a thorough, science-based analysis of the impacts associated
    with the proposed Pebble mine. NEPA fosters informed decision-making by
    requiring federal agencies to take a ``hard look'' at the environmental
    impacts of a proposed action.\7\ An environmental impact statement
    (EIS) must ``provide full and fair discussion of significant
    environmental impacts'' and ``inform decisionmakers and the public of
    the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse
    impacts.'' \8\ Tribes, like state and federal agencies, have the
    ability to participate as cooperating agencies and contribute to the
    development of the EIS. Two of UTBB's member Tribes, Curyung Tribal
    Council and Nondalton Tribal Council, are participating in the NEPA
    process as cooperating agencies. Despite the Tribes' significant
    efforts to fulfill their responsibilities as cooperating agencies, they
    have faced substantial barriers to full and meaningful participation.
    The Corps' has summarily dismissed tribal cooperating agencies'
    substantive concerns and failed to provide the information necessary to
    meaningfully evaluate the impacts of the proposed Pebble mine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 486 (9th
    Cir. 2011).
        \8\ 40 C.F.R.  1502.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From the beginning, the Corps arbitrarily limited the involvement
    of tribal cooperating agencies. In November 2018, the Corps distributed
    an internal draft EIS to cooperating agencies for review and comment.
    At that time, Shane McCoy, program manager for the Corps' Alaska
    District, informed tribal cooperating agencies that the Corps would
    only consider their comments on subjects the Corps identified as their
    areas of expertise--cultural resources, subsistence, land use, and
    socioeconomics.\9\ Despite requests from tribal cooperating agencies to
    remove these limitations, the Corps has imposed them throughout the
    NEPA process.\10\ Most recently, when the Corps held cooperating agency
    meetings in July and August 2019, McCoy again informed tribal
    cooperating agencies that their participation would be limited to the
    subjects that the Corps identified as their areas of expertise.\11\
    Though tribal cooperating agencies were invited to attend all the
    meetings, they were only permitted to participate in the discussion at
    one. Tribes, as sovereigns, have broader interests, concerns, and
    expertise, than the arbitrary and insulting limits that the Corps
    placed upon tribal cooperating agencies.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See Email from Shane McCoy, Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, Alaska/District, to cooperating agencies (Oct. 17, 2018)
    (``When revising the draft EIS prior to public comment, USACE will
    consider those comments which are related to the CA's identified area
    of special expertise. Other comments related to the DEIS will be
    considered at the same time as the public's comments, after the Notice
    of Availability for the dEIS.'').
        \10\ Letter from William Evanoff, President, Nondalton Tribal
    Council, to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and
    Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at 1 (Sept. 5, 2018).
        \11\ See Email from Shane McCoy, Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, Alaska District, to cooperating agencies (July 22, 2019)
    (``All agencies can attend any of the meetings, however, discussions on
    topics will be limited to the agencies with that expertise.'').
        \12\ See Letter from William Evanoff, President, Nondalton Tribal
    Council, to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and
    Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at 1 (Sept. 5, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Corps' improper treatment of cooperating agencies is not
    limited to Tribes. Throughout the NEPA process, the Corps has inhibited
    the ability of cooperating agencies to participate and failed to
    properly consider cooperating agencies' substantive comments and
    concerns. The Department of Interior's (DOI) comments on the draft EIS
    raised serious process-related concerns, stating that ``we must note
    that, despite being cooperators, [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    National Park Service, and Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement] were only provided certain sections of the Administrative
    DEIS to review as it was prepared and were not able to access the
    entire document until after it was released for public comment.'' \13\
    Addressing the Corps' failure to meaningfully consider and respond to
    cooperating agencies' comments, the DOI recommended that the Corps
    ``more effectively and directly address prior comments . . . For
    example, responses to previous comments often cited conclusions from
    other sections of the DEIS to resolve concerns, but these citations did
    not sufficiently address the issues that were originally raised.'' \14\
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also raised concerns about
    the manner in which the Corps limited cooperating agencies'
    participation, stating that it would continue to provide ``special
    expertise in specific areas requested by the Corps,'' but would ``also
    continue to request the ability to assist the Corps in additional areas
    . . . including fisheries and air quality, where [the EPA has] special
    expertise and jurisdiction.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Letter from Philip Johnson, Regional Environmental Officer,
    Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Anchorage Region, to
    Shane McCoy, Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
    District, at 1 (July 1, 2019) (hereinafter ``DOI Comment Letter'').
        \14\ Id. at 3.
        \15\ Letter from Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator,
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, to Shane McCoy, Program
    Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, at 6 (July 1,
    2019) (hereinafter ``EPA Comment Letter'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to process-related concerns, cooperating agencies
    submitted extensive comments on the draft EIS's substantive
    deficiencies, including insufficient analysis of impacts to watershed
    health, including impacts to fish and fish habitat; \16\ insufficient
    analysis of ``potential impacts to subsistence resources and the
    communities that depend on them;'' \17\ and insufficient analysis of
    spill risk associated with tailing storage and other facilities.\18\
    Based on these and other deficiencies, the DOI concluded that the draft
    EIS did not follow NEPA requirements and was so inadequate that it
    ``preclude[d] meaningful analysis.'' \19\ Ultimately, the DOI
    recommended that the Corps undertake additional analysis--``Due to the
    substantial deficiencies and data gaps identified in the document and
    as a department with multiple cooperating agencies, the DOI recommends
    that the USACE prepare a revised or supplemental DEIS.'' \20\ Nondalton
    Tribal Council repeatedly raised the same concern with the Corps,
    requesting that the Corps prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with
    its obligations under NEPA. In multiple letters, Nondalton Tribal
    Council explained to the Corps that failure to produce a supplemental
    EIS would deny Bristol Bay Tribes, the public, and state and federal
    agencies the ability to fairly and objectively review the proposed
    project and make informed decisions about its impacts.\21\ Senator Lisa
    Murkowski, Alaska's senior Senator, also recognizes that the Corps'
    process is broken. A committee report accompanying the appropriations
    bill for DOI, environment, and related agencies included language,
    drafted by Senator Murkowki, stating that ``[a]dverse impacts to
    Alaska's world-class salmon fishery and to the ecosystem of Bristol
    Bay, Alaska, are unacceptable'' and directing other federal agencies
    ``to exercise their discretionary authorities . . . to ensure the full
    protection of the region'' if they continue to be unsatisfied with the
    Corps' analysis of the project.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See e.g., DOI Comment Letter at 5; EPA Comment Letter at 4;
    Comments of the Nondalton Tribal Council and the United Tribes of
    Bristol Bay on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement for the Proposed Pebble Mine POA-2017-271 (July 1,
    2019) (hereinafter ``Nondalton and UTBB Comment Letter''); Letter from
    Robert Heyano, President, Ekuk Village Council, to Colonel Phillip J.
    Borders, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
    District, at 1 (April 11, 2019) (hereinafter ``Ekuk Comment Letter'').
        \17\ See e.g., DOI comment letter at 3; Nondalton and UTBB Comment
    Letter at 2; Ekuk Comment Letter at 1-2.
        \18\ See e.g., Nondalton and UTBB Comment Letter at 2; EPA Comment
    Letter at 5.
        \19\ DOI Comment Letter at 3.
        \20\ Id.
        \21\ See e.g., Letter from George Alexi, President, Nondalton
    Tribal Council, to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding
    General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at 1-2
    (Sept. 27, 2019); Letter from George Alexi, President, Nondalton Tribal
    Council, to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and
    Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at 2 (Aug. 27, 2019).
        \22\ S. Rep. No. 116-123, at 87 (2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Though the Corps has repeatedly stated that it is committed to a
    fair and transparent review of the proposed Pebble mine, its course of
    action reveals the disingenuousness of that commitment. In response to
    cooperating agencies' substantial criticisms of the draft EIS and
    recommendations to develop a supplemental EIS, the Corps has indicated
    that it will not undertake additional analysis. On a press call with
    reporters in July 2019, David Hobbie, chief of the Corps' Alaska
    District Regulatory Division, stated that he was not considering a
    supplemental draft EIS ``at this point.'' \23\ Similarly, on a call
    with reporters last month, Shane McCoy, program manager for the Alaska
    District stated that despite significant changes to plans for the
    proposed Pebble mine submitted by the project proponent, the Corps
    ``would not be publishing a supplemental [environmental impact
    statement], and there wouldn't be an opportunity for the public to
    comment.'' \24\ Despite the fact that the Corps was ``still working
    through all the comments'' and was ``still waiting on additional data
    on groundwater modeling, wetlands and cultural resources'' from the
    project proponent, McCoy stated that the Corps was still on pace to
    issue a final EIS in early 2020.\25\ McCoy then went a step further,
    essentially agreeing with claims the project proponent made in a recent
    presentation to investors that the proposed Pebble mine ``will not harm
    salmon and will not affect water resources of Bristol Bay.'' \26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Ariel Wittenberg, EPA punts on latest Pebble mine decision,
    E&E News (July 29, 2019), https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/
    1060806401.
        \24\ Dylan Brown, Revised mining plan won't require new review--
    Army Corps, E&E News (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.eenews.net/
    greenwire/stories/1061134919 (alteration in original).
        \25\ Id.
        \26\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hobbie and McCoy's statements are consistent with the Corps'
    pattern of summarily dismissing the significant concerns and
    substantive recommendations of cooperating agencies. This pattern is
    particularly alarming in contrast to the Corps' conduct toward Pebble
    Limited Partnership. As the Nondalton Tribal Council explained to the
    Corps in a recent letter, these statements ``clearly demonstrate a
    significant bias in favor of the applicant, the intent to implement a
    politically driven fast-track schedule, and a pre-decisional mindset
    that sets aside any attempt to make a reasonable, fair, and objective
    final permit decision.'' \27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Letter from George Alexi, President, Nondalton Tribal Council,
    to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and Chief of
    Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at 2-3 (Sept. 27, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          III. Treatment of Tribes on a Government-to-Government Basis
        The Corps, like all federal agencies, owes a trust responsibility
    to Tribes. Because of Tribes' legal status as sovereigns, the federal
    government has an obligation to consult with Tribes on a government-to-
    government basis when contemplating actions that may affect tribal
    lands, resources, members, and welfare. Executive Order 13175 mandates
    that all executive agencies recognize and respect Tribes' sovereign
    status.\28\ The order also requires agencies to establish policies and
    procedures to ensure meaningful and timely consultation with tribes
    when an action affects tribal interests.\29\ Under the Corps' own
    guidance, it must ``ensure that all Tribes with an interest in a
    particular activity that has the potential to significantly affect
    protected tribal resources, tribal rights (including treaty rights) and
    Indian lands are contacted and their comments taken into
    consideration.'' \30\ The Corps' guidance also emphasizes beginning
    consultation at ``the earliest planning stages, before decisions are
    made.'' \31\ Though the Corps often recites its obligations in
    communications with Bristol Bay Tribes, its course of action falls far
    short of its recitals. In stark contrast to its promises, the Corps has
    ignored tribal concerns, withheld information from Tribes, refused to
    meet on a government-to-government basis, and treated Tribes like
    stakeholders instead of sovereign Nations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Exec. Order No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249, 67,249-50 (Nov.
    6, 2000) (mandating that agencies ``respect Indian tribal self-
    government and sovereignty'' when ``formulating and implementing
    policies'' that affect tribal interests).
        \29\ Id. at 67,250.
        \30\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tribal Consultation Policy, at 4
    (Nov. 2012).
        \31\ Id. at 2-3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Corps' failure to meaningfully consult with Tribes on a
    government-to-government basis is a concern that UTBB and its member
    Tribes have continuously raised with the Corps. We have extended
    countless invitations to the Corps to visit our villages and to engage
    in open dialogue about the issues that are most important to us. We
    have explained that meeting with us in our communities provides the
    most inclusive participation of our Tribal leaders and members.
    Traveling to our communities would also provide the Corps leadership
    and staff with a better understanding of the resources, and in turn the
    traditional ways of life, that would be adversely affected by the
    proposed Pebble mine. But the Corps has been unresponsive to our
    requests.
        The Corps' monthly tribal teleconference is another illustrative
    example of the way in which the Corps views its government-to-
    government relationship with Tribes. Though a teleconference with
    thirty-five Tribes is not an appropriate means to engage in government-
    to-government consultation, the Corps includes its monthly tribal
    teleconferences in its record of tribal consultation.\32\ Monthly
    teleconferences could be an appropriate mechanism to provide Tribes
    with information and updates that implicate tribal interests; however,
    the Corps' tribal teleconferences fail to achieve even this more
    limited purpose. As a result, Tribes are forced to rely on the media
    for critical information that the Corps should provide directly to
    Tribes. News articles about the recent changes to the proposed mining
    plan are just one of the many instances where Tribes learned of
    significant project-related information from the news instead of the
    Corps.\33\ This is unacceptable and sends a clear message to Tribes
    that the Corps' recitals of its obligations are merely hollow words.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pebble Project EIS: Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement, at 6-2 to 6-6 (Feb. 2009).
        \33\ Dylan Brown, Revised mining plan won't require new review--
    Army Corps, E&E News (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.eenews.net/
    greenwire/stories/1061134919.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 IV. Land Ownership and Reasonable Alternatives
        The Corps must ``[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all
    reasonable alternatives.'' \34\ Failing to meet this basic NEPA
    requirement, the Corps merely tweaked Pebble Limited Partnership's
    proposal. The two additional action alternatives the Corps included in
    the draft EIS are variations on access to the mine and transportation
    of mine products; they are not alternatives. The inadequacy of the
    range of alternatives is further undermined by the fact that the only
    feasible and practicable alternative is Pebble Limited Partnership's
    proposal, suggesting that the Corps is attempting to improperly select
    the company's preferred alternative.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ 40 C.F.R.  1502.14(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most of the alternatives that the Corps considered in its draft EIS
    include building components of the transportation corridor over Native
    allotments and lands where an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
    corporation owns the surface or subsurface.\35\ The Corps considered
    alternatives using these lands even if the landowners did not extend
    their permission to use the land, or in some cases expressly refused
    permission. For example, despite Pedro Bay Corporations' refusal to
    allow Pebble Limited Partnership to use its land, two of the three
    alternatives considered in the draft EIS would cross the corporation's
    lands.\36\ Pebble Limited Partnership's preferred alternative is the
    only alternative that does not cross Pedro Bay Corporation's lands. On
    two occasions the corporation's board of directors voted unanimously
    against providing access to its lands, first in 2014 and again in
    January 2019.\37\ Pedro Bay Corporation explained to the Corps that the
    proposed Pebble mine does not satisfy its ``responsible development
    standards'' and for ``Alaska Natives who depend on the natural
    environment for traditional and cultural hunting, fishing, and
    gathering, the Pebble Project represents an existential threat to their
    ways of life.'' \38\ An alternative is not reasonable or feasible when
    a landowner has not, and will not, consent to the use of its lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pebble Project EIS: Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement, at 3-2.1.
        \36\ Id.
        \37\ Ariel Wittenberg, Native corp.: Pebble mine can't use our
    land, E&E News (Feb. 28, 2019), https://www.eenews.net/stories/
    1060122683.
        \38\ Letter from Matt McDaniel, CEO, Pedro Bay Corporation, to
    Shane McCoy, Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
    District, at 1-2 (July 1, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In developing and analyzing alternatives, the Corps disregarded the
    property interests of individual Alaska Native allottees and Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, leaving Pebble Limited
    Partnerships' proposal as the only feasible and practicable option
    considered in the draft EIS. Again, the Corps ignored the indigenous
    people of Bristol Bay in favor of furthering Pebble Limited
    Partnership's interests.
                                 V. Conclusion
        I would like to thank Chariman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves,
    Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
    Westerman for inviting me to testify today. One thing is clear, the
    proposed Pebble mine will have significant and permanent adverse
    impacts on the extraordinary natural resources of Bristol Bay and our
    traditional ways of life that are so closely tied to those resources.
    With so much at stake, the people of Bristol Bay, and all Alaskans,
    deserve a fair, thorough, and transparent review of the proposed Pebble
    mine. In contrast, the Corps' opaque process is moving toward a permit
    decision at an unprecedented pace, ignoring substantial criticism and
    concern from Bristol Bay Tribes, other federal agencies, and the
    public. Under the Corps' current timeline, it is planning to issue a
    final EIS in early 2020 and make a permit decision in mid-2020.\39\ The
    Corps has made clear that it will not listen to our voices, so we ask
    this Committee to act now and help us protect Bristol Bay.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pebble Project EIS, https://
    pebbleprojecteis.com/schedule (last visited Oct. 16, 2019).

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Hurley.
        We now have Mr. Brian Kraft. You may proceed.
        Mr. Kraft. Chairwoman Napolitano, Chair DeFazio, Ranking
    Member Westerman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Brian Kraft. My wife and I are long-time
    Alaskan residents where we are raising our family and four
    kids. We own and operate two remote sportfishing lodges in the
    Bristol Bay region. Between my wife's company and mine, we
    employ 180 people in the State of Alaska. We understand
    business in Alaska. We get it.
        I grew up in Chicago and was fortunate enough to move to
    Alaska and discover the uniqueness and special nature that
    Alaska has and Bristol Bay in particular. It is in this area
    where gin-clear rivers flow over the tundra into the sea. The
    nutrient-rich environment allows salmon runs to grow to
    millions and rainbow trout to grow to epic size.
        I first heard of the Pebble Mine proposal in 2004, and was
    all for it. I actually thought, great; jobs, economic
    opportunity. This is it what it is going to be about in this
    area. And I was an oil field roughneck, worked in the North
    Slope, worked for ARCO, understood resource development in the
    State of Alaska. It wasn't until I actually had a client at the
    lodge from Newmont Mines. His name was Gary Dowdle. And Gary
    was at the lodge, and I asked him about Pebble. This is about
    2005. And he said, hey, Brian, fly me up over that area. Show
    me where we are talking about.
        So I flew him up there, we landed, we got out, walked
    around, and this is before parts per billion or dam size or pit
    size, or cyanide, not cyanide. He just looked at it, and as a
    mining manager, he said, Brian, I have made my life living and
    working in mines. We try and get it right, but most of the time
    there are mistakes that happen. We don't always get it right.
    And whatever number we think it is going to be, it is usually
    bigger and more costly, more damaging. He looked at the site,
    and he said, too much water. And so I have always held that in
    the back of my mind that it is all about the water.
        When I was building my lodge in 1998, I had an elder come
    down to the river, the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna.
    He grabs my arm, and you know, I am a kid from Chicago, as I
    said. Turn on the faucet, water comes out, and I drink it in my
    home. This elder grabs my arm, and he says, hey, Brian, take
    care of the water. I said OK, Mikey, yeah, no problem. I will
    take care of the water. He says no. Take care of the water. It
    is who I am. It is in my soul.
        And the gravity and the weight of that moment, I can feel
    his hand on my arm today. It carries just something that a lot
    of us in this room don't have any idea. Maybe Alannah does. But
    other than that, we just think it is just water, right? Well,
    that resource is of unbelievable importance, and I appreciate
    the committee taking time to look at this. It is a national
    issue.
        My industry, the sportfishing industry, touches every
    single State in the Union. We have got clients from all over
    the country that come and visit the area, and to a person, they
    express how unique and special the area is.
        I have been involved in this battle for 15 years. I started
    an organization called the Bristol Bay Alliance to educate
    people and myself on what mining is and does. And the
    conclusion that I have come to, not being a scientist, is that
    the best mining decisions are made when it takes location into
    account. And so you have this location, and you can't
    directionally drill. We can't shift the deposit, so we have to
    consume the habitat where the minerals are, and there is 100
    percent consumption of that habitat.
        So the decision comes, quite simply, down to, is it
    appropriate to be in this location? If everything is done
    right, according to the smaller, but yet it is still an
    enormous mine footprint, but the smaller mine plan, you are
    still going to consume 80 miles of streams. You are still going
    to consume 3,500 acres of wetland in an area that is part of
    the Bristol Bay fisheries reserve, where our first legislation
    action in the State of Alaska was to create a Bristol Bay
    fisheries reserve in 1972 to protect the area. Nobody could
    have conceived back then the amount of habitat destruction that
    a mine of this nature would have proposed.
        The sportfishing industry generates $65 million a year to
    the Alaska economy. It is part of a broader $1.5 billion a year
    that is produced in the economy through the sportfishing,
    commercial fishing, tourism, and other outdoor activities.
        I can see I am out of time. I just want to thank the
    committee for the opportunity to testify.
        [Mr. Kraft's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Brian Kraft, Owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge
        Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today before the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee for its hearing on the Pebble Mine Project:
    Process and Potential Impacts. My name is Brian Kraft, and my wife and
    I are long-time Alaska residents where we are raising our family. We
    currently own and operate two sportfishing lodges in the southwest part
    of the state known as the Bristol Bay region. Someday, in the not too
    distant future, I hope that one or several of our daughters will take
    over our lodge business as they have a passion for the fishery and have
    a strong connection to the region and its environment.
        Today I'd like to share with the Committee why the Bristol Bay
    region is unlike any other place in the world, specifically from the
    perspective of a person that grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and now
    spends half of each year in a remote, roadless, pristine, intact,
    functioning ecosystem. I will also share with you the significance this
    habitat and fishery plays in a thriving sportfishing industry that
    creates a strong economic engine for the state of Alaska. This could
    all be compromised with the massive industrialization of the area
    through large-scale open-pit mining.
        We are relying on effective and science-based implementation of the
    Clean Water Act to protect our livelihoods from this potentially
    destructive mine proposal. I am here to tell you that the Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) is failing at implementing the Clean Water Act as it
    reviews the Pebble Mine proposal. We commend you for making it a
    priority of your Committee to review the Corps' implementation of the
    Clean Water Act on what we believe is one of the most critical permit
    proposals in history.
        I also want to thank Committee leadership for supporting
    Representative Huffman's amendment to the FY 2020 Interior and
    Environment appropriations bill which would have cut funding to the
    Corps until it fixed its flawed review of the Pebble mine permit. I
    urge the Committee to continue working with the appropriators,
    including Senator Murkowski who recently added strong report language
    to the Senate version of the bill, to compel the Corps to fix its
    review using the best available science.
                 Bristol Bay is a state and national treasure.
        People spend significant amounts of money, time and effort to
    travel from all over the world to experience and fish in this unique,
    pristine and incredibly productive corner of Alaska. There are very few
    places left in the world where you can see and fish for thriving runs
    of salmon and massive rainbow trout, and fly for miles without seeing a
    road, buildings or other signs of human development. There is a strong
    desire and willingness to pay for the experience of being outdoors in
    such a pristine setting. Clients who come to my lodge are blown away by
    the magnitude of this place, and the special, uniquely Alaskan
    experience that comes with it.
        Salmon have fueled everything that lives in this region for
    thousands of years. Here, salmon runs are measured in the millions. For
    the past two years, record breaking salmon runs have returned to the
    rivers and lakes of the Bristol Bay region. It's one of the only places
    left in the world where there are still thriving runs of wild salmon
    and where 30-inch rainbow trout are not mythical creatures. It's one of
    the few places in the world where you can watch a brown bear, yards
    away, devour salmon as if you were not there. It's one of the last
    places left on the planet where you can stand on a river, perhaps with
    your niece or grandfather, and be hundreds of miles from a highway. The
    bottom line is that Bristol Bay is special even by Alaska's already
    high standards.
        But perhaps fish, wildlife and scenic landscapes aren't your thing.
    Let me speak to the importance of Bristol Bay from a business
    perspective. Bristol Bay is an economic powerhouse, fueled by salmon.
    Wildlife viewing, hiking, hunting and sportfishing play an important
    part of the regional economy.
        There are approximately 150 sportfishing or hunting related
    businesses that operate in the Bristol Bay drainage with about 30,000
    sportfishing trips taken to the region each year. Some anglers stay at
    lodges like mine, some are local fishermen, and some are anglers who
    experience Bristol Bay through ``do it yourself'' trips. It is
    estimated that each year Bristol Bay anglers spend approximately $58
    million, with a vast majority of this spending (approximately $47
    million annually) coming from nonresident anglers.\1\ An additional
    $12.4 million in economic activity is attributable to people traveling
    to the area to hunt bear, moose, ducks and other wildlife. A growing
    part of the tourism economy in Bristol Bay is bear viewing. A study
    produced this spring found in 2017, bear viewing-related service
    providers (air/boat taxis, guides, lodging) reported $34.5 million in
    sales.\2\ McNeil River and Brooks Camp are two of the most important
    and well-known bear viewing areas in the world.\3\ Together,
    recreational fishing and hunting activities support more than 1,000
    jobs in the area, and bear viewing supports another 490 sustainable
    jobs in the region.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.epa.gov/bristolbay/bristol-bay-assessment-final-
    report-2014
        \2\ University of Alaska Fairbanks, The Economic Contribution of
    Bear Viewing to Southcentral Alaska, (2019) https://
    static1.squarespace.com/static/5c4025a7b40b9dc76548186e/t/
    5cdb69154e17b630b2880c51/1557883183050/BearEconomicsStudy-Full.pdf
        \3\ The Value of Watchable Wildlife: A Case Study of McNeil River
    by C. Clayton and R. Mendelsohn 1993 https://www.sciencedirect.com/
    science/article/pii/S0301479783710571?via%3Dihub
        \4\ https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p049/rmrs_p049_035_044.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All told, commercial, sport and subsistence fishing accounts for
    more than $1.5 billion to the regional economy and are an important
    part of Alaska's broader fishing-based economy.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/2013_04-
    TheEconomicImportanceOfTheBristolBaySalmonIndustry.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The University of Alaska Center for Economic Development estimates
    consumers in Alaska spent $501 million on equipment for sport fishing
    in 2017.\6\ That is one of several reasons that companies such as
    Orvis, and other fishing gear manufacturers, care so much about keeping
    Bristol Bay the way it is.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.alaskatia.org/Research/
    OutdoorRecreationImpactsandOpportunities%202019.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My clients, and anglers of all types who visit the region,
    consistently emphasize the importance of Bristol Bay's remote, and wild
    setting in their decision to fish the area. Additionally, a significant
    proportion of anglers, when responding to surveys, specifically
    traveled to the Bristol Bay region to fish the world-class rainbow
    trout fisheries. Yet, when assessing the potential impacts of the
    proposed Pebble mine, the Corps gave little consideration to the
    importance of rainbow trout and other non-salmon species and dismissed
    the impact industrial activities will have on the remote setting on
    which my business depends. This is not just hearsay; survey responses
    confirm that anglers consistently emphasize the importance of Bristol
    Bay's remote and wild setting in their decisions to fish the area.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p049/rmrs_p049_035_044.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bristol Bay's world-famous fisheries, its unparalleled water,
    and the local economies and cultures they support can continue to
    thrive if we simply have the common sense to leave this place as it is.
        For reference, on the Columbia River, once a wild salmon-filled
    river, about $500 million a year is spent on salmon mitigation,
    restoration and management. Yet, salmon populations continue their
    precipitous decline and, in many cases, are barely hanging along. By
    comparison, only about $5 million a year is spent on fisheries research
    and management in the Bristol Bay region, while many millions more than
    that return through related industries.\8\ If we properly protect
    existing habitat and carefully manage for sustainable yield, nature
    will continue to provide a renewable resource that continues to produce
    indefinitely. It just doesn't make economic sense to compromise this
    resource, which supports thousands of small, American family-run
    businesses like mine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Presentation by Dr. Daniel Schindler, University of Washington
    at American Fisheries Society Meeting, Anchorage 2018
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I first heard about Pebble 15 years ago. At first, I thought,
    ``Great--jobs.'' I had worked on the North Slope as a roughneck on the
    oil rigs and then worked as an intern for Arco in the Drilling
    Engineering Department. I thought mining would be similar to oil
    extraction on the North Slope of Alaska. However, I really knew nothing
    about open-pit mining on the scale of Pebble. I went on an educational
    journey. I actually had the CEO of Northern Dynasty, the sole owner of
    the Pebble Project, at my lodge to present his case to the people of
    Igiugig. It was at this presentation in 2005 that we learned of their
    plans--and the core concepts of their plans remain basically the same
    to this day.
        Upon learning the proposed Pebble mine would consume massive
    amounts of the headwater lakes, streams and wetlands that support our
    wild fisheries, I knew the project would create long-term problems for
    our fisheries. I started the Bristol Bay Alliance to educate the people
    of the Bristol Bay region about large-scale open-pit mining and what it
    would mean for the region and recreational fishing.
        Open-pit mining consumes earth. That's how it works. There are no
    other ways to get the minerals out without removing the earth that
    holds the minerals. This is the crux of the issue and why certain
    locations are better suited for mining than others. The more we all
    learned about the industry, the more we understood that this was the
    wrong mine in the wrong place.
        The goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the
    health of the Nation's waters. Surely the tremendous resources I have
    described above would warrant one of the most critical, science-based
    reviews for a permit in the history of the law. The Corps has done just
    the opposite.
        As we and many critical comments from federal and state resource
    agencies have called out, the Corps has rushed its Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement (DEIS) and missed many key points that are important
    to understanding why the proposed Pebble mine should not receive its
    necessary permits. Beyond the many technical, ecological, and
    scientific shortcomings of the DEIS, the Corps has also failed to
    adequately assess the logistical components of the project. The Corps
    has two alternative routes for the road corridor, both of which must
    cross privately held Alaska Native Village Corporation lands. These
    landowners refuse to grant permission to use their lands for the
    project and, thus, the Corps cannot consider these options as viable.
    This is one small example of the many missteps the Corps has made with
    regards to evaluating the permit application.
        The pending permit application also calls for only mining just \1/
    8\th of the deposit, while putting potentially acid generating toxic
    tailings back into the open pit after extracting the minerals. Of
    course, since the Pebble Partnership is simultaneously selling the huge
    size of the deposit (nearly 11 billion tonnes \9\) and its potential
    for expansion to potential investors, we know the project will expand
    and that tailings will need to be stored somewhere else while the
    remaining portions of the deposit are mined. Because the toxic mine
    waste will require perpetual care, we know we will still be dealing
    with the tailings and acid-generating waste long after the Pebble
    Partnership, or any successive owner of the mine, closes its doors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Ghaffari, H., R. S. Morrison, M. A., deRuijeter, A. Zivkovic,
    T. Hantelmann, D. Ramsey, and S. Cowie. 2011. Preliminary Assessment of
    the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska. Document 1056140100-REP-R0001-00.
    February 15. Prepared for NDML by WARDROP (a Tetra Tech Company),
    Vancouver, BC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, neither the DEIS nor any of its accompanying materials
    include a mine construction plan, mine operations plan, or water
    management plan. While the Corps acknowledges that these details will
    not be available until successive state-permitting phases, it plans to
    issue a final decision before any of the missing information will be
    available and without a full accounting and evaluation of likely
    impacts associated with hazardous contaminants, fish migration,
    proposed culverts, changes to water quality and quantity, critical
    habitat loss, and other indirect ecological effects. The DEIS fails to
    consider foreseeable impacts to the habitat.
        I am not a scientist, but I can tell you that the entire Bristol
    Bay system is connected and that water flows downhill. The water is the
    lifeblood of this region. These flowing, moving waters allow life to
    exist in this region. These salmon runs feed the world. The entire
    system relies on each part remaining intact. The proposed mine site is
    critical to salmon and other freshwater species and will be destroyed
    if this project is built. It can be hard for many of us to understand
    the importance of the water and habitat to remain in its natural state,
    functioning perfectly without human interference or destruction. We
    turn on the water facet and clean water comes out. We can drink it,
    wash with it, and never even give it a second thought. However, as an
    elder Alaskan told me as I was building my lodge on the banks of the
    Kvichak River: ``Take care of the water. It is who I am, it is in my
    soul, it is my survival.''
        I am here to urge you to look at this issue closely, it is of
    national importance. The review being conducted by the Army Corps of
    Engineers is unacceptable. It is a mockery not worthy of the lofty
    goals of the Act that this Committee oversees and stewards. The stakes
    are too high to cut corners and a foreign mining company has had far
    too much influence on a system that is supposed to protect the best
    interests of Americans. We should be doing everything we can to protect
    American jobs and existing thriving businesses, not squander them.
        Thank you for your time and willingness to give attention to this
    issue that is extremely important to my family, hundreds of other
    businesses that depend on Bristol Bay, and sportsmen and women in
    Alaska and around the world that love this special corner of America.
    We continue to urge you to do all in your power to use the legislative
    tools available to you and the Congress to make sure the Bristol Bay
    watershed is protected.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
        We now have Mr. Mark Niver, a fisherman. You are on, sir,
    please.
        Mr. Niver. Good morning. We have a video to show up on the
    screens here this morning. Is that possible or not? There we
    go. All right. This is my family. It is my sons on deck of the
    fishing vessel Surrender. And roll? No action? OK.
        [Video shown.]
        Thank you, Congressman DeFazio and Chairwoman Napolitano,
    for giving me the opportunity to be here this morning to
    testify on behalf of Bristol Bay's 8,000 commercial fishermen,
    including my three sons. One of them is behind me here. He came
    here on his own dime here today. My other sons are Blake and
    Bryce, and Grant is behind me. My name is Mark Niver. I live in
    Wasilla, Alaska.
        I have fished in Bristol Bay since 1980, and I am here
    because I am deeply concerned about the proposed Pebble Mine
    and the discreditable permitting process currently underway. I
    have lived in Alaska since 1977, and I am newly retired from
    the Prudhoe Bay oil field where I worked as a plant operator
    for BP for 42 years. I supplemented my oil job by commercial
    fishing in Bristol Bay with my father and three brothers.
        After fishing with them for a few seasons, I decided this
    fishery was what I wanted to invest in and bought my own
    fishing boat and permit. Commercial fishing in Bristol Bay is
    not easy, and it requires a substantial amount of financial
    investment. Today, a driftnet permit costs around $185,000. A
    fishing boat costs around $250,000. While this initial
    investment is daunting, it is one worth making thanks to
    Bristol Bay's strong runs and high market price. This fishing
    season, my boat alone made $650,000. That is a lot of money.
        For me and many others, fishing in Bristol Bay is a family
    endeavor with multiple generations fishing together. I raised
    my three boys on my fishing boat, and they have chosen to
    continue fishing in Bristol Bay as adults. In addition, they
    run their own seafood company, marketing the salmon that we
    catch back in the Midwest area. Bristol Bay salmon fishery
    allows them to make a good living and is a job that they are
    proud of. As their father, I am proud to know that they will
    continue fishing after my time is over and perhaps their future
    children and their grandchildren will do the same.
        There are thousands of similar stories in Bristol Bay.
    Bristol Bay's commercial fishermen are just one link of the
    chain, though. Bristol Bay's salmon fishery employs more than
    14,000, as Mr. DeFazio talked about earlier, people every
    summer, and creates more than $1.5 billion in the worldwide
    economic activity. We sell our catch to seafood processors, who
    then process and distribute Bristol Bay salmon to buyers and
    markets around the world. With the quality and value of Bristol
    Bay salmon increasing, its global value will only increase in
    time.
        Relative to other salmon fisheries in Bristol Bay, Bristol
    Bay is unmatched in its sustainability and productivity. In
    2018, we harvested over 43 million salmon. Bristol Bay produces
    half of the world's sockeye salmon. Bristol Bay's commercial
    salmon fishery continues to thrive thanks to its pristine,
    undeveloped freshwater habitat and Alaska's science-based
    fishery management.
        Despite all this, Bristol Bay is one of the most endangered
    fisheries. For over a decade, the proposed Pebble Mine has cast
    a shadow of uncertainty over my livelihood and my family's
    future. Nowhere in the world has a mine of this type and size
    been located in a place as ecologically sensitive and pristine
    as Bristol Bay. As the late Senator Ted Stevens once said,
    wrong mine, wrong place.
        Bristol Bay's fishermen have taken precious time away from
    fishing to submit comments to the Army Corps during both the
    scoping and draft EIS comment periods. However, the Army Corps
    has yet to address our concerns and questions. I have no
    confidence in this permitting process, and that the Army Corps
    will factor in our concerns.
        We have one shot at doing this permitting process right. It
    should be testing Pebble's assumptions and promises, not taking
    Pebble at its word.
        I have been fighting to save my sons' and my livelihood
    from the Pebble Mine for over a decade and will continue to do
    so, along with Alannah next door to me here, until Bristol Bay
    is protected. I am increasingly concerned that my efforts and
    those of my fellow fishermen won't be enough. The permitting
    process is a runaway train paving the way to the Army Corps to
    rubber stamp the Pebble Mine. That is why I traveled here,
    along with my son, to ask for your help and leadership.
        I understand there are very important things before
    Congress at this moment. However, our Federal agencies have
    chosen to ignore Bristol Bay's fishermen and science that shows
    salmon and the Pebble Mine cannot coexist. I urge you to do
    anything and everything to stop this flawed process. We are
    running out of time. There is too much at stake to punt this
    issue. The facts are clear, and it is time for this project to
    put its fishermen and businesses in jeopardy to be stopped.
    Alaska, the State of Alaska, is its people. The people of
    Alaska do not want this mine. Thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to speak.
        [Mr. Niver's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Mark Niver, Bristol Bay Driftnet Permit Holder,
                                  FV Surrender
        I am submitting the following testimony regarding the proposed
    Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay, Alaska's headwaters. This project
    is irresponsible and jeopardizes a thriving renewable industry,
    including my livelihood and that of my three sons. I am deeply
    concerned with how the Trump Administration is handling the Pebble
    project's permitting process. The process has been rushed since day one
    and ignores well-documented science showing that the Pebble Mine would
    cause irreversible harm to Bristol Bay's salmon fishery. I ask that you
    and your colleagues do everything in your power to stop this corrupt
    permitting process from moving forward and that you not allow this
    administration to destroy the world's largest wild salmon fishery and
    with it 14,000 American jobs.
        My Bristol Bay fishing career started in my teens when I worked for
    Kachemak Seafoods in Togiak. I soon after moved to Alaska during
    college to take a job in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field where I just
    recently retired as a Plant Operator. I supplemented my oil job on the
    ``North Slope'' by commercial fishing in Bristol Bay with my father and
    three brothers. After fishing with them for a few seasons I decided
    that this was a fishery I wanted to invest in and I bought my own
    fishing boat and permit.
        Commercial fishing in Bristol Bay is not easy and it requires a
    substantial amount of investment and long-term commitment. Today, a
    driftnet permit costs on the average of $185,000 with a fishing boat
    costing on average $250,000. While this initial investment can be
    daunting for new fishermen, it's one worth making thanks to Bristol
    Bay's strong runs and high market price. This fishing season, my one
    boat harvested $650,000 worth of salmon.
        For me and many others, fishing in Bristol Bay is a family endeavor
    and that's part of what makes it so special. It's also generational and
    you often have multiple generations fishing together. I raised my three
    boys on my fishing boat; they started to come out with me when they
    were ten years old. Commercial fishing taught them how to work hard and
    solve problems on their own. Today, they continue to fish and have also
    started their own seafood company, Surrender Salmon, selling more than
    100,000 pounds of Bristol Bay salmon fillets to markets in the Midwest.
    It's a good living that they are proud of. As their father, I'm proud
    to know that they will continue fishing after my time is over, and
    perhaps their future children and grandchildren will do the same.
        Bristol Bay is the largest and most valuable wild salmon fishery
    left in the world. In 2018, Bristol Bay saw a record-breaking return of
    62 million sockeye salmon, 43 million of which were sustainably
    harvested by the commercial fishery.\1\ In an average year, Bristol
    Bay's salmon fishery contributes roughly 50% of the world's sockeye
    salmon and generates $650 million in income and $1.5 billion in
    economic activity \2\. The commercial fishery in Bristol Bay has
    existed for over 130 years and today provides more than 14,000 jobs,
    including 8,000 fishing jobs.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alaska Department of Fish & Game: www.adfg.alaska.gov
        \2\ Knapp et al. University of Anchorage: Institute of Social and
    Economic Research. April 2013. The Economic Importance of the Bristol
    Bay Salmon Industry.
        \3\ Wink Research and Consulting. 2018. Economic Benefits of the
    Bristol Bay Salmon Industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At a local level, Bristol Bay's salmon fishery is an economic
    engine for the region. It employs 1,567 regional resident workers,
    provides 4,217 total average regional jobs, and generates $220 million
    in total regional labor income.\4\ These jobs and income are
    significant since they are renewable and will be available to local
    residents so long as Bristol Bay's salmon populations remain productive
    and are able to support a commercial fishery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Wink, Economic Benefits
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The economic impacts of Bristol Bay's salmon fishery extend well
    beyond the Bristol Bay region, making it an invaluable part of our
    nation's renewable economy. It sustains service and support industries
    such as boat builders, engine mechanics, and fishing gear manufacturers
    as well as other industries in the seafood supply chain, including
    distribution, retail, and food service. Bristol Bay is especially
    important for the Pacific Northwest given the hundreds of permit
    holders, seafood processors, and seafood distributors that are based in
    Washington and Oregon. The Puget Sound region in particular has deep
    ties to the Bristol Bay fishing industry given that the majority of
    Bristol Bay's major seafood processors are based in the Seattle area
    and a substantial percentage of Bristol Bay's salmon products are
    shipped to Seattle for reprocessing and distribution to other markets
    around the country and world \5\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Knapp et al., The Economic Importance
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As other salmon fisheries in Alaska face cyclical declines, Bristol
    Bay's salmon fishery is more important than ever. In 2018 thanks to its
    record-high returns, Bristol Bay contributed 38% of Alaska's entire
    2018 salmon harvest and 48% of its total estimated ex-vessel value \6\.
    Its abundance allows it to provide financial stability for seafood
    processors, fishermen, and other businesses and is a pillar for the
    entire Alaska seafood industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Alaska Department of Fish & Game: www.adfg.alaska.gov
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For over a decade the Pebble Mine has been casting a shadow of
    uncertainty over my livelihood and Bristol Bay's entire fishing
    industry. I first learned about the proposed Pebble Mine in 2006 and
    the more I learned about the project the more concerned I got. Nowhere
    in Alaska or the world have we ever had a mine of this type and size
    located in a place as ecologically sensitive and pristine as Bristol
    Bay. As the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens once said, ``it is the wrong
    mine for the wrong place.''
        It's extremely troubling that the Trump Administration would push
    this project forward despite its well-documented risks and despite the
    14,000 jobs at stake. Bristol Bay's salmon fishery is a renewable
    economic engine, and one that cannot be replaced. What is especially
    troubling about the current permitting process is the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers' Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Army
    Corps' DEIS is fatally flawed and fails to accurately portray the
    ecological impacts that the proposed Pebble project would have on the
    Bristol Bay watershed and its wild salmon populations. Ultimately, this
    is because the DEIS is based on a false project scope and duration even
    though the Army Corps itself says in the DEIS that expansion of the
    project is ``reasonably foreseeable.'' In addition, the DEIS downplays
    many of the direct and indirect impacts outlined in the EPA's 2014
    peer-reviewed Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which concluded that
    ``large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed poses significant
    near- and long-term risk to salmon, wildlife and Native Alaska
    cultures,'' according to former EPA Regional Administrator Dennis
    McLerran. The discrepancies in the DEIS and the EPA Bristol Bay
    Watershed Assessment are concerning and raises questions about the
    scientific integrity of the DEIS.
        Of particular concern to myself and Bristol Bay's commercial
    fishermen are the following information gaps and inaccuracies in the
    DEIS regarding potential impacts to Bristol Bay's fish and fish
    habitat:

          The DEIS grossly underestimates Pebble's potential
    impacts and bases its analysis on a false project scope and duration,
    leading to inaccurate conclusions in the DEIS about future changes in
    the number of returning salmon available for harvest. The Army Corps'
    estimations are not supported by the best available science and
    analysis, specifically when it comes to the impacts of changes in water
    temperature and traces of copper on aquatic life.
          The risk of a potential tailings dam failure, which would
    be catastrophic for the Nushagak River--one of Bristol Bay's most
    productive salmon river systems. The Army Corps has yet to conduct a
    thorough, long-term assessment of a potential tailings dam failure and
    its impacts, which is inexcusable given other recent tailings dam
    failures and the threats that such a failure could have to the
    communities and industries that are downstream. Because of these risks,
    Bristol Bay's drift net permit holders took it upon themselves to hire
    independent earth scientist, Dr. Cameron Wobus, to model potential
    tailings dam failure scenarios and their potential impacts. His
    analysis found that it is likely that Pebble's tailings material would
    reach Bristol Bay \7\ and reinforces that a tailings dams failure at
    the Pebble project would have far reaching and long-lasting impacts on
    the Nushagak River drainage and deserves further analysis by the Army
    Corps and Pebble Limited Partnership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Lynker Technologies, LLC. 2019. A Model Analysis of Flow and
    Deposition from a Tailings Dam Failure at the Proposed Pebble Mine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The DEIS does not include a post-operation reclamation
    plan or wastewater treatment plan. We understand that this is due to
    the fact that the Pebble Limited Partnership has not submitted this
    information to the Army Corps or the State of Alaska, which we find
    unacceptable and questionable given that this is standard practice in
    the industry. Because this project will require treatment and
    monitoring in perpetuity, this information must be made available in
    the DEIS for the public to review and comment on.

        The inadequacies in the Army Corps' assessment of potential impacts
    to fish and habitat impedes the Army Corps from accurately assessing
    the magnitude of Pebble's socio-economic impacts, including changes to
    the value and marketability of Bristol Bay's salmon and the subsequent
    impacts these changes would have on the well-being of Bristol Bay's
    commercial fishermen, businesses, and support industries. The Army
    Corps erroneously assumes that the total value of the fishery is based
    solely on the volume of fish harvested and value per pound of salmon.
    This assumption is wrong and does not factor in the influence that
    marketing, public perception, and quality can have on fish value. In
    addition, the Army Corps also makes a sweeping assumption in its DEIS
    that a change in market reception of Bristol Bay's salmon is not likely
    to occur (DEIS 4.6-2). This assumption is ill-founded and is in direct
    contrast to the Pacific Seafood Processors Assocation's conclusion
    that, ``we know from past experience, that actual or perceived damage
    to the purity of the waters or fish of the Bristol Bay region would
    harm the marketability of Alaska salmon,'' \8\. Thus, even if there is
    not a catastrophic environmental disaster at the proposed Pebble Mine
    site, just the public's perception of an open-pit mine in Bristol Bay's
    headwaters will damage the Bristol Bay and greater Alaska seafood
    brands. The DEIS completely dismisses these risks and its subsequent
    impacts on the thousands of businesses that purchase and sell Bristol
    Bay salmon, including seafood distributors, retailers, and restaurants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Pacific Seafood Processors Association. June 2017. Position on
    the Pebble Mine Project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The DEIS does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars
    in investments made by Bristol Bay's permit holders and seafood
    processors, nor does it evaluate the potential impacts that the Pebble
    project could have on the value of these investments and assets. As
    stated previously, many fishermen invest hundreds of thousands of
    dollars to participate in the Bristol Bay commercial fishery, requiring
    loans that depend on a consistent supply of salmon and strong market
    prices. Any loss in fishing income would create financial hardship for
    these fishermen.
        Over the last year and a half, Bristol Bay's fishermen have taken
    precious time away from fishing to write and submit comment letters to
    the Army Corps during both the Scoping and Draft EIS comment periods.
    We have yet to see the Army Corps address our concerns and questions,
    including our request for a more rigorous tailings-dam failure
    assessment. Instead it appears that this Administration has already
    decided the outcome and is simply going through the motions. That's not
    how a permitting process should work, especially in Bristol Bay where
    the world's largest wild salmon fishery is at stake. The integrity of
    this permitting process has been compromised and I have no confidence
    that the concerns and interests of Bristol Bay's fishermen will be
    factored into the Army Corps' final permitting decision.
        As someone who spent their career working in the oil industry, I am
    not anti-development. Far from it. I fully support development of our
    natural resources, but only when it's done responsibly and based on the
    best available science. We have one shot to do this permitting process
    right in Bristol Bay--there is no where else with a salmon fishery this
    valuable and productive. To allow the Pebble Limited Partnership to
    drive this permitting process in spite of science and the will of
    Alaskans goes against our country's own best interests, violates the
    National Environmental Policy Act, and jeopardizes more than 14,000
    renewable jobs. This permitting process should be testing Pebble's
    assumptions and promises, not taking the Pebble Partnership at its
    word. We deserve a rigorous permitting process that's transparent,
    rigorous, and based on the best available science and information.
        I have been fighting to save my livelihood--and my sons'
    livelihoods--from the Pebble Mine for over a decade and will continue
    to do so until Bristol Bay is protected. I'm increasingly concerned
    under this current Administration that this permitting process is a
    runaway train with nothing stopping the Army Corps from rubber stamping
    the Pebble Partnership's permit application in just a matter of months.
    That is why I am here, to ask for your help and leadership. Please do
    everything you can to stop this flawed process from moving forward any
    further. Allowing the Trump Administration to permit this project would
    be an economic disaster for our country and Bristol Bay's thousands of
    commercial fishermen.
        Thank you for your attention and consideration.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        We now have Anisa Costa. You may proceed.
        Ms. Costa. Thank you. Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman
    Napolitano, Ranking Members Graves and Westerman, members of
    the committee, my name is Anisa Costa, and I serve as chief
    sustainability officer at Tiffany & Co. I would like to thank
    you all for holding this important hearing. It is an honor for
    me to testify here today to express Tiffany & Co.'s
    longstanding opposition to the proposed Pebble Mine, and to ask
    for rigorous environmental review of the mine proposal.
        Since Tiffany & Co. was founded, we have looked to the
    beauty of the natural world for design inspiration. We also
    rely on materials that come from the earth, whether it is
    diamonds or precious metals to bring life to our designers'
    creations. In other words, nature's abundance is integral to
    the success of our company. As such, we have a business
    imperative to operate our company and source our materials in a
    responsible manner that protects the planet and supports
    communities.
        Tiffany was founded in 1837 in New York City and has since
    grown into a global luxury house at the forefront of jewelry
    design and expert craftsmanship. The company has retail and
    manufacturing operations in 29 States and the District of
    Columbia, and we employ nearly 6,000 people across the country.
    We manufacture the majority of our jewelry here in the United
    States and source the majority of our precious metals from
    recycled sources and mines in the U.S. as well.
        Whether here or elsewhere in the world, we take great pride
    in upholding exemplary standards for environmental and social
    responsibility at every step in our supply chain. With more
    than 180 years of experience in sourcing precious metals and
    gemstones, we have learned that there are certain special
    places where mining simply must not occur. We take too much
    risk in altering timeless treasured landscapes that generations
    of communities have thrived in for short-term financial gain.
        Relatedly, we have also long championed the need to reform
    the Mining Law of 1872, and I would like to thank the House
    Natural Resources Committee, which is advancing an important
    mining law reform bill this morning, written by Chairman Raul
    Grijalva.
        In Bristol Bay, we believe mining would ultimately destroy
    the lands in the watershed, causing irreparable harm to the
    communities who depend on this majestic place. It is our view
    that sourcing for mines that destroy our economies and
    ecosystems is not good for our bottom line, or for our
    country's. For these reasons, we have publicly opposed the
    proposed Pebble Mine for more than a decade.
        In 2008, we were one of the first jewelers to sign on to
    the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge and declare that we would
    never source gold from the proposed Pebble Mine. Since signing
    that pledge, Tiffany & Co. has raised awareness about the risk
    of mining in such a pristine place, first within the jewelry
    industry, and then among the broader public. We stand by the
    Bristol Bay Protection Pledge today alongside 100 of our
    colleagues in the jewelry industry as well as other sectors who
    have since signed the pledge.
        We know, from experience, that when our customers, when
    consumers view mining as irresponsible and harmful, it hurts
    all industries who use mined materials from technology to
    renewable energy enterprises, to automotive companies, and the
    construction sector, and of course, the jewelry industry.
    Today's corporate stakeholders, including our valued customers,
    expect business to be done without risking the country's
    natural resources.
        Sadly, the Army Corps' EIS fails to even consider the
    findings of the EPA 2014 watershed assessment to push for
    answers for the Bristol Bay region. So we are respectfully
    urging the committee to push for answers to the critical
    questions raised by the EPA while there is still time.
        Many of our concerns have been highlighted by the other
    witnesses this morning, and are included in my written
    testimony, so I will not repeat them here. But simply put, we
    urge the committee to consider the many omissions in the Army
    Corps' permit process, and ensure that they are fully
    addressed. The communities of Bristol Bay and the diverse
    coalition that opposes the mine deserve nothing less.
        We at Tiffany & Co. look forward to continuing to source
    materials and manufacture our products here in the United
    States. However, we can promise that we will never use gold
    from the proposed Pebble Mine should it be developed. The long-
    term threats to the Bristol Bay region are simply too great.
    They outweigh the short-term value of any precious metals which
    might be extracted from there.
        For this generation and all those to follow, this majestic
    landscape simply must be protected. We know that there will be
    other copper and gold mines to develop, but there will never be
    another place as special and productive as Bristol Bay. Thank
    you for your time.
        [Ms. Costa's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Anisa Kamadoli Costa, Chief Sustainability
                             Officer, Tiffany & Co.
        Chairman DeFazio and Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Members Graves
    and Westerman, and Members of the Committee, my name is Anisa Kamadoli
    Costa and I am the Chief Sustainability Officer at Tiffany & Co.
        I would like to thank you all for holding this important hearing
    related to the Bristol Bay Region of Alaska and the proposed Pebble
    Mine. It is an honor for me to testify here today to express Tiffany &
    Co.'s longstanding opposition to the proposed Pebble Mine and to ask
    for rigorous environmental review of the mine's proposal.
        Since our inception, Tiffany & Co. has looked to the beauty of the
    natural world for design inspiration. We also rely on the bounty of
    this world for the precious materials that bring our designers'
    creations to life. In other words, nature's abundance is integral to
    the success of our company, given the precious materials that are mined
    to be utilized in our products. As such, we believe we have a business
    imperative to operate our company and source our materials in a
    responsible manner that protects the planet and supports communities.
        Tiffany was founded in 1837 in New York City and has since grown
    into a global luxury house at the forefront of jewelry design and
    expert craftsmanship. The company has retail and manufacturing
    operations in 29 states and D.C., and we employ approximately 5,900
    people across the United States. We manufacture the majority of our
    jewelry domestically and source the majority of our precious metals
    from mines and recycled sources in the U.S. Whether here or elsewhere
    in the world, we take great pride in upholding exemplary standards for
    environmental and social responsibility at every step in our supply
    chain.
        After more than 180 years of experience in sourcing precious metals
    and gemstones, we have learned there are certain places where mining
    simply must not occur. We risk too much in altering timeless, treasured
    landscapes in pursuit of short-term financial gain. In Bristol Bay, we
    believe mining would ultimately destroy the lands and the watershed,
    causing irreparable harm to the communities who depend on this majestic
    place. It is our view that sourcing from mines that destroy economies
    and ecosystems are not good for our bottom line or our country. For
    these reasons, we have publicly opposed the proposed Pebble Mine for
    more than a decade.
        In 2008, we were one of the first jewelers to sign the Bristol Bay
    Protection Pledge and declare that should the proposed Pebble Mine be
    developed, we would not source gold from it. Since signing the pledge,
    Tiffany & Co. has proactively raised awareness about the danger of
    mining in such a pristine place, first within the jewelry industry and
    then among the broader public. We have voiced our positions in National
    Jeweler, National Geographic, The Washington Post, San Francisco
    Chronicle and The Seattle Times.
        We continue to stand by the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge today,
    alongside 100 of our colleagues in the jewelry industry and other
    sectors who have since signed onto the pledge. Indeed, Tiffany & Co. is
    far from alone in in our opposition to Pebble Mine. A diverse
    coalition--including recreational and commercial fishing companies,
    restaurateurs, conservationists and Alaska Natives--has raised a
    unified voice in opposition to the proposed mine. The list of those who
    believe this proposed mine should not be built has continued to grow in
    recent years and now includes mining companies who previously planned
    to develop the deposit. All of us concluded long ago, that this mine
    represents a risk of the highest order. We all agree Pebble is the
    wrong mine in the wrong place and should not be permitted.
        We know from experience that when consumers view mining as
    irresponsible and harmful, it does not blemish the jewelry industry
    alone. All industries reliant on mined materials are impacted
    negatively, from technology and renewable energy, to automotive
    companies and the construction sector. Today's corporate stakeholders,
    including our valued customers, expect business to be done without
    destroying the country's natural treasures, including Bristol Bay.
        In light of the potentially harmful environmental, social and
    economic consequences which could result from the construction of
    Pebble Mine, we commend the Committee for holding this important
    hearing to examine the process and potential impacts of the mine
    proposal. It is especially critical at this moment in time, as the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) is continuing to move forward with
    permitting the mine without considering the extensive scientific data
    that have clearly projected devastating consequences resulting from the
    mine's development.
        In particular, the Army Corps' Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    (DEIS) fails to consider the findings of the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) 2014 Watershed Assessment of the Bristol Bay region.
    Given the Committee's jurisdiction over both the Army Corps and the EPA
    on matters related to clean water, wetlands, watershed health, and
    clean-up and remediation of environmental catastrophes, we respectfully
    urge you to push for answers to the questions posed by the EPA on these
    topics. By driving the discussion, this Committee can help ensure that
    the highly predictable and catastrophic impacts of mining in the
    Bristol Bay ecosystem are avoided.
        As a company, we provided comments on the Army Corps' DEIS earlier
    this year, highlighting various gaps in the assessment. We believe
    these gaps must be addressed and that the Army Corps must disclose the
    direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed Pebble Mine,
    given it would be built in one of the most significant, precious and
    pristine ecosystems in the world.
        Our recent comments focused on five major deficiencies: (i) the
    limited scope of the DEIS, (ii) long-term water management, (iii) water
    quality, (iv) biodiversity matters and (v) post-mining reclamation.

        (i)  In terms of scope, the current application is to mine 1.4
    billion tons of mineralized ore. However, the Pebble deposit is
    reported as at least a 10-billion-ton mineral resource. It is
    reasonable to predict that mine proponents would seek to exploit the
    entire mineral resource. Therefore, any review of the proposed mine
    should assess the impacts of mining the entire resource.
             Additionally, the Army Corps only evaluates the potential for
    risks and failures over a 20-year timeline. However, this estimated
    timeframe is likely far shorter than the life of the mine would be. A
    100-year timeline, or even longer, would be more appropriate for proper
    evaluation. The long-term pollution issues associated with abandoned
    mines throughout the United States underlines the importance of looking
    beyond a 20-year horizon.
        (ii)  Regarding water management, the proposed Pebble Mine is
    located within the reaches of three separate stream systems and would
    have potentially devastating consequences for both water quantity and
    quality in each drainage. The Army Corps should require a water
    management plan that evaluates the potential impacts on water in these
    drainages and outlines proposed mitigation. The current application is
    inadequate in this regard, as a detailed water management plan has not
    been submitted. It is impossible to evaluate the direct, indirect and
    cumulative impacts to these watersheds until such a plan has been
    completed.
              Further, in order to characterize the impacts of mining on
    the Bristol Bay region, the Army Corps should explicitly consider the
    management of groundwater and surface water as a coupled system using
    an integrated hydrologic model. Hydrologists know that pumping
    substantial volumes of groundwater will adversely affect surface water
    and permanently degrade or destroy the effected streams. The Army Corps
    should evaluate groundwater and surface water flow modeling
    predictions.
        (iii)  From a water quality perspective, we expect there will be
    both short- and long-term degradation from the mine site water
    impoundments and open pit mining activities. The use of petroleum
    products, large quantities of chemicals for milling processes and
    erosion from heavy equipment operations degrade water quality. There is
    high potential for pollution from waste rock, tailings and pit wall
    leaching. A large open pit and dewatering will have negative impacts on
    nearby streams and lakes. A mine waste management plan should be
    included in the water management plan to account for groundwater
    pollution from the proposed mine.
        (iv)  Though the Army Corps is currently considering a permit for a
    mine at a smaller scale than originally proposed, a smaller mine would
    still eliminate, block or dewater over 80 miles of streams and nearly
    3,500 acres of wetlands. The loss of such habitat would significantly
    impact biodiversity, as these streams are critical for the spawning and
    rearing of salmon. Even with a smaller footprint--which, it is
    reasonably foreseeable would expand significantly--this proposed loss
    is considerably above the advised miles and acreage outlined in the
    EPA's 2014 watershed assessment. We continue to urge the Army Corps to
    reconcile the differences between its analysis and the EPA's 2014
    analysis.
              Further, it is critical to consider the potential for a
    tailings dam failure as none of the dams and tailing storage facilities
    would ever be removed. Such a failure would bury many miles of streams
    and salmon habitats with fine sediment, destroying the possibility of
    spawning and rearing. The impact this would have not only on the
    ecosystem's biodiversity, but on the Alaskan communities and economies
    who depend on a productive salmon fishery, is unacceptable.
        (v)  Finally, in relation to closure, the Army Corps does not
    analyze possible future impacts of a catastrophic failure of the
    tailings dam on the surrounding environment and fish and wildlife, nor
    does it provide a sophisticated geochemical analysis of a tailings
    dump. The Army Corps needs to evaluate all possible outcomes and should
    widen its scope of risk impacts to include catastrophic dam failure. It
    must also recognize a tailings dump is a permanent waste pile and will
    not be removed when the mine closes. The long-term impact of a tailings
    dump on water quality in the region should be carefully evaluated.

        We urge the Committee to consider the many omissions in the Army
    Corps' DEIS and demand they be fully addressed. The communities of
    Bristol Bay and the diverse coalition that opposes the mine deserve
    nothing less.
        We at Tiffany & Co. look forward to continuing to source materials
    and manufacture products in the United States. However, we can promise
    we will never use gold from the Pebble Mine should it be developed. The
    long-term threats to the Bristol Bay region far outweigh the short-term
    value of any precious metals which might be extracted there.
        For this generation and all those to follow, this majestic
    landscape simply must be protected. We know there are other copper and
    gold mines to develop, but there will never be another place so
    abundant and productive as Bristol Bay.
        Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer questions at the
    appropriate time.

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Costa.
        Thank you to all the witnesses. We will now have questions
    for the witnesses, and again, we will use the timer to allow 5
    minutes of questions for each Member. If there are additional
    questions, we might have a second round as necessary, and I
    will now begin.
        Ms. Hurley, as a member of a sovereign nation, do you think
    that Tribal consultation on the project is adequate?
        Ms. Hurley. No.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Why is it important that Tribal
    perspective be included in the EIS?
        Ms. Hurley. It is very important for the Tribal perspective
    to be included in the EIS because we have lived in Bristol Bay
    for thousands of years. We know more about these lands and
    waters and what the potential impacts could be to our people
    from a project like this more than anyone else. The Tribal
    perspective should be included in the draft EIS, and to date,
    it has not been included in a meaningful way.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Ms. Costa, your company led the way in signing the Bristol
    Bay Protection Pledge, committing not to source mine from
    Pebble. If it is true your company seeks to source materials
    only from the United States, why is it important you take this
    stand?
        Ms. Costa. It is important to us because what happens at
    the origins of our supply chain, it matters; it matters to our
    customers, it matters to our employees, it matters to our
    investors and all of our stakeholders. Consumers expect us to
    be sourcing responsibly, and simply put, I think anything that
    puts the mining industry in a bad light is bad for our
    business.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. McLerran and Mr. Borden, there is a lot of talk about
    letting the process play out. You have both been involved with
    the permitting from a Federal agency and then from a
    developer's perspective. How does this process compare in scope
    and detail?
        Mr. McLerran. So--Dennis McLerran. Actually, I have never
    seen anything quite like this. This is being shortcut. There
    are gaps in the data. The NEPA process only works well if it is
    done well, and this one is not being done well. So the process
    is deeply flawed. The withdrawal of the watershed assessment--
    or excuse me--withdrawal of the proposed determination was
    truly extraordinary after President Trump met with Governor
    Dunleavy on a plane. There was an EPA headquarters directive to
    reconsider, and it was withdrawn within a matter of days. So it
    appears that it was a political decision rather than a science-
    or data-based decision.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. Borden?
        Mr. Borden. I can say also that I am very uncomfortable
    with this process. I have been involved with a lot of EISs and
    many permitting processes for mines of comparable size and
    smaller. I have never seen something going this fast, at least
    half the time of what you would expect for such a complex
    project. I also have to say the EIS that was submitted in draft
    had so many omissions and errors in it that I personally would
    have been ashamed to be involved with that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. How does the timeline compare for Pebble
    to other EIS processes?
        Mr. Borden. From my analysis, the average mining project is
    probably closer to the 5- to 6-year range. And the current
    administration also looked at EIS process overall in the United
    States over the last decade or so, and even the average EIS,
    and that includes very simple highway projects, things of that
    sort, they are closer to 4 to 5 years also. So this is even
    less than just the average project, not even the average mining
    project.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        I yield to Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I find it interesting that we bring up draft EISs. We don't
    point out that all of this is subject to review. And, you know,
    just the idea that NEPA is a gold standard except when NEPA is
    actually being used, and now, NEPA and the people carrying it
    out are somehow villains.
        And, Mr. McLerran, in a recent interview with The Seattle
    Times, you said that what is happening now as a decisionmaking
    process is being politicized and removed from the science. And
    I find that extraordinary to be coming from you, the person who
    handpicked somebody to lead the Bristol Bay watershed
    assessment, that said in a public meeting that politics are as
    big or a bigger factor than science, in your Clean Water Act
    veto decision.
        Mr. McLerran, isn't it true that a preemptive veto, such as
    the one you undertook, wasn't necessary because you had no idea
    if the Army Corps of Engineers was even going to grant a
    permit? Isn't it the case that unless the Corps is going to
    grant a permit, that a veto is unnecessary?
        Mr. McLerran. So, first, there was no veto, as I explained
    in my testimony. But we did, after 3 years of science, impose
    restrictions on the development in the watershed, but that was
    based on good science. It was a very participatory process. So
    there was no predecision of that, as Mr. Collier testified.
    That certainly was not the case. We went into this with open
    eyes and open ears, and heard the science and made some----
        Mr. Westerman. You are saying the 404(c) was not used
    originally?
        Mr. McLerran. We did use the 404(c) process, which Congress
    has provided the authority and the power for EPA to use. We
    have used that--EPA has used that very sparingly over the
    years. But this is a case where the science really drove that
    and merited it.
        Mr. Westerman. So everyone on the committee has probably
    dealt with the Corps of Engineers in some form or fashion. And
    I have yet to see the Corps of Engineers get in a hurry about
    anything. I have yet to see them sidestep any processes or try
    to fast-track anything. Quite honestly, it has been just the
    opposite of that. There has been a lot of talk about the
    politicization of this process.
        What exactly about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its
    career military team is politicized? Because I have not seen
    that with any of them that I have dealt with.
        Mr. McLerran. So I didn't state that the Corps of Engineers
    was politicized, but I did state that the EPA process to
    withdraw the proposed determination appears to have been
    politicized.
        Mr. Westerman. But it is the Corps of Engineers that is
    doing this permit.
        Mr. McLerran. So all of the Federal agencies do provide
    input into that. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    EPA, several other Federal agencies have pointed out that the
    process is deeply flawed at this point that the Corps is
    undertaking.
        Mr. Westerman. Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my
    time to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. I thank you.
        Mr. Collier, you have heard this comment about rushing
    NEPA. How long does the Donlin mine and the rest of the mines
    in Alaska, how long were their process going, permitting?
        Mr. Collier. So the Donlin mine was the longest,
    Congressman. It took 5 to 6 years. There are some reasons why
    that took a long time, including a management change that
    happened in the middle of the process and a need to slow it
    down for new management to consider whether they wanted to go
    ahead with the same plans that were on the table.
        Mr. Young. How does that compare to the Pebble process?
        Mr. Collier. Donlin was longer. But there are a lot of
    projects in Alaska, mining projects, that have been permitted
    in a significantly shorter time. There is a table in my written
    testimony that--you saw those. But I think the clear comparison
    for the hearing today, Congressman, is that I have heard
    repeatedly, since I have sat here, that the Bristol Bay
    watershed assessment was the gold standard process. That took
    precisely the same amount of time to prepare its draft as the
    DEIS took to prepare that draft, exactly the same amount of
    time. So if it was enough time for the Bristol Bay watershed
    assessment, that everybody thinks it ought to be upheld, it
    ought to be enough time for the DEIS in this process also.
        Mr. Young. I want to just say that, along that line, have
    you--because I have heard this--have you talked to the local
    people around Lake Iliamna and worked with them and other
    groups?
        Mr. Collier. Yes, Congressman, we have.
        Mr. Young. Are they part of the group that Ms. Hurley
    represents?
        Mr. Collier. No. The group she represents is much farther
    away from the project.
        Mr. Young. OK. I yield back.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Yeah, it is not politicized. I have a media advisory from
    the Army Corps of Engineers. They are going to try and rebut
    this hearing with a press event afterwards, not politicized at
    all. Everything is politicized with this administration.
        We have comments from the EPA. This DEIS likely, and
    there--this is 2019, this is Trump's EPA--likely underestimates
    adverse impacts to groundwater, surface flows, water quality,
    wetlands, fish resources, and air quality--nothing much to
    that--including the ability of the proposed water treatment
    plant to annually meet water treatment goals and water quality
    standards in perpetuity.
        Mr. Collier, tell me about the assets of the Pebble Mine,
    in a very short sentence. What are the assets, other than this
    claim?
        Mr. Collier. That is it. That is all there is.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the
    brevity.
        The Department of the Interior submitted comments
    suggesting that the DEIS, as prepared, does not follow NEPA
    requirements and conventions for data inclusion, analysis of an
    activity of this scope and scale. This is the Trump Department
    of the Interior, and it is inadequate and it precludes
    meaningful analysis. That is the Trump administration coming
    out--Scott Pruitt--Scott Pruitt said, it is my judgment at this
    time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk
    to the abundant natural resources that exist there. Until we
    know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and
    world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection. Seriously,
    Scott Pruitt. So we have a little contradiction going on here.
        Mr. Borden, I was told there weren't any engineers here.
    You are an engineer, correct?
        Mr. Borden. I am a geologist.
        Mr. DeFazio. A geologist. You worked for Rio Tinto for 23
    years?
        Mr. Borden. Correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. And you developed mines all around the world?
        Mr. Borden. Yes, I did.
        Mr. DeFazio. Have you ever seen a water treatment plant
    constructed that is still working, or is going to work in
    perpetuity, in an area--we heard about the water--as wet as
    this?
        Mr. Borden. No. This would be truly unprecedented. The
    flows that would need to be routinely treated, up to 19,000
    gallons per minute, peaking above 20,000 at closure, and then
    incredibly complex and costly multistage water treatment
    process, I have never seen such high flows linked with such a
    complex treatment process in my career.
        Mr. DeFazio. Do you think maybe that is one of the reasons
    Rio Tinto, a real mining company with real assets, pulled out?
        Mr. Borden. I think I would break some confidentiality
    agreements there.
        Mr. DeFazio. As I recall, there were a number of major
    mining companies. We are down to one who has, you know--but
    also, they are not part of the shell company, so they won't
    have any liability if this fails. Is that correct?
        Mr. Borden. Water treatment is truly an Achilles' heel for
    this project. And I had estimated that even being rather kind
    and conservatively low, it would be $40 million a year every
    year just to--in operating costs to run a water treatment plant
    here.
        Mr. DeFazio. So how is a shell company with no assets going
    to do that, I wonder? Maybe they will post a $1 billion bond.
    Oh, no, we don't require that, do we?
        Mr. Collier. I would be happy to answer that question, if
    you would like.
        Mr. DeFazio. No, sir. I didn't--I want to ask another
    question. We will get to you.
        Mr. Collier. I thought you probably wouldn't.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Thank you.
        How about the financial viability? You say its net present
    value is negative $3 billion.
        Mr. Borden. That is correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right. Now I have a question, Mr. Collier.
    Have you submitted a document on this much smaller mine showing
    it is financially viable to the Corps of Engineers that is a
    certifiable, real analysis? Yes or no?
        Mr. Collier. No.
        Mr. DeFazio. No. OK.
        Mr. Collier. But if the mine is not financially----
        Mr. DeFazio. No--sir, I asked you a yes or no. You answered
    no. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Collier. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. I appreciate that.
        How about the height of--Mr. Borden, the height of these
    dams. Are there a lot of dams this height around the world in
    wet, seismically active areas?
        Mr. Borden. No. This would be unique. It would be at least
    in the upper 99th percentile of tailings dams constructed
    globally today for height.
        Mr. DeFazio. Oh, Mr. Collier looks appalled at that
    statement. So--we will see if he can document something else.
        So--and it will be about as tall as Hoover Dam--I mean
    Grand Coulee. Sorry. Not Hoover. Hoover is taller.
        Mr. Borden. It will be 545 feet high at its highest point.
    I am afraid I don't know how high----
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Yeah, we are close. Yeah, OK.
        And what are these constructed of?
        Mr. Borden. The dam embankments will dominantly be
    constructed of bedrock, which is quarried from greenfields
    quarries.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Great. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. Woodall, you are on.
        Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I used to serve on the Oversight Committee, where we would
    routinely have the folks asking the yes-or-no questions and not
    giving an opportunity for folks to respond. But one of my great
    pleasures in moving to the chairman's committee is that this is
    a bipartisan committee where folks are actually seeking answers
    instead of just trying to make a point.
        And so, Mr. Collier, I actually have some other questions
    for other witnesses, but you didn't get a chance to answer any
    of the chairman's questions. And if they were worth asking,
    presumptively they are worth answering.
        Mr. Collier. Yes. Two answers that I would like to provide.
    The first is, as I am sure the chairman of the committee knows
    with his great experience in this area, you can't turn a shovel
    full of dirt for a project like this without a bond being
    posted that guarantees all of the financial closure
    requirements and perpetuity requirements that have been imposed
    by the permit that you are operating under.
        So we couldn't start building this mine until we had posted
    an adequate bond to make sure that all of those requirements
    could be taken care of. That is the law today. And furthermore,
    the State law in Alaska is even more severe than the Federal
    laws in terms of bonding.
        And as for financial viability, I don't believe for a
    second that members of this committee accept the fact that this
    project isn't financially viable. If it is not financially
    viable, it is not going to be built. And if it is not going to
    be built, what the hell are we doing here today?
        So if you believe it is not financially viable, let's all
    go home. But the project is financially viable. We have
    invested almost $1 billion in this project to get it where it
    is now, and we are going to be able to build it, and it is
    going to make money as we go forward.
        Mr. Woodall. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Niver, I am glad to see here you. I confess, I don't
    know much about Alaska. The Chesapeake Bay is in my back yard
    here. And whenever we are talking about protecting the bay, we
    rarely have families that have done generational fishing come
    to testify. So I just can't tell you how pleased I am to see
    folks who work for a living here making their case.
        I saw in your testimony, you got started on your dad's boat
    as a teenager. Did I read that correctly?
        Mr. Niver. Yes.
        Mr. Woodall. Does it go back another generation, or did
    your dad start the company?
        Mr. Niver. My dad actually got us into the fishing
    business, yes, and then we expanded it. All my brothers all
    ended up getting permits. And my sons are fishing with me now.
    They started a company called surrendersalmon.com. They sell it
    in the Midwest. They sold over 100,000 pounds of fillets last
    year, and they are doing quite well.
        Mr. Woodall. We are talking about protecting the watershed
    and protecting that fishery.
        Can your grandsons get permits today? Are permits still
    being issued in that----
        Mr. Niver. Well, it is a limited entry system, but they are
    always being bought and sold always, every year. You can go to
    a permit broker and buy a permit every year if you want. There
    are a limited amount, but there are people getting into the
    business and people getting out of the business every year.
        Mr. Woodall. We can't compete on the east coast with Ms.
    Hurley's thousands of years of dependence upon the land. But
    tell me about commercial fisheries in the bay. How far back
    generationally will a fishing family go? If we are not talking
    about Ms. Hurley and Native peoples, what are we talking about?
        Mr. Niver. Well, I mean, Ms. Hurley, her families go back
    thousands of years, right?
        Mr. Woodall. In the commercial fishing business, Ms.
    Hurley?
        Mr. Niver. In the commercial fishing, yes, it has been
    going on for 135 years.
        Mr. Woodall. We have got some great restaurants in Atlanta.
    I just want to know how long that has been shipping our way.
        Mr. Niver. All right. Well, I hope that your restaurants
    are getting wild Alaska salmon, because you don't want to do
    the farm salmon.
        Mr. Woodall. I noticed your son was marketing in the
    Midwest; he wasn't marketing in the Deep South. We will come
    and talk to him after----
        Mr. Niver. We will keep him away from there, OK?
        Mr. Woodall. Ms. Hurley, what are we talking about in terms
    of commercial fishermen in families that you represent? Are we
    going back--how far?
        Ms. Hurley. Yeah. I am happy to add to what Mark said. I am
    actually a fourth generation commercial set-netter as well. So
    my great grandmother, my grandmother, my mother, and I, and our
    permits have been passed down. And that is very--a regular
    practice in Bristol Bay. This is generations of fishing
    families, you know, not only from a Native perspective, but
    from a commercial perspective as well.
        And you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Bristol Bay
    who isn't connected and benefiting in a cash economy in some
    way, either directly or through a support industry, from the
    sustainable commercial fishery that has provided for this
    region economically and for the State and the Nation for over
    135 years and counting, with record runs this last year, 54
    million salmon.
        Mr. Woodall. Given those high stakes, Ms. Hurley, what I
    thought I understood in your testimony--I think shape-shifting
    was the reference you made. But there is no proposal that you
    could see for this mine that will satisfy your concerns, that
    your sense is that this mine cannot be built in any way and
    have the Tribes' concerns addressed.
        Ms. Hurley. Yeah. So what we have seen is with the
    company's proposal, that has changed in different ways, it has
    not changed in any way that changes our mind that this will not
    impact fisheries. We have seen this throughout history,
    throughout other mines.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Hurley. The
    time is up.
        Now I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas,
    Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous
    consent to put my opening statement in the record.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Texas
        Madam Chairwoman, there are serious concerns with the Pebble Mine
    Project in Bristol Bay, Alaska.
        Bristol Bay is an American treasure and economic engine. It is home
    to the world's greatest wild salmon fishery that generates $1.5 billion
    annually, fuels Alaska's economy, supports 14,000 jobs, and feeds
    indigenous communities. The proposed Pebble Mine threatens the entire
    region--its people, water, fisheries, and wildlife.
        As Chair of the Science Committee, we have oversight of the EPA. I
    have been concerned about this issue for quite some time.
        We have been here before with hearings on EPA and the proposed
    Pebble Mine. As far back as August 2013, the Science Committee held a
    hearing on the EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. It held a second
    hearing titled, ``Examining EPA's Predetermined Efforts to Block the
    Pebble Mine.'' That hearing included the CEO of the Pebble Partnership
    and two of the company's paid consultants.
        We also heard from an EPA witness, Mr. Dennis McLerran. As the EPA
    Administrator of Region 10, that includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
    Alaska, he played a pivotal role in helping the EPA carry out its
    critical mission of protecting human health and the environment.
        Madam Chairwoman, commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay,
    environmental groups, Native Alaskan Tribes, and even jewelry companies
    such as Tiffany & Company, were and are, deeply concerned that a mine
    in Bristol Bay would destroy the splendor and unspoiled beauty of this
    unique watershed, and cripple the economic livelihood of thousands of
    its residents who rely on its world-renowned salmon fisheries. All
    those groups called on the EPA to take action to protectthis critical
    environmental resource.
        I have heard from constituents in my district in Dallas on this
    issue.
        They are also opposed to this mine. This should not be a political
    issue. I believe, as others have said, that the proposed Pebble Mine in
    Bristol Bay is simply the wrong mine in the wrong place.
        The potential development of the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay poses
    an extreme adverse threat to U.S. waters. We must not allow that to
    happen. We must continue to protect the waters of the United States.

        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
        Mr. Kraft, at one point you were supportive of the Pebble
    Mine project. What made you change your mind?
        Mr. Kraft. Actually, Ms. Congresswoman, what changed my
    mind was actually a presentation by Northern Dynasty at my
    lodge. I had the CEO of--then it was Northern Dynasty that
    owned the deposit, wasn't in the Pebble Partnership. And he
    came to the lodge, at my request, and we had people from the
    Village of Igiugig, a Native village 4 miles from my lodge,
    came down, population of 35 people year-round.
        We came down and we all had concerns about what was going
    on. We are the first village downriver from the proposed mine
    site. And he did a presentation that looks very similar to the
    presentation that we see today. Frying Pan Lake, a headwater
    lake, it starts one of the salmon-bearing streams, is going to
    be gone. And he started pointing this out, and we are
    scratching our head, going, that doesn't sound so good. And
    this much habitat is going to be consumed and this much acreage
    is going to be gone.
        So it was at that point that we started asking questions
    and saying, wait a minute, maybe this isn't what is right for
    this area and for this region. So it was an educational journey
    that we went on. And it was talking to mine people and finding
    out what were the good mining decisions, why they went in where
    they did, and why they didn't go where they did.
        And so it just--it was evolutionary, over time, finding out
    that, look, this area, one, it is aqueous, the water table is
    at 6 feet, everything is interconnected. We have got salmon
    identified in landlocked-looking lakes, which means they travel
    underground. And finding out the connectivity of the entire
    system, it just became very obvious very quickly that an
    industrial development that digs a big hole and consumes the
    habitat is probably not the right thing for this fishery.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. There is the argument that if the
    mine is smaller, the impacts are smaller. Do you agree, or what
    size mine would have no impact?
        Mr. Kraft. Ms. Congresswoman, it is--it is hard to get to
    yes because of the sheer location. Location, the size, and the
    scope of it. The Pebble Partnership has tried to put forth a
    mine plan that Mr. Collier thinks is permittable. I think that
    the strategy is not beyond anybody's reasonable assumption that
    as soon as this permit gets OKed, that they are going after the
    entire deposit.
        It would be ludicrous to think that, on a business sense,
    you are going to put in the capital infrastructure, the roads,
    the ports, the powerplant, the extraction mechanisms, to get to
    one-eighth of the deposit and leave seven-eighths of the
    deposit in the ground. So it is very hard to get to yes on
    this.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Niver, you are a multigenerational family fisherman. If
    the salmon fishery was severely impacted, what would it mean to
    your family and to the community in Alaska or even the United
    States that depend on this fishery?
        Mr. Niver. Yes. It would--the impact of the mine will be
    substantial to all fishermen in the Bristol Bay watershed. And
    we are talking about putting an open-pit mine of the largest
    kind in the United States between the two largest salmon-
    producing rivers in the world. I mean, we are only like 3 miles
    from Lake Iliamna and about 1\1/2\ miles from the upper reaches
    of the Nushagak River system. It will have an impact on all
    fishermen in Bristol Bay.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Niver. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Now, Ms. Hurley, can you talk a
    little bit about the area's importance to the Alaska Natives
    who call the Bristol Bay watershed home? Quickly.
        Ms. Hurley. I am sorry. I didn't catch the beginning of
    what you said. Talk to the----
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Why this area is important to the
    Alaska Natives.
        Ms. Hurley. Yeah. Sorry. This is very important to us. This
    is a human rights issue. This is an indigenous rights issue.
    This is an environmental justice issue for our people. If our
    lands and waters are devastated, our people are devastated and
    can no longer exist. We don't have a choice. We have to fight
    this project for the survival of our people.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. My time has
    expired.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
        I now recognize Mr. Bost from Illinois.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Because I think that he has the questions that are vitally
    important to his State and where he represents, I would like to
    yield my time to Representative Young, please.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Collier, have you secured the necessary property
    rights permissions to develop the project?
        Mr. Collier. Yes, we have.
        Mr. Young. You have talked to--includes surface
    transportation and surface transportation and roads that can be
    built?
        Mr. Collier. Yes. In fact, the two village corporations in
    Alaska, that is Native Government corporations, that own the
    majority of the land in the--Lake and Pen Borough where we are.
        Mr. Young. So they actually support the project?
        Mr. Collier. They support the project and have entered into
    right-of-way agreements with us and contractual cooperation
    agreements.
        Mr. Young. The reason I ask that question is I have heard
    some people are claiming that they own the subsurface, and that
    would stop road. That is not the law, to my knowledge.
        Mr. Collier. That is not the law.
        Mr. Young. And these are Native groups too?
        Mr. Collier. That is correct.
        Mr. Young. That is good.
        Just out of curiosity, Mr. Borden, what do you do now?
        Mr. Borden. I retired from Rio Tinto in January of this
    year, and I am now running my own consulting firm.
        Mr. Young. For mining?
        Mr. Borden. Yes. So far, I have had five clients this year,
    three mining companies and two NGOs.
        Mr. Young. Just curious. Rio Tinto is a pretty good
    operation.
        I think everybody--anybody disagree that this is a draft
    statement from the Corps of Engineers? Everybody agree with
    that or disagrees with it?
        Is it a draft?
        EPA is a draft too?
        We are all talking about drafts here. These are not final
    products. And I think everybody in that table, both sides, have
    made up their mind already. This is about science. I don't see
    much science here. Everybody--I hear you referring to the
    scientists. What scientists? Who were they? Mr. McLerran, who
    were they?
        Mr. McLerran. So the watershed assessment was done by EPA's
    Office of Research and Development in conjunction with region
    10. That was EPA's science office.
        Mr. Young. You already made up your mind, didn't you----
        Mr. McLerran. No, never made up----
        Mr. Young [continuing]. Made up their minds?
        Mr. McLerran [continuing]. Our mind. During the--during the
    pendency of the watershed assessment, I knew I was going to be
    the decisionmaker on whether we use 404(c) or not and making a
    proposed determination. Ultimately, the decision would be made
    by headquarters Office of Water.
        But, no, I had not made up my mind. I wanted to see what
    the science said. I wanted to learn more about the watershed,
    and that is what the process we did with those scientists
    informed me.
        Mr. Young. What is your employment now?
        Mr. McLerran. So I am an attorney and----
        Mr. Young. I figured that.
        Mr. McLerran [continuing]. Policy consultant in Washington
    State.
        Mr. Young. All right. I yield back.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
        I now recognize Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Costa, thank you for your testimony before our
    subcommittee today to discuss your concerns with the Pebble
    Mine project.
        From what we have heard today from you and some of the
    other witnesses, this proposed project poses a significant
    threat to the natural environment and commercial fishermen
    interests in Bristol Bay.
        You mentioned that in 2008, Tiffany & Company was one of
    the first jewelers to sign the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge,
    and continues to oppose this project, proposed Pebble Mine
    project.
        Can you elaborate further on why a successful business like
    Tiffany would oppose a mining project like this? And, two, are
    there other businesses that have signed the Bristol Bay
    Protection Pledge?
        Mr. Costa. Thank you for the question. Yes, there are many
    other businesses that have signed on, many other sectors and
    over 100 jewelers that have signed on to the pledge itself. And
    as I referenced, it has always been critical to us to make sure
    that we understand the origins of our supply chain because of
    what we are selling, our jewelry. But I think that it is even
    more critical now, because consumers are demanding to
    understand the origins of our products, and it is upon us to
    make sure that we are sourcing responsibly. And we feel, simply
    put, that this is the wrong mine in the wrong place at the
    wrong time, and that is why we have stated that we will not
    source from Bristol Bay--from the Pebble Mine should it move
    forward.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. Mr. Weber, if you would care to
    take 5 minutes here.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, sir.
        I appreciate our colleague from Alaska's comments earlier
    about--that would be Congressman Young--that everybody on both
    sides seems to have made up their mind. And as I sit here
    today, I think it is extremely telling that in one opening
    diatribe that the name of Donald Trump was once again invoked,
    mentioned, and once again maligned. It seems apparent that the
    hatred for the President is being, dare I say, mined to the
    deepest depths in order to continue the false narrative that
    President Donald Trump is pretty much to blame for just about
    everything. It is old.
        The actual depths that that hatred is being mined to
    appears to be one of the deepest despair that President Trump
    will actually continue to do what he was elected to do, and as
    one of the Democratic Members said in a televised interview,
    they are actually afraid that Donald Trump will get reelected,
    he has to be impeached. They fear that he might be reelected.
    They don't trust the American public to make the right
    decision.
        So I want to associate my remarks with Mr. Westerman when
    he was here and with Mr. Young. Why doesn't this committee
    focus on what we are here to do? And that is a highway bill, a
    water bill, and other priorities. Why don't we focus on
    actually helping build and sustain the good American economy
    that has made tremendous gains and gigantic leaps, dare I point
    out, under President Donald Trump? Why don't we?
        Oh, that is right. It might remind many Americans of what
    is already apparent, that the Donald Trump administration's
    agenda is actually benefiting America and Americans.
        Well, as Congressman Young said, follow the process, in his
    opening--in earlier comments. Of course, he was referring to
    the environmental impact process that has been used for many a
    year, and might I add, long before President Donald J. Trump
    came along and took the reins and catapulted our economy into
    high gear.
        So why not focus--why doesn't this committee focus on, dare
    I use the word, the best sustainable economy of arguably the
    last 30 to 50 years? Let's get to work on behalf of Americans
    to continue the process that has benefited the most people in
    this country in recent memory. Our citizens deserve no less.
        Now, having gotten that out of the way. I have some
    questions. Mr.--I have 2 minutes and 24 seconds. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Collier, you were able to--thank you to Mr. Woodall
    from Georgia for allowing you to answer a couple of questions
    about maintaining the water. But I also remembered a remark by
    Mr. Borden that there was 99 percent of something that couldn't
    be done, and you kind of looked at him incredulously. Remind us
    what that was and what your answer was.
        Mr. Collier. He stated that the height of our tailings
    facility dam was in the 90-something percentile in terms of
    dams in the world. And that is just not true. It is about in
    the middle of the percentile.
        And there are a number of statements like that that have
    been made by Mr. Borden, including that the water treatment
    facility design here is unprecedented. That is a word with a
    technical meaning. It means it has never been done before. That
    is just wrong. And there are--there are a number of those.
        And one more, while I am kind of on a roll here, if I
    could. I am particularly interested in Tiffany's statement that
    they won't source from Pebble Mine if we get our permit and we
    are built, particularly in light of the fact that Tiffany's
    took a position a number of years ago before the SEC--before
    the Securities and Exchange Commission that they shouldn't be
    held to a particular standard in the conflict gold debate
    because they couldn't source gold. So if you can't source it,
    how are they going to--it is a publicity stunt to have done
    this. It has no meaning in reality.
        Tiffany's real contribution to this project was to
    contribute some money that was used by one of the NGOs to hire
    a woman named Ann Maest to do a number of studies that the
    Bristol Bay watershed assessment then relied upon. Ann Maest,
    in an action in New York, a RICO action in New York, admitted
    that she had made up her data and her conclusions in another
    legal proceeding.
        Mr. Weber. Is that in a deposition?
        Mr. Collier. Actually, she admitted it in order to be
    withdrawn as a defendant in the RICO action. But under oath, in
    that proceeding.
        So--and just one more point--I have run out of time. But I
    hope I have a chance to make one more. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Well, thank you.
        I appreciate the chairman's indulgence, and I yield back.
        Mr. Garamendi. Just when it was my turn and I was about to
    yield as much time as I might consume, I turn the chair back
    over.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [presiding]. I apologize for all the
    musical chairs. I had to vote in the Judiciary Committee, and
    that is where I had to go.
        But now I would like to recognize--and thank you very much
    to our great Representative Garamendi for stepping in for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
        I am going to start in the 1860s. A Native American woman
    in the community of which I was raised said, and they came and
    they cut down the trees and they burned them. We would take the
    dead wood to warm ourselves. And they went to the hills, and
    they removed the rocks and filled the rivers. One hundred fifty
    years later, my part of California continues to resonate with
    the residue of the great California Gold Rush.
        In the 1990s, mid-1990s, Mr. Collier, you and I were both
    at the Department of the Interior, and this project was
    proposed at that time. I had the pleasure of traveling as the
    Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior to this
    area, spent nearly a week in the area looking at all that was
    going on. Went down one of the rivers in a raft and flew over
    the Pebble Mine area.
        There are some places that are special. My part of
    California is no longer special. The residue of the mines is
    still there, the mercury is still in the river, still causing
    problems, and the floods occur as a result of the mining that
    took place. There are some places you simply shouldn't rip the
    rocks from the hills and fill the valleys. That Native American
    woman was correct.
        I am sure this project could be built. But 150 years from
    now, when the miners have left and the residue of the mine is
    there, it will contaminate the rivers, it will contaminate the
    bays, and my daughter and son-in-law that have spent every
    summer in the Tikchik Lakes will not see the salmon that are
    there today, nor will their grandchildren and their
    grandchildren. There are some places that simply should not be
    mined, and this is one such place.
        I am familiar with this. I dealt with this in the 1990s.
    And at that time, Secretary Babbitt, who told me, take care of
    Alaska, I did my best, and one of the things that we said
    should not happen is Pebble Mine. Twenty-four years later,
    Pebble Mine should never happen. Not now, not tomorrow. There
    will be another developer coming through with some great plan
    about how much money can be made.
        But I will tell you, from my experience in California, my
    family's experience over three generations--four now--is that
    some places are precious, unique. This particular part of the
    world, the globe on which we all live, is really unique. There
    is no other place like it. The economic activity here is
    salmon. It is recreation, it is tourism, all of which would
    decline substantially if Pebble Mine and mines in this
    particular area ever come to be.
        And so today we hear, once again, 24 years after I first
    heard it, about the potential profit to be made and the
    potential damage--not the potential--the real damage that would
    occur from that profit that could be made. And so we simply
    should say, no, not here, not now, not ever. Not here, not now,
    not ever. Some things should be left alone.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.
        I now recognize Representative Weber for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Niver--am I saying your name right? Is it Niver?
        Mr. Niver. It is Niver.
        Mr. Weber. OK. All right. Well, I appreciate that. Thank
    you for the correction. If you are like me, you have probably
    been called worse, and recently too.
        Mr. Niver. I probably have.
        Mr. Weber. Yeah. When you--and I owned an air-conditioning
    company for 35 years, small business guy, that I started from
    scratch, so I am familiar with how that works. So when you
    started doing fishing and stuff and you decided that you were
    going to go in and you are going to buy a fishing vessel, you
    quoted some numbers. Couple hundred thousand dollars?
        Mr. Niver. Today, they are around $250,000 on average to
    get into a Bristol Bay boat.
        Mr. Weber. Right.
        Mr. Niver. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. So you made the business decision, you
    calculated that out, and said, OK, there is some risk here, I
    am going to invest, it is going to take hard work. I know what
    that is about. But you hung in there and you made it work. But
    that was a calculated decision you made?
        Mr. Niver. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. And your dad made one before you, sounds like.
        Mr. Niver. Correct.
        Mr. Weber. You betcha.
        And I appreciate the other side's concern about Pebble
    Mine, that y'all might not make money, you know, and looking
    out for them. But wouldn't it be safe to assume that they made
    the same--y'all made the same calculated decision, Mr. Collier,
    that they did when they bought boats, you actually calculated
    this out? You betcha. And so it is going to make money for you.
    That is a good thing.
        I am going to stay with you, Mr. Collier, for a second.
    Been a lot of talk about the DEIS, draft environmental impact
    statement, about the deficiencies in that DEIS. And
    Representative Young, Congressman Young pointed out that it is
    just a draft, just simply a draft. And I think it is very--it
    is an important point to remember that it is just the draft.
        Is it true, Mr. Collier, in your experience, that the Army
    Corps will need to address--look at that draft and is currently
    undertaking to look at that draft, and they will actually
    address a response to the EPA's concerns over that DEIS, or
    draft environmental impact statement? Isn't that going to
    happen?
        Mr. Collier. Of course. That is the way the process works.
    And to add to that just a little bit, there have been three
    pretty powerful points that have been made by this side of the
    room. One is that the political fix is in, and that is why we
    are where we are in the permitting process. The second is the
    process is being rushed. And the third is DEIS is inadequate.
        And one of the things that has been pointed to repeatedly
    are the criticisms that have been filed by EPA and by the
    Department of the Interior. And the point I want to make is
    that they don't support those three points. In fact, they run
    directly against them.
        If the political fix is in, why is it that Trump's EPA and
    Trump's DOI are criticizing the draft environmental impact
    statement?
        Mr. Weber. I talked about that in my opening remarks. Go
    ahead.
        Mr. Collier. It is just--it is absurd, and it is internally
    inconsistent position to take.
        Second, if this is a rushed process, why are these agencies
    building speed bumps for the process? I mean, that is crazy.
        And then the third point--and this one is the most
    important--now that these criticisms have been put on the
    table, it is incumbent upon the Corps of Engineers to address
    them and address them thoroughly. And if they don't address
    them thoroughly, then a court is going to throw this permit
    right out the door the minute it is issued.
        And so one of the things that has happened is that the
    process is, in fact, working, which was your original point.
    This is a draft. Criticisms have been put on the table, and
    those criticisms are going to be addressed. And if they are not
    adequately addressed, we won't be able to have our permit
    upheld when the courts review it.
        Mr. Weber. And isn't it also true that if for some reason
    after the draft is thoroughly vetted, that if there is a
    problem, the EPA is still not satisfied, they still have the
    ability to use their 404(c) authority?
        Mr. Collier. That is correct.
        Mr. Weber. That is a true statement?
        Mr. Collier. That is correct.
        Mr. Weber. So, you know, let the process go forward, let it
    be thoroughly--after all, wouldn't we want as much science, as
    much information as we can to let the process go forward, let
    it be vetted as nearly and as clearly and as thoroughly in
    depth as it can be?
        And so I just thank you for being here.
        And I am going to stop there, Madam Chair. I am going to
    yield back.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Thank you for all of you for coming here.
        And I just want to say, Ms. Hurley, I hear you loud and
    clear. And we are going to do everything we can in this
    committee to conduct the appropriate oversight of this project.
        I represent south Florida. And the Pebble Mine site is more
    than 4,000 miles away from my district, which makes my district
    the farthest district from this mine location. But even yet, I
    am that far, I have very strong concerns about Pebble Mine,
    because it has such serious potential consequences for our
    environment, the fisheries, the indigenous populations, and
    water quality.
        Mr. Collier, in your testimony, you repeatedly refer to the
    draft environmental impact statement, which was released in
    February, when making the case that there won't be any
    significant environmental impact. But I think you need to do
    much better than that.
        The EPA, under the Trump administration, the most anti-
    environment administration we have had in decades, the Trump
    EPA argued that the DEIS, quote, ``likely underestimates
    adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water flows, water
    quality, wetlands, fish resources, and air quality.''
    Similarly, the Trump administration's Department of the
    Interior concluded that the DEIS is so inadequate that it
    precludes meaningful analysis. And I think that that's very
    damning.
        So I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record two
    articles, one in the Juneau Empire entitled, ``Scientists:
    Pebble Mine study doesn't account for all risks,'' and one from
    the Anchorage Daily News saying, ``Pebble Mine EIS is fatally
    flawed.''
        [The information follows:]

            Article from Juneau Empire, Submitted for the Record by
                          Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
          scientists: pebble mine study doesn't account for all risks
    Group presents to Alaska House Resources committee
    https://www.juneauempire.com/news/scientists-pebble-mine-study-doesnt-
    account-for-all-risks/.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Gayla Hoseth, 2nd Chief of Curyung Tribal Council and Director of
     Natural Resources at Bristol Bay Native Association, left, Norman Van
       Vactor, CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation,
     center, and former Alaska legislator Rick Halford, present at a press
     conference against the Pebble Mine project on Monday, April 1, 2019.
                         (Michael Penn, Juneau Empire)

    By Mollie Barnes
    Wednesday, April 3, 2019

        Representatives have been grappling with the a proposal to develop
    a mine near Bristol Bay.
        As a part of the wider discussion, the House Resources committee
    heard Monday from a group of scientists and advocates who disagree with
    the Pebble Mine project which proposes developing the Pebble copper-
    gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit (Pebble Deposit) in southwest Alaska
    as an open-pit mine, with associated infrastructure.
        A group of scientists and Bristol Bay residents held a press
    conference, detailing concerns with the draft environmental impact
    statement (DEIS) released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
    February. Some critics have said the 90-day comment period for this
    DEIS is not long enough, considering the length of the document.
        The chief concerns were that the DEIS used too short of a time
    frame to associate the risks of the mine, it used an inappropriate fish
    habitat assessment, cumulative risks were essentially ignored, there
    was very little mention of long-term risks associated with climate
    change and that it used selective use of scientific literature when
    backing up claims.
        ``It is absolutely clear that it has way underestimated risks and
    does not pass as credible science,'' said Daniel Schindler, a professor
    in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of
    Washington during the press conference.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Dr. Daniel Schindler, a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery
    Sciences at the University of Washington, left, and Dr. Cameron Wobus,
         a Senior Scientist at Lynker Technologies, present at a press
      conference against thePebble Mine project on Monday, April 1, 2019.
                         (Michael Penn, Juneau Empire)

        Resources Co-Chair, Rep. Geran Tarr, D-Anchorage, says that the
    Army Corps of Engineers will be speaking in front of the committee on
    the same topic soon.
        Norman Van Vactor, a longtime participant in Bristol Bay fisheries
    and current CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation,
    said that he has absolutely no confidence in the Army permitting
    process.
        ``To allow Pebble to drive this permitting process makes absolutely
    no sense and defeats the purpose of a permitting process to begin
    with,'' he said at the press conference. ``(The) process should be
    testing their assumptions, not taking Pebble at it's word. . . .
    Science drives the decision-making, not industry speculation, fantasies
    or good intentions. The Army Corps' draft is the complete opposite--it
    ignores well documented data and is missing critical info. . . . Why
    are we lowering the bar to the lowest level possible? Alaska should be
    upholding strong standards and science-based permitting in all
    industries not just some.''
        The group also took problem with the economic implications of the
    mine, saying that major mining companies would not invest in the
    project because it would not net enough profit if it was only open for
    20 years, the period the DEIS draft uses.
        ``The economic world says this doesn't work either,'' said Rick
    Halford, a former Alaska legislator. ``Everything they do is designed
    to get a permit, and the permit is going to be worthless. This mine is
    at least a mile deep and it's the richest at depth and to mine your way
    down to the money and then stop is a ridiculous assumption.''
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Former Alaska legislator Rick Halford, right, and Norman Van Vactor,
     CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, present at a
     press conference against the Pebble Mine project on Monday, April 1,
                      2019. (Michael Penn, Juneau Empire)

        They change in the middle of the process, Halford said. ``They came
    in with a number for the size of their small mine . . . within months
    they've increased that by 25 percent. They're not bound by what they're
    trying to get a permit on and they know it.''
        During the committee presentation, Rep. Ivy Spohnholz, D-Anchorage,
    said that there are more jobs at risk from potential effects of the
    mine than the mine itself would create. This comment came after Rep.
    Sara Rasmussen, R-Anchorage, asked how many of the fishery jobs were
    held by workers from out of state.
        ``Forty-eight percent of Alaska's salmon comes from the region,
    14,000 direct jobs (at the fishery) compared to 750 jobs presented to
    us last week by Pebble Partnership,'' Spohnholz said. ``Even if only
    half of those go to year-round residents, that is a lot of jobs for a
    region in which people have lived for millenea. I think that's a very
    important distinction to make.''
        Rasmussen also asked, ``Why are so many people migrating from
    Southeast Alaska?''
        She said a number of families have migrated to her district from
    the area and that the Pebble Mine could support infrastructure that
    would slow this migration.
        Van Vactor said people migrate for different reasons. He said if
    the Pebble Mine project were to go through it would be mostly workers
    who come in for a certain period of time just to work at the mine, more
    like oil field workers rather than longtime residents.
        A big issue the scientists said they had with the EIS was that the
    timeline was way too short to evaluate risks and that a 100 year
    analysis would have been better than a 20 year one, because the
    tailings dam has a 1 in 5 chance of failing over a century.
        ``There's a lack of confidence in the Army Corps permitting process
    as it relates to this EIS project,'' Van Vactor said. ``I would ask the
    hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans in the Midwest right
    now how much confidence they have in the Army Corps of Engineers
    certification process as it relates to the dams and levies that have
    failed and flooding that is happening throughout the U.S.''

         Article from Anchorage Daily News, Submitted for the Record by
                          Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
                   opinion: pebble mine eis is fatally flawed
    https://www.adn.com/opinions/2019/09/27/pebble-mine-eis-is-fatally-
    flawed/

    By Phil Brna
    September 26, 2019
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       This is an aerial view of a work camp in the area of the proposed
     Pebble Mine in Iliamna, Alaska, seen on Tuesday, August 27, 2013. The
     Pebble Mine could be the largest open pit mine on the continent, with
      an earthen tailings dam higher than the Washington Monument to hold
        mine waste for hundreds to thousands of years, according to an
       Environmental Protection Agency analysis. (Bill Roth/ADN archive)

        The Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, process and the
    document for Pebble mine by the Corps of Engineers are deeply and
    fatally flawed. I spent my entire professional career of 42 years
    working for the Corps, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and, as a consultant, on review and regulation of
    large and small development projects in Alaska. I worked on roads, oil
    and gas drilling and development, pipelines, refineries, utility lines,
    ports, boat harbors, hydroelectric projects, military projects, and
    many large and small mines.
        During my career I was directly involved with preparation of
    several dozen EIS's and I reviewed dozens more. Pebble is the largest
    and potentially most destructive project I have ever been involved
    with. The environmental resources at risk in Bristol Bay from Pebble's
    development and operations are the most precious, unique and
    susceptible to long-term and irreversible damage of any project in my
    experience. I have not seen an EIS as poorly written and inadequate as
    the Pebble draft EIS.
        Although there are many issues to be concerned about, I want to
    focus on Pebble's environmental baseline studies, which were begun and
    completed years before Pebble applied for a Corps permit. Environmental
    baseline studies are intended to show the current state of the
    environment in a project area so that potential project effects can be
    predicted and measures to mitigate the harm can be proposed. They also
    serve to guide long-term monitoring during and following operations.
    Pebble's study designs for baseline studies were inadequate and not
    based on best-available scientific methods.
        This was because Pebble did not want to know or to ultimately
    divulge to the public the actual scope, importance of and risk to fish,
    wildlife, water and subsistence resources. I call their studies the
    ``illusion of good science.'' Others have called it ``junk science.''
    If they had conducted proper studies, the results could have been used
    to oppose the project. Scientific fact would have undermined Pebble's
    hollow claims of ``no harm.'' Pebble repeatedly said its studies were
    ``state of the art'' and cost millions of dollars. However, state and
    federal agencies said over and over that Pebble's study objectives and
    methods were not statistically defensible or repeatable, and their
    financial cost was irrelevant.
        Pebble's baseline environmental studies were not designed to or
    intended by Pebble to tease out the differences between natural, long-
    term environmental change and long-term acute or chronic effects of a
    mine, as recommended by the agencies. Pebble artificially limited the
    scope, time and geographic extent of their studies. State and federal
    agencies repeatedly suggested ways for Pebble to design scientifically
    defensible studies. Those suggestions were largely ignored. If the
    baseline environmental science is bad, Pebble cannot be held
    accountable for the damage it will do. Independent science clearly
    shows Pebble mine will result in disastrous long-term and irreversible
    effects on fish, wildlife, air, water and, most importantly, local
    people and their subsistence way of life. This may not happen in my
    lifetime, but it will happen.
        This then is the first major flaw of the Corps' EIS process. The
    Corps has not independently evaluated the inadequate baseline
    environmental information they were presented by Pebble. Rather, they
    accepted it and used it to develop their flawed draft EIS. The remedy
    for this fatal flaw is for the Corps to begin again. First, by
    conducting an expert and independent review of the Pebble baseline
    environmental studies, and then requiring Pebble to complete
    scientifically meaningful studies. This may take years, but only then
    should the Corps accept an application and begin an open and
    transparent EIS process.
        Agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
    Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency have noted numerous
    EIS deficiencies. For instance, the Department of Interior said the
    draft EIS ``does not fully discuss the potential impacts of the
    proposed mining activity'' and ``lacks a number of important analyses
    that are necessary to adequately assess the project.'' The Interior
    Department also said the draft EIS ``was so inadequate that it
    precludes meaningful analysis.'' The Corps has no responsible choice
    except to begin the Pebble EIS again.

    Phil Brna is a retired wildlife biologist living in Anchorage.

        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Moving forward with this mine is
    utterly irresponsible and will be putting at risk $1.5 billion
    in annual economic output from the sockeye salmon fishery,
    which provides half of the world's supply. We will be putting
    at risk more than 10,000 jobs in the area. We will be putting
    many Alaska Native villages in harm's way to benefit a company
    that is not even a U.S.-based company. This is the epitome of
    carelessly putting profits over health and safety.
        And my first question, Mr. Collier, because I have watched
    you all morning rolling your eyes, listening to the concerns of
    the people that are actually living in this area. It was
    reported that if you were to get the permit by the EPA, a quick
    approval from the Corps, you will receive a bonus of $12.5
    million. Is that correct?
        Mr. Collier. Yes, it is.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Borden, the proposed mine would be operational for 20
    years. After that, it would, in theory, be reclaimed. But that
    doesn't mean that everything goes back to normal.
        Can you just explain how the mine would cause damage, long-
    term damage, and the likely extent of the damage?
        Mr. Borden. Yes, I am happy to. So the Pebble Limited
    Partnership has proposed some mitigation actions at closure,
    which do lower some of the risks, such as returning the acid-
    generating tailings and waste rock back to the open pit. But a
    lot of the other water quality issues that will persist for
    decades to centuries to potentially millennia have not been
    fully addressed.
        For instance, there will be a water treatment liability of
    probably 5,000 gallons per minute that will persist for
    centuries after mine closure coming from the pit high walls.
    There is a risk from the pit high walls failing, releasing
    billions of gallons of contaminated water after closure.
    Several of the relatively benign waste rock piles still produce
    water quality which is not suitable for release. All that water
    would need to be treated. And this could go on for decades and
    decades to centuries after the formal closure process.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Borden.
        And I have heard from the minority Members on my left that
    we shouldn't be conducting this hearing. And I don't think
    there is anything more important than water. And it is our job
    to conduct this important oversight.
        Mr. McLerran, I am troubled also by the recent allegations
    of insider trading. You are a lawyer. You are a former EPA
    official. Can you help us understand what secrecy rules the EPA
    employees must abide when it comes to forthcoming EPA
    decisions?
        Mr. McLerran. So I can't speak to the current state of
    facts, but I can say that leaking decisions before decisions
    are made and then having someone capitalize on those could very
    well be an insider trading problem with----
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yeah. Thank you. And just because we
    are short of time. I just don't understand why there is any
    other explanation as to why there was such a significant
    increase in Northern Dynasty stock trades shortly before the
    EPA's decisions to lift the protections for the area.
        And for that, now I am going to----
        Mr. Collier. May I respond to that?
        Mr. Mucarsel-Powell. No. We are out of time. Thank you.
        Mr. Collier. So you make an allegation----
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Mr. Westerman, I now recognize you for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I would like to give Mr. Collier a moment to respond.
        Mr. Collier. Thank you.
        Northern Dynasty has denied unequivocally on the record,
    under oath, that we had any advance knowledge of that decision,
    zero. That complaint was filed by Earthjustice, which has a
    record of filing complaints that don't have adequate factual
    basis behind them. And, in fact, they filed one sometime ago
    against Northern Dynasty that the Securities and Exchange
    Commission didn't even find credible enough to investigate.
        There is no factual basis whatsoever for that claim, and it
    shouldn't be treated as though it is factual just because it is
    filed. That is not the way things work in this country. And so
    I want to adamantly state that we had no such advance knowledge
    at all of the decision, nor did we know what the decision was
    going to be.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Westerman. I would also like to make note that we have
    not said this is not an important issue. As a matter of fact,
    this is my third term in Congress, and this isn't the first
    hearing I have had on the Pebble Mine, not even the first
    hearing in--not just this committee, but the Natural Resources
    Committee. There has been hearing after hearing on the Pebble
    Mine. And we are actually now into the permitting process,
    using the guidelines that Congress has established, that the
    agencies are carrying out.
        Mr. Collier, have you been granted a permit?
        Mr. Collier. No, we haven't.
        Mr. Westerman. Have you been told you are going to get a
    permit?
        Mr. Collier. No, we haven't.
        Mr. Westerman. So we are letting the process play out. You
    may or may not get a permit when the process is complete?
        Mr. Collier. That is correct.
        Mr. Westerman. Can you talk more about the differences that
    are in the application you supplied versus what was reviewed in
    2014? I know you have talked about that some, but it is almost
    as if a case is being built that what was denied in 2014 is the
    exact project that is being proposed now.
        Mr. Collier. No. In fact, in the statement that was issued
    by EPA when it withdrew the proposed determination, one of the
    reasons that it said it was withdrawn is that the project that
    had been analyzed and the proposed determination based on, back
    in those early years, didn't bear any resemblance to the
    project that we took into permitting. And that, in fact, is
    true.
        There are a number of significant changes in that project.
    The first one, of course, is that it is smaller. The second is
    that we are out of one of the three creeks that are up in that
    area, which means we are out of one of the river watersheds.
    There are no waste rock piles as there were before.
        But perhaps the most interesting change deals with the
    tailings facility design, where we have gone to a unique design
    that is now capable of being done because of some technological
    development, where we are able to separate out the bulk
    tailings, which are about 90 percent of the tailings, from the
    potentially acid-generating tailings, which are about 10
    percent. And that means that we can store the bulk tailings
    without storing them with water on top. And what that means is
    that the facility is a much safer facility. It is a facility
    that is not capable of the kind of accident that occurred in
    Mt. Polley in British Columbia that caused a great deal of
    concern in the mining community.
        So we have been able to do some technological designs that
    have made this project substantially safer and a project that
    is dramatically different from the one that was analyzed by EPA
    earlier when the proposed determination was issued.
        Mr. Westerman. So, again, even with all those changes, with
    the redesign, the new submittal, you still don't know whether
    or not you will get a permit when the process is through?
        Mr. Collier. That is correct.
        Mr. Westerman. And, again, we could be working on a water
    bill today, we could be working on other issues that are
    important before Congress. This has been debated over and over.
    I want to reemphasize, it is in the permitting process that was
    established by NEPA. They are going through those processes,
    and there is no predetermined outcome. Yet we do know that WRDA
    expires next year, we do know that the surface transportation
    bill expires next year, yet we are spending our time debating
    something that is going through the proper channels.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
        I would observe this committee has not held a focused
    hearing on the Pebble Mine project previously. We have Clean
    Water Act jurisdiction, we have Corps of Engineers
    jurisdiction, and personally, I have people who fish there.
        With that, I would go to Mr. Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am so grateful that the committee is having this
    critically important hearing. And I want to follow up on a
    colloquy between Mr. Collier and my colleague Don Young from
    Alaska alluding to the fact that, notwithstanding all of this
    widespread opposition of the Pebble Mine, that if you get
    closer to the mine in the Lake Iliamna area, that there are
    people that actually support it.
        And so I want to ask my friends from Alaska on the right
    side of the panel here a pretty simple question. Is Lake
    Iliamna upstream of the mine or downstream?
        Ms. Hurley. Downstream.
        Mr. Huffman. I believe it is upstream, is my understanding,
    of the dam that would be proposed?
        Ms. Hurley. Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood your question.
    Yes. My communities are downstream.
        Mr. Huffman. Yeah, you are downstream. I get that.
        Lake Iliamna, this area where we are led to believe there
    is a pocket of support for the project, is actually upstream.
        Mr. Collier. That is just not correct.
        Mr. Huffman. Not correct?
        Mr. Collier. Absolutely not correct. It is dramatically
    downstream.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. Well, I appreciate that, because
    from the map I have here, it was not clear to me.
        It is downstream of the dam?
        Mr. Collier. Absolutely downstream.
        Mr. Huffman. OK. Well, thanks. That answered a question
    that I had for--just based on the map.
        I also have questions based on a conversation involving the
    bond. And Mr. Collier has led us to believe that all of the
    concerns about permanent water treatment at a dam that would
    hold in perpetuity, an earthen dam in a seismically active area
    that would hold in perpetuity, that all that can be addressed
    by a bond.
        And, Mr. Borden, I want to just invite you to speak a
    little more to that issue, because it seems to me that that is
    asking us to put a lot of trust in this bonding instrument.
        Mr. Borden. I need to be careful how I respond to this. I
    haven't given this a lot of thought. But it is very difficult
    to bond for perpetual water treatment using the existing
    mechanisms that we have in place now generally around the
    world.
        You know, these things persist--there are mines in Spain
    that the Romans mined that are still producing acid rock
    drainage. So these problems can persist into the post-
    historical period, if you will, and that is a challenging thing
    to bond for.
        Mr. Huffman. And there would actually need to be active
    measures to treat this water. It is not like the system would
    operate itself in perpetuity, correct?
        Mr. Borden. It would eventually burn itself out as the
    sulfide minerals, the reactive minerals in the ore body that
    are left in the pit high walls and in the mined rock----
        Mr. Huffman. What about this huge earthen dam itself?
    Because, you know, I am from California. We know a little
    something about dams and even highly engineered ones that are
    very carefully maintained. Like my colleague, Mr. Garamendi
    from Oroville, could probably share with us the fact that there
    is no such thing as a permanent dam. You can't just leave a dam
    there in perpetuity without at some point experiencing failure.
        Am I missing something about this concept of a permanent
    dam that would perpetuate itself forever?
        Mr. Borden. So the dam has been built with additional--is
    proposed for construction with additional safeguards. That
    doesn't mean it won't require long-term, perhaps in perpetuity,
    care and maintenance for erosion control, all of the other
    issues that could compromise the integrity of the dam in the
    long term.
        Mr. Collier. Congressman, this dam doesn't hold any water.
    You know that, right? This is a dam that holds sand.
        Mr. Huffman. Well, we also heard about how much water is in
    the area. So, Mr. Borden, let me----
        Mr. Collier. It is a dam that is built so that the water
    drains through the dam. It doesn't hold water. I just want to
    make sure you are focused on the right----
        Mr. Huffman. Well, I am questioning Mr. Borden right now,
    because he has got years of experience and has actually said--
    --
        Mr. Collier. Yeah, but he is wrong on this point.
        Mr. Huffman [continuing]. Has said that the high amount of
    water in this area is one of his primary concerns. So why don't
    you elaborate on that, sir.
        Mr. Borden. Sure. So even with the proposed cover design,
    water will infiltrate into the underlying tailings. And I would
    expect the majority or--a significant minority of the tailings
    will remain saturated in perpetuity after closure because of
    the extremely wet climate.
        Yes, it is better than having a lake on top of a dam, but a
    lot of the tailings will still be prone to liquefaction and
    slurring and things of that sort.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. And you mentioned that the
    environmental review that has been done to date is deficient.
    Is this one of the areas in which you see deficiencies, the
    failure to adequately consider the possibility of failures and
    leakage and problems relating to that structure?
        Mr. Borden. Yes. We are almost out of time. But the largest
    failure scenario looked at for that structure only released
    .004 percent of the tailings due to a pipeline break, 100 times
    smaller than 3 of the large tailings dam failures that have
    occurred in Canada and Brazil over the last 5 years.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
        [Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Westerman talk briefly off record.]
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Costa, in 2010, in a letter to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission, Tiffany & Co. stated that the company
    believes that it would be impracticable and extremely costly to
    attempt to trace the chain of custody to determine the mine or
    location of origin of the gold it uses in the manufacture and
    sale of its products.
        The lack of any identifying characteristics means that the
    company and any other purchaser of refined gold bullion cannot
    identify where the gold originated. As a result, the company
    does not believe that it or any jeweler, whether or not it
    manufactures its products, can certify where the gold used in
    its products is originated.
        And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to submit that
    for the record, a letter from Tiffany & Co. without objection.
        Mr. DeFazio. We will accept it for the record, but I am
    going to be giving Tiffany an opportunity to respond.
        [The information follows:]

        Letter of September 29, 2010, from Patrick Dorsey, Senior Vice
    President, Secretary and General Counsel, Tiffany & Co., Submitted for
                       the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Westerman. So, Ms. Costa, my question is: Since 2010,
    have you come up with technology or a method to determine chain
    of custody on the gold that you use; and can you certify that
    all gold that you use comes from sustainable mining?
        Ms. Costa. So, we have been quite transparent in terms of
    our sustainability reporting and our supply chain for many
    years now on our website. I can't speak to that particular
    document off the top of my head; but we do source the precious
    metals that we use in our manufacturing processes from the
    U.S., from Bingham Canyon Mine, for example, in Utah. The gold
    comes from there.
        Mr. Westerman. So you have made some kind of change since
    2010 where you can do that?
        Ms. Costa. I am not clear exactly what that was in
    reference to, like, what the broader context was.
        Mr. Westerman. It was a letter that Tiffany & Co. sent to
    the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010.
        Ms. Costa. Yes, probably regarding conflict minerals in the
    DRC specifically, I am guessing; but we do have traceability of
    our gold and precious metals that we secure from the U.S.
        Mr. Westerman. Do most jewelers have that capability now?
        Ms. Costa. No, they do not.
        Mr. Westerman. What makes gold traceable?
        Ms. Costa. I mean, for us, it is because we have a
    vertically integrated supply chain. So we manufacture as well.
    So we are purchasing gold, for example, from the Bingham Canyon
    Mine. There is a smelter on site, and we manufacture.
        Mr. Westerman. Do you use any recycled gold?
        Ms. Costa. We do use recycled gold as well.
        Mr. Westerman. How do you know that came from sustainable
    practices?
        Ms. Costa. Well, I think it hinges on your definition, and
    recycled gold is not needing to mine gold from scratch from new
    mines, and the mine that we do source from has been in
    existence for quite some time now.
        Mr. Westerman. Do you know if it went through permitting?
        Ms. Costa. It is the Bingham Canyon Mine. So--in Utah, so--
    --
        Mr. Westerman. So the process worked for that mine?
        Ms. Costa. I am not familiar with what the process was at
    the time when it--when that mine was permitted because it was
    so long ago but it is in existence. It was permitted.
        Mr. Westerman. OK. I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. Oh, Mr. Lowenthal is next. He is recognized.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. McLerran, I am going to follow up about that--the
    questions about the draft EIS, and I apologize if some of them
    have been asked before. I am just trying to dig a little deeper
    about some of the terminology.
        And so, my first question is: In the September 2019
    presentation to investors, the Pebble project stated that the
    draft EIS and the public comment, and I quote now, ``show no
    substantive data gaps,'' no substantive data gaps. However, EPA
    comments on the draft EIS identify the need for further
    analysis of groundwater impacts, water quality impacts, wetland
    impacts, fishery impacts, and air quality impacts.
        So, my question to you is: Are these substantive data gaps?
        Mr. McLerran. So I have reviewed the EPA comments on the
    draft EIS, and there are clear indications that there are
    substantive gaps in the data and in the analysis, and part of
    that is based on the fact that much of what is presented in the
    mining plants are just conceptual level, and not designed at a
    level that allows the appropriate level of analysis.
        Mr. Lowenthal. So following up, that same presentation that
    was made to investors declares that the process that they went
    through, that it went through, identified no significant
    impacts that can't be mitigated. But the mine's compensatory
    mitigation plan does not identify any proposed mitigation
    projects, and I believe your testimony indicated that
    compensatory mitigation would not be effective in this
    watershed.
        The first question is: Are these significant impacts?
        Mr. McLerran. Yes, I believe they are. You know, when we
    did the watershed assessment, we spoke to some of the best
    fishery scientists in the world, the folks who had been working
    in the Bristol Bay watershed for over 30 years; and the
    conclusions that were made out of the watershed assessment were
    that compensatory mitigation would not be effective in a
    pristine watershed. Compensatory mitigation is typically used
    in the context of a disturbed watershed where we are trying to
    restore habitat or restore salmon runs. Here you have a wild
    fishery that is in a pristine area that has been undisturbed
    and, again, our scientists felt that compensatory mitigation
    just was not an appropriate concept here and wouldn't work in
    this context.
        Mr. Lowenthal. I appreciate that, and I just want to be
    clear. So compensatory mitigation would not be effective.
        Mr. McLerran. That was certainly our conclusion in the
    watershed assessment.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Westerman. Just a quick question. Yield some time to
    Mr. Collier to talk about mitigation features that are planned
    for the Pebble project.
        Mr. Collier. There are substantial compensatory mitigation
    options that are identified in the draft environmental impact
    statement, and there will be a compensatory mitigation plan
    that will be required to be implemented as part of the
    permitting process as we go forward. We have identified a
    number of particular options, all kinds of issues that can be
    addressed in the area. One of them deals with culvert
    replacement; another deals with wastewater treatment facilities
    in a number of the villages. There are ways to do mitigation
    that will compensate in terms of clean water in the region.
        Alaska has a particularly interesting challenge with
    respect to compensatory mitigation and it is one that the
    agencies, both EPA and the Corps of Engineers, struggle with on
    a regular basis and recently entered into a memorandum of
    understanding so that they could identify those projects. But
    the statute requires compensatory mitigation. There is
    compensatory mitigation discussed at length in chapter 5 of the
    DEIS, and there will be a required compensatory mitigation plan
    that will be part of the permit when the permit is issued.
        Mr. Westerman. So, in 2015, former Secretary of Defense
    William Cohen undertook an independent examination of EPA's
    2014 proposed preemptive veto, and in his report, he
    highlighted that the watershed assessment was based on, quote,
    ``hypothetical assumptions that may or may not accurately or
    fairly represent an actual project'' and ``raise serious
    concerns as to whether EPA orchestrated the process to reach a
    predetermined outcome.''
        As I mentioned earlier, this isn't the first hearing on the
    Pebble Mine in Congress. I believe I sat on at least one under
    the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, at least one,
    maybe more, under the Natural Resources Committee. You know, I
    remember one of the characters in the story was a guy that,
    when we tried to question him, he was off somewhere on his
    yacht; and it was very hard for us to reach this former EPA
    employee.
        Can you talk more about the controversy surrounding several
    of the former EPA staffers who managed that process?
        Mr. Collier. Yes, and just a bit about the Cohen report.
    When I saw what had happened, I was involved in helping to run
    a Federal agency. I worked with Mr. Garamendi at the Department
    of the Interior. And I was personally shocked is at the level
    of conflict of interest that had occurred with respect to the
    involvement of environmental NGOs in the drafting of this
    document, in the outline of this document, and the review of
    drafts of this document, and so forth. And I couldn't get any
    attention from folks at EPA about these concerns. So I needed
    some kind of independent credibility behind them and looked
    around in the town of Washington. This is a town that is short
    on people with high reputations for credibility.
        But I found former Secretary Bill Cohen, who had been a
    Republican, both Congressman and Senator from Maine, and then
    served in the Clinton administration as Secretary of Defense.
        When I sat down with Secretary Cohen to ask him to take on
    this project, he said to me right off the bat, he said, Tom,
    you don't want me to do this. And I asked him why I wouldn't
    want him to do it. And he said, because I value my reputation
    for independence and credibility, and if I take a deep dive
    into this and look at it, I am going to call it as I see it,
    and I might just say that what EPA has done is correct and
    right. And if I do, that is the end of Pebble Mine.
        And I said, well, you know, that is what I am after,
    Senator. I am after somebody that has that kind of reputation.
        And so, he took the project on, and you read his
    conclusions when he looked at it. And he looked at it
    thoroughly. He wrote a 300-page report. He looked at thousands
    of documents, interviewed 60-some-odd witnesses, and came up
    with that particular conclusion. And I think he captured it
    well.
        The examples, one of the things that I was interested in
    that Mr. McLerran talked about, was that the reason he took
    this on and took it so personally is that a petition had been
    filed from a number of the Tribes in the region; but the
    documents show, and the deposition testimony show, that what
    actually happened is that Phil North, an EPA employee, was the
    one that decided that he wanted to start this process, and he
    helped draft that petition.
        Mr. DeFazio. I would note that we are wasting a lot of time
    on a document that has been withdrawn by the Trump
    administration. It is sort of like Trump obsessing over Clinton
    and Obama and whatever. So I hope we don't waste much more time
    on that. It has been withdrawn.
        We have the current statements from EPA and Department of
    the Interior, saying that basically, there is not sufficient
    evidence in the DEIS to substantiate moving forward, and it
    should be substantially revised.
        With that, I recognize Mr. Rouda.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, panel, for joining us today.
        Mr. Collier, I want to talk a little bit about the process
    on how we got here today. The EPA and the Army Corps of
    Engineers have made decisions with regard to the proposed
    mining project that EPA scientists have flagged issues with the
    work done by the Army Corps of Engineers in their draft
    environmental impact statement. Yet, despite these concerns,
    the EPA political leadership decided to allow your project to
    proceed through the permitting process. Additionally, the Army
    Corps of Engineers decided to release a draft scoping report, a
    completely unprecedented move that is not a part of the
    standard NEPA permitting process, just 42 days into the 90-day
    scoping period for your project.
        This draft report was released publicly just days after
    your project lost its fourth major institutional investor, and
    saw a rapid drop in your stock price. This atypical release
    gave your project a sense of momentum at a critical juncture,
    and this committee has a very little sense about how that
    decision to release that report came about. The Government has
    refused to disclose its communications, and we want
    transparency as to how that happened.
        Mr. Collier, will you commit to producing all written
    communications between your companies or their representatives,
    and the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from the last 2\1/
    2\ years?
        Mr. Collier. I need to consult with my lawyers, but it
    sounds to me as though that is a reasonable request and we
    would consider it.
        Mr. Rouda. The committee would like to understand exactly
    what transpired. So thank you for your commitment to provide
    that documentation.
        Mr. Collier. My commitment was to consider it, and I will
    certainly do so.
        Mr. Rouda. If it is not protected work legal product, is
    there any reason you can imagine why you wouldn't produce it?
        Mr. Collier. I have got to talk to my lawyers to find out,
    sir.
        Mr. Rouda. On May 1 of 2017, you met with then-EPA
    Administrator Scott Pruitt. At 10:36 a.m. That same day, after
    your meeting, he sent an email to EPA staff, directing them to
    withdraw the agency's proposal to protect Bristol Bay using
    section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
        Previously, the EPA had put forth language protecting the
    bay that said a mine, quote, ``would result in complete loss of
    fish habitat due to elimination, dewatering, and fragmentation
    of streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources . . . All of
    these losses would be irreversible,'' unquote.
        The EPA arrived at this language after more than 3 years of
    scientific study of the issue.
        Mr. Collier, what was discussed in that May 1, 2017,
    meeting with Scott Pruitt that would make him, in a matter of
    minutes, cast aside lengthy scientific study that had been
    subject to over 1 million comments and allow this to proceed
    forward?
        Mr. Collier. He didn't do that.
        Mr. Rouda. He didn't do that?
        Mr. Collier. You have got your facts wrong. He didn't--that
    is not what he did.
        Mr. Rouda. You are denying that he took----
        Mr. Collier. Absolutely.
        Mr. Rouda [continuing]. An email out to the EPA, moving
    this forward?
        Mr. Collier. Absolutely. He did not withdraw the proposed
    determination. It wasn't withdrawn until July of this year.
        Mr. Rouda. Did Administrator Pruitt then, in that conver--
    why don't you tell us what took place in that conversation?
        Mr.  Collier. Sure. I had been in negotiations, Pebble had
    been in negotiation with the Obama administration for months to
    settle pending litigation. And, in fact, we had reached a
    settlement with the Obama administration. The Justice
    Department had signed off. I was told that EPA had signed off
    on that settlement, and that all we all had to do was sign the
    documents.
        I signed. I understood that the Justice Department signed.
    And it got over to Gina McCarthy's desk; and for some reason,
    she reneged on what I understood had been an agreement that the
    settlement would, in fact, occur.
        Mr. Rouda. Well, let me ask you this: In that meeting, you
    are saying that the email to move the procedure forward didn't
    happen until July instead of immediately after? Did he
    greenlight your project in that meeting?
        Mr. Collier. I am saying that the withdrawal of the
    proposed determination didn't happen until July of this year.
        Mr. Rouda. Did he greenlight the project in that meeting?
        Mr. Collier. He didn't greenlight the project at all.
        Mr. Rouda. He gave you no indication of moving forward. He
    gave no positive feedback. So you would be willing to provide
    any information, any memorandum that you have----
        Mr. Collier. You just got your facts wrong. Talk to your
    staff. You are wrong on this. That is not what he did.
        Mr. Rouda. And are you happy to produce any memorandum and
    internal documents that you have that document that meeting?
        Mr.  Collier. Again, I will talk to my lawyers about what I
    will produce for you; but you have got your facts wrong on what
    Mr. Pruitt did after----
        Mr. Rouda. Well, tell me is this quote correct that: ``I
    believe that a lot of these environmental organizations choose
    issues in Alaska, they make them cause celebre so they can
    raise money around them, and they choose Alaska primarily
    because they don't have to suffer the backlash from the
    economic impact of the project being killed because no one
    gives a rat's ass what happens in Alaska,'' unquote.
        That is attributable to you.
        Mr. Collier. That is my quote.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I would recognize that the question was
    whether Pruitt sent an email, directing staff to withdraw
    after, immediately after he met with you; and I believe the
    answer to that is yes. He did send an email. It is true. It
    wasn't withdrawn until later because he got so much blowback,
    but is it true----
        Mr. Collier. He didn't discuss----
        Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. That he sent an email, directing
    staff to withdraw after you met with him? Is that correct?
        Mr. Collier. That is not my understanding of what happened,
    Congressman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, I think your facts are incorrect.
        Mr. Collier. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Westerman, do you want to yield more time
    to the CEO of the assetless company?
        Mr. Westerman. I would like to yield a little time to Mr.
    Collier, if he would like to make a rebuttal.
        Mr. Collier. What Mr. Pruitt and I discussed was a
    settlement, a pending litigation, and it was a settlement that
    originally had been reached with the Obama administration.
    People settle cases for all different kinds of reasons. I
    believed at the time that the reason the Obama administration
    was willing to enter into this settlement is because they
    thought they were going to lose the litigation that we brought,
    which claimed that EPA had not followed statutory law in terms
    of process to make decisions like this.
        And so, we litigated that point, and we reached a
    settlement agreement. That settlement at the last minute was
    reneged upon after we had been told it had been agreed to. So
    that settlement was dormant until the new administration came
    in, and then we began the settlement negotiations again and we
    agreed to a settlement that was fairly similar to the one we
    would have agreed to under the Obama administration.
        And that was a settlement that was then before EPA for its
    approval. I met with Mr. Pruitt to discuss with him whether it
    was appropriate to agree to that settlement, again, a
    settlement that had been agreed to by the Obama administration;
    and Mr. Pruitt agreed to it.
        He wasn't reversing anybody's science. He was settling a
    case because EPA failed to follow appropriate process, and that
    is the reason that we were having that discussion.
        Mr. Westerman. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
        But I would like to say that, you know, the facts are that
    there is a process that is underway, a process that has been
    established by Congress. This is in the State of Alaska, a long
    ways away from the State of Arkansas where I live, but Alaska
    is a beautiful place, and we certainly want to keep it a
    beautiful place.
        I know that the world depends more and more on critical
    elements, elements that are needed to make electronics,
    elements that are needed to make renewable energy components, a
    vast amount of those elements that we are relying on places
    like China to supply right now, in disproportionate amounts we
    are relying on China to supply.
        So that is why we created processes, so that we can have a
    fair process to go through to determine whether we want to
    extract these resources from our country and from our States;
    and the facts are the process is taking place. There has been a
    draft EIS, there are comments. There are a lot of hurdles that
    still have to be overcome by Mr. Collier's company.
        At the end of the day, EPA still has veto authority under
    404(c). So I guess it never hurts to debate things in Congress,
    but why do we set up these processes and entrust the
    administration and the agencies to carry out the processes if
    we are going to--I guess, you know, Congress could pass a law
    to say you can't do this Pebble Mine development. But are we
    going to do that with every project that comes along?
        It just seems to me like we are undermining the very
    stringent processes that we have put in place to deal with
    issues like this when, quite frankly, we have other big issues
    that we need to be dealing with.
        And I will yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
        I will yield myself such time as I may consume.
        I will observe next week we will do the first
    reauthorization of a Clean Water SRF since 1987. At this point,
    your side has not agreed. I met with the ranking member last
    night. They wanted a much lower number, pathetically low, but
    then they also wanted some things that would impact the
    environment, and we have drawn a line there.
        So, you know, we will see. I have asked the ranking member
    to consult with your side and see if that is where you are
    going to stick, and, if so, unfortunately, we will move ahead
    with that bill.
        We are also drafting a surface transportation bill. We will
    do a WRDA bill that was never scheduled to begin until next
    year. And we are very busy, and, of course, we have the MAX
    hearing coming up next week. So, we are paying attention to
    business.
        I just go back to all this discussion about a fair process,
    and this can't be restated too many times. EPA's 2019 Donald
    Trump EPA says the DEIS, quote, ``likely underestimates adverse
    impacts to groundwater and surface water flows, water quality,
    wetlands, fish resources, and air quality,'' end quote.
        And then it goes on to say--and this is footnoted--and
    including the ability of the proposed water treatment plan to
    annually meet water treatment goals and water quality standards
    in perpetuity.
        That is a long time, perpetuity, although I guess we heard
    from Mr. Borden it might only be a few centuries before this
    stuff becomes less active.
        And then they go on to say, the DEIS does not evaluate the
    consequences of a potential tailings dam failure, which, of
    course, depends upon the size of the mining operations, and
    recommends that a breach or failure scenario should be
    developed, footnote.
        And then we have the cites here. Now that is Donald Trump's
    EPA; and we are saying this is a straight-up, good process. The
    Corps hasn't rushed this through, the Corps that is going to
    hold a press availability afterwards to try and pump the stock
    back up, which probably fell during this hearing. You know,
    that is just extraordinary to me, and we are going to be--I
    think the Corps may be answering some very stern questions
    regarding, this and disclosing documents regarding how they got
    to produce such a defective document.
        In addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior, under
    Donald Trump, submitted comments suggesting the DEIS, as
    prepared, does not follow NEPA requirements and conventions for
    data inclusion or analysis for an activity of this scope and
    scale. They recommend the Corps prepare a revised or
    supplemental DEIS for public review.
        And we are talking about a straight-up process here, and
    they are rushing this through with the minimal comment period.
    Seriously? We are saying this is normal? I guess this may be
    normal in this administration, but it is not the way the
    process is supposed to work and that is why we are here today.
        Now, Mr. Borden, you made a statement that Mr. Collier
    contradicted, that it is virtually unprecedented--I think one
    of your figures of 99 percent, one was 90--talking about both
    the water treatment and dams of this size and the containment.
    And he said, no, no, there are lots of examples around the
    world.
        And, Mr. Borden, I will give you another chance to back
    down on that; and then we are going to ask Mr. Collier to list
    them.
        Mr. Borden. So I do want to clarify it is unprecedented for
    flows of this volume to be linked with a water treatment plant
    of this complexity, which is what I had said earlier; but I
    just want to restate that.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Borden. The tailings dam height is certainly, almost
    certainly, in the upper 99th percent of those that have been
    built across the world throughout the history of mining in the
    world.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. OK. Now, Mr. Collier, regarding the water
    treatment, what he just stated.
        Mr. Collier. He is just wrong.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. He is wrong. OK. Tell me about your
    engineering background?
        Mr. Collier. I don't have any, but I have got a bunch of
    them that work for me and I rely on them.
        Mr. DeFazio. They are all paid by the assetless corporation
    that you are representing before us today.
        Tell me this, Mr. Collier. Why did Rio Tinto, First Quantum
    Minerals, Anglo American, and Mitsubishi, all withdraw their
    support? And, further, why has Northern Dynasty not taken an
    equity stake and exposed themselves to potential liability with
    your project? Instead you have a shell corporation with no
    assets.
        Mr. Collier. Well, two questions. As to the first, I know
    most about the Anglo situation. That was the partner that was
    with us the longest, and Anglo publicly stated and assured us
    personally that the reason they withdrew was because of their
    own financial situation at the time and that it had nothing to
    do with the Pebble project and I think they would have, in
    fact, liked to stay in the project.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mitsubishi, First Quantum, Rio Tinto. Mr.
    Borden worked for them for 23 years. I think Rio Tinto has a
    hell of a lot of assets out there.
        Mr. Collier. I believe that is the reason why they all
    withdrew.
        Mr. DeFazio. Really? Rio Tinto felt that this project was
    just--that they are in such financial difficulty now that they
    couldn't participate.
        Mr. Collier. No, I think they withdrew because of reasons
    that deal with their internal management decisions as to where
    they wanted to concentrate their resources. At that time, Rio
    Tinto was beginning to concentrate more in iron ore and less in
    what we were.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. First Quantum.
        Mr. Collier. First Quantum, because I think they were
    focusing instead on their project in Panama.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mitsubishi?
        Mr. Collier. That is way before my time, and I don't know
    why that happened.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. So, you have Northern Dynasty, who, again,
    has no equity stake in Pebble?
        Mr. Collier. Yes, it does, by the way. I don't understand--
    --
        Mr. DeFazio. They are not part of the shell corporation.
    They have----
        Mr. Collier. What shell corporation are you referring to?
        Mr. DeFazio. Pebble.
        Mr. Collier. Pebble is a partnership, and the sole partner
    in the partnership is Northern Dynasty. There is no shell
    corporation.
        Mr. DeFazio. So it had--so they are linked and they would
    have potential liability.
        Mr. Collier. Absolutely.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. That is good to know, because then we have
    some assets in the future.
        And then I would like to go back to Ms. Costa, because I
    quickly read the documents submitted. It was 2010, and there
    was huge controversy about blood diamonds and blood gold, and
    it does--there is--it seems like that is what it is referring
    to.
        But essentially, you--Tiffany has made a judgment that this
    would--is not a desirable or sustainable project, and would
    cause irrevocable environmental harm.
        Ms. Costa. Correct. And I think, simply put, the precedent
    that Pebble Mine would set by bringing materials that are mined
    from that site into the broader market is bad for consumer-
    facing companies because it erodes, to me, it would erode the
    public's confidence in environmental and social practices and
    mining companies.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right.
        Any of the other--we have heard a lot from Mr. Collier,
    thanks to us yielding all this time. The Republicans have
    yielded it all to him. Would anybody else on the panel like to
    summarize?
        Yes, Ms. Hurley.
        Ms. Hurley. I would just like to thank you for the
    opportunity. I would like to clarify. I think there was a
    fundamental misunderstanding from the beginning that the Pebble
    Limited Partnership has total support around Lake Iliamna, and
    that simply is not true. To correct the record, you know, there
    was a misleading statement made that United Tribes of Bristol
    Bay doesn't represent people around the lake, and that is not
    true; Nondalton, one of the closest communities to the mine,
    and Pedro Bay. Those misleading comments really capture the
    company's dismissive attitude of our people's concerns.
        And I would also like to correct the record that the
    Bristol Bay Native Corporation, one of the major landholders in
    the region, and the Pedro Bay Corporation are very much opposed
    to this project and have not granted access to the company for
    their project.
        Lastly, I will just say that I am so thankful to be here
    today. There is no guarantee that there is no risk, you cannot
    change the location and type of this mine. And I am just so
    thankful that we are being heard because the Corps is not
    listening. They have proved they are not going to listen, and
    we really need Congress to intervene and help the people of
    Bristol Bay. So, thank you very much for having us here.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. McLerran.
        Mr. McLerran. So I just want to refute a couple of things
    that Mr. Collier said. One is that the only independent review
    of the EPA's actions in preparing the watershed assessment was
    completed by the Office of the Inspector General. The Office of
    the Inspector General concluded that there was no
    predetermination, and that we followed all of the statutory
    procedures and did the science in the right way.
        And because I was the decisionmaker, I want to state
    unequivocally that I had not predecided this issue until all
    the evidence was in. We did the scientific assessments so we
    would learn more about the watershed, learn more about whether
    the petition should be responded to in the way we did, and it
    was not until the weeks after the watershed assessment was
    completed that we made those decisions. And there were two
    different Administrators at EPA that were involved in the
    discussions around that. At the very end it was Gina McCarthy.
        So I can state unequivocally this was not predetermined in
    any way.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you for clarifying that.
        I believe Mr. Huffman has one last question for the second
    round.
        Mr. Huffman. I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We have had a great conversation about the impacts of the
    proposed Pebble Mine, and I have learned a lot from this
    conversation. So thank you, including the significant impacts
    of even the downsized project that Mr. Collier describes.
        But it strikes me that we also ought to have a conversation
    about the fact that this wouldn't be the end of the mining
    impacts in this area.
        And I want to ask you, Ms. Hurley. I would assume, given
    how wild this area is, that the lack of infrastructure is one
    reason why we don't have a whole bunch of huge mines in the
    Bristol Bay watershed. And I look at the project description
    here for this project and it includes massive changes to the
    landscape, a new port, transportation corridor, natural gas
    pipeline, permanent massive changes to the landscape.
        And I am wondering, what does that mean? Even if we can
    maybe mitigate the impacts of this one mine project, does this
    open the door to other permanent and far-reaching changes to
    the Bristol Bay watershed that we ought to think about before
    we start down that road?
        Ms. Hurley. Most definitely.
        You know, I think anyone who is paying attention and knows
    about Bristol Bay issues knows that this would just be the
    beginning, that this would transform what is now salmon country
    for the entire planet into a toxic mining district.
        When the watershed assessment was released, it mentioned 17
    other active mining claims in the area. Today, that number has
    grown to over 25, I believe, the number is. So when we are
    looking at this, we are looking at this for generations,
    because this is where we come from, this is our home. This has
    the power to completely transform this place, and not in a way
    that anybody wants.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. I will ask Mr. Borden to follow up
    on that. As an expert in the mining industry, would the
    presence of all of this expansive infrastructure change the way
    mining companies look at the Bristol Bay watershed? What are
    the implications?
        Mr. Borden. Yes. I would have to say, once the
    infrastructure is in place, the transport infrastructure--
    powerplant, ports--that is upfront capital that would not
    theoretically be needed to develop other mines in the area.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for that.
        And at this point, I am going to ask unanimous consent that
    the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as
    our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may
    be submitted to them in writing and there was some discussion
    of that earlier, and unanimous consent that the record remain
    open for 15 days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Again, I would like to thank our witnesses today and I
    would add, you know, you can tune in to the promotional, which
    is totally inappropriate, by the Corps of Engineers which will
    be playing soon after this hearing and I will be discussing
    that with the Secretary and with the Corps itself. I find it
    very inappropriate.
        With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

     ``EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: Obtainable Records Show EPA
     Followed Required Procedures Without Bias or Predetermination, but a
    Possible Misuse of Position Noted,'' EPA Report No. 16-P-0082, January
          13, 2016, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
        [The report is retained in committee files and is available online
    at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/
    20160113-16-p-0082.pdf.]

     ``Report of an Independent Review of the United States Environmental
       Protection Agency's Actions in Connection With Its Evaluation of
        Potential Mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay Watershed,'' Executive
    Summary, The Cohen Group and DLA Piper LLP, October 6, 2015, Submitted
                     for the Record by Hon. Bruce Westerman
    Secretary William S. Cohen
    The Cohen Group
    DLA Piper LLP (US)

    October 6, 2015
    Executive Summary
        In fall 2014, I was approached by the Pebble Partnership (``Pebble
    Partnership'' or the ``Partnership'') to review the actions of the
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') in connection
    with its evaluation of potential mining in southwest Alaska's Bristol
    Bay watershed. The Partnership holds mineral claims to lands owned by
    the State of Alaska in the headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak
    Rivers of the Bristol Bay watershed (the ``Pebble Deposit Area'').\1\
    This area contains one of the largest known undeveloped deposits of
    copper in the world, and the Pebble Partnership has been exploring the
    development of a mine there for more than a decade.\2\ The area is also
    home to one of the most prolific salmon runs in the world.\3\ The
    commercial salmon industry dominates the private sector economy of the
    Bristol Bay region, and Alaska Natives who reside there have maintained
    a salmon-centered culture and subsistence-based lifestyle for thousands
    of years.\4\ In July 2014, EPA proposed substantial limits on
    development in the Pebble Deposit Area.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Background Facts at Sections II.D.1 and II.D.3.
        \2\ See id. at Sections II.A and II.D.3.
        \3\ See id. at Section II.A.
        \4\ See id. at Section II.C.
        \5\ See id. at Section IX.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Pebble Partnership has expressed the concern that EPA's
    decision-making process and proposed limits were unfair and wanted an
    objective party to examine those concerns. The Partnership asked me to
    review EPA's actions through the lens of how Cabinet-level agencies
    make decisions on important public policy questions, given my
    experience in the Legislative and Executive branches of government. I
    agreed to undertake a review of EPA's actions, assisted by my staff at
    The Cohen Group and the law firm DLA Piper LLP. I advised the
    Partnership that I would not review whether a mine should be built;
    such a determination would require engineering and scientific expertise
    beyond my capabilities. Nor would I comment on the legality of EPA's
    actions; that is a question for the courts. But I did feel qualified to
    review the process by which EPA assessed, and proposed restrictions to
    reduce, the environmental risks associated with potential mining in the
    Bristol Bay watershed.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See Independence and Methodology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I undertook the review on conditions of complete independence. I
    would follow the facts wherever they might lead, and any conclusions
    would be mine alone. The Pebble Partnership would have no rights to
    edit or censor my views. The Partnership agreed to this and to
    compensate my firm and DLA Piper according to commercially standard
    terms. No portion of our compensation was contingent upon the result of
    the review or the content of the report.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To produce the most thorough and balanced review, we interviewed
    more than 60 people, including three former EPA administrators. The
    people interviewed represented all points of view on EPA's actions.
    (EPA declined my request to make current personnel available for
    interviews.) We reviewed thousands of documents from EPA, other federal
    agencies, the State of Alaska, Congressional committees, the Pebble
    Partnership, and other sources. My team also visited the Pebble Deposit
    Area to observe the Bristol Bay watershed.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The decision about whether mining should occur in this area, as
    well as the process of making such a decision, has been highly
    controversial and has generated intense passions on all sides. The
    controversy has prompted an Inspector General's investigation,
    Congressional hearings, and litigation.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. Background Facts
        The question of the appropriate process to make a determination to
    permit, limit, or ban development is at the heart of this review. EPA
    elected to proceed under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to limit
    development within the Pebble Deposit Area.\10\ EPA undertook its
    Section 404(c) action before the Partnership filed a permit
    application, but after EPA had conducted an assessment of the potential
    effects of mining in the region, principally on fish.\11\ The State of
    Alaska and the Pebble Partnership have argued that EPA should have used
    the process that is customarily employed when assessing the effects of
    potential development; that is, the permit application process.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Background Facts at Sections IV.A, IV.C, IV.E, and VIII.
        \11\ See id. at Sections II.D.3, VII, and IX.
        \12\ See id. at Sections IX.C-D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 to ``restore and
    maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
    Nation's waters.'' \13\ Under the Act, if a development would result in
    the discharge of dredged or fill materials in the nation's waters (as
    would be the case here), the developer must first receive a permit from
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the ``Corps'').\14\ The Corps
    evaluates a permit application (proposing a specific mine with specific
    control and mitigation measures) using guidelines it developed in
    conjunction with EPA and complies with the National Environmental
    Policy Act (``NEPA'') and regulations developed by the Council on
    Environmental Quality.\15\ NEPA mandates that the Corps coordinate with
    EPA and other interested agencies, prepare an environmental assessment,
    consider an array of public interest factors and the beneficial effects
    of the proposed project, assess mitigation plans, and evaluate
    alternatives.\16\ The Corps then either issues a permit and imposes
    conditions or denies the permit application.\17\ We refer to this as
    the ``Permit/NEPA Process.'' The Permit/NEPA Process has been widely
    endorsed by environmental groups, including the Natural Resources
    Defense Council.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Clean Water Act Sec.  101(a), 33 U.S.C.A. Sec.  1251(a) (West
    2015); see Background Facts at Section I.A.
        \14\ See Background Facts at Section I.B.
        \15\ See id.
        \16\ See id.
        \17\ See id.
        \18\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to ``prohibit the specification
    (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a
    disposal site . . . whenever [the Administrator] determines . . . that
    the discharge of such materials into such area will have an
    unacceptable adverse effect'' on the environment.\19\ EPA may act under
    Section 404(c) whenever it has ``reason to believe'' based on available
    information that ``'an unacceptable adverse effect' could result from
    the specification or use for specification of a defined area for the
    disposal of dredged or fill material[.]''\20\ Regulations promulgated
    by EPA in 1979 allow it to initiate a process to deny or restrict the
    use of an area for the disposal of dredged or fill material before a
    project proponent has submitted a permit application.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ 33 U.S.C.A.  1344(c); see Background Facts at Section I.C.
    The full text of Section 404(c) provides that:
          The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification
    (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a
    disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any
    defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of
    specification) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice
    and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such
    materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on
    municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including
    spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Before
    making such determination, the Administrator shall consult with the
    Secretary. The Administrator shall set forth in writing and make public
    his findings and his reasons for making any determination under this
    subsection.
        \20\ 40 C.F.R.  231.3(a) (2010); see Background Facts at Section
    I.C.
        \21\ See Background Facts at Section I.C.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The decision regarding which process to use--the Permit/NEPA
    Process or the preemptive Section 404(c) process--has been a focal
    point of this controversy. Since passage of the Clean Water Act, EPA
    has exercised its authority under Section 404(c) thirteen times, in
    each case relying on a permit application that had already been
    filed.\22\ As an internal EPA document reveals, a truly preemptive
    Section 404(c) action had ``[n]ever been done before in the history of
    the [Clean Water Act].'' \23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ See id. Technically, in one of these cases, there was no
    permit application, however EPA did rely on the permit application of
    two adjacent and separately-owned parcels to make the determination.
    EPA deemed the parcel to have the same characteristics as the other two
    properties and applied its Section 404(c) action to all three
    properties based on their coextensive characteristics. See Chronology
    of 404(c) Actions, EPA (Sept. 23, 2013), http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
    guidance/wetlands/404c.cfm.
        \23\ EPA, DISCUSSION MATRIX (Sept. 8, 2010), at 1; see Background
    Facts at Section IV.E.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since the early 2000s, EPA has communicated with a variety of
    stakeholders who hold a wide range of views concerning mining in the
    Bristol Bay watershed and the potential development of a Pebble
    mine.\24\ Support for EPA's actions centers on concerns about the
    environmental impacts of mining and the perceived incompatibility of
    large-scale mining with the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem and
    salmon fishery and the preservation of the area residents' way of
    life.\25\ Opposition to EPA's actions is based largely on the potential
    economic benefits mining may yield for the region, basic ``due
    process'' and sovereignty considerations, and the Partnership's belief
    that mining can occur in the Pebble Deposit Area without harming the
    salmon fishery.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ See Background Facts at Section III.C.
        \25\ See id. at Sections III.D, IV.B, VI.A.2, and VI.B.
        \26\ See id. at Sections III.E, IV.B, VI.A.2, VI.B, and IX.C-D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In May, 2010, six federally-recognized tribes from the Bristol Bay
    watershed asked EPA to invoke Section 404(c) to protect the region from
    metallic sulfide mining, including a potential Pebble mine.\27\ In the
    following months, others urged EPA to take action under Section 404(c),
    noting the cultural, ecological, and economic importance of the
    watershed and the magnitude of a potential Pebble mine.\28\ The State
    of Alaska, the Pebble Partnership, certain tribes, and other
    stakeholders opposed the request that EPA preemptively apply Section
    404(c), questioning the timing of and EPA's authority for such action
    and urging EPA to allow the Permit/NEPA Process to take place.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ See id. at Section IV.B.
        \28\ See id.
        \29\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On February 7, 2011, EPA announced its plan to conduct an
    assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed (the ``BBWA'') to determine the
    significance of its ecological resources and evaluate the potential
    effects of large-scale mining development.\30\ EPA invited various
    federal agencies to participate in the BBWA.\31\ The Corps declined to
    participate in order to maintain its independence in any subsequent
    Permit/NEPA Process.\32\ The State of Alaska participated in EPA's
    assessment while also registering its objection to the process.\33\
    With EPA's assurance that it was not using the BBWA to make a decision
    under Section 404(c), the Pebble Partnership also participated in the
    assessment notwithstanding its objection to the study.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ See Background Facts at Section V.B.
        \31\ See id. at Sections IV.D, IV.G, and V.B.
        \32\ See id. at Section V.B.
        \33\ See id.
        \34\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To conduct the BBWA in the absence of any permit application, EPA
    made assumptions about potential mine operations in the Pebble Deposit
    Area and created hypothetical mine scenarios based largely on a
    preliminary economic analysis prepared for the Pebble Partnership.\35\
    Over the course of three years, EPA prepared and issued two BBWA drafts
    for public comment and peer review.\36\ The considerable public
    participation in response to the BBWA drafts reflected a wide diversity
    of opinion as to the quality and comprehensiveness of the BBWA.\37\
    Environmental non-governmental organizations, commercial fishermen,
    many Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations, and some state
    legislators commended EPA on its effort and praised the scientific
    rigor of the BBWA drafts.\38\ The State of Alaska, the Pebble
    Partnership, and other Alaska Native tribes and interested parties
    identified technical and legal issues they believed undermined the
    validity of the BBWA, including reliance on hypothetical mine scenarios
    and failure to consider mitigation strategies to compensate for the
    loss of wetland habitat caused by mine development.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ See id. at Section VII.A.
        \36\ See Background Facts at Sections VI-VII.
        \37\ See id. at Sections VI.A.2 and VI.B.
        \38\ See id.
        \39\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some peer reviewers raised concerns about the use of hypothetical
    mine scenarios in the BBWA--noting that this approach limited the
    utility of the study in such a way that the assessment might not
    ``provide risk decision-makers with sufficient information upon which
    to make long-term project decisions''--and about the aforementioned
    failure to address mitigation.\40\ EPA defended its work, asserting
    that ``all mining plans are hypothetical'' and that analyzing efforts
    to mitigate adverse effects ``would be addressed through a regulatory
    process that is beyond the scope of this assessment.''\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ EPA, Response to Peer Review Comments on the May 2012 and
    April 2013 Drafts of an Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on
    Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay 65-66 (2014); see Background Facts at
    Section VI.A.3.
        \41\ EPA, Response to Peer Review Comments on the May 2012 and
    April 2013 Drafts of an Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on
    Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay 65-66, 114-115 (2014); see Background
    Facts at Section VI.A.3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA published the final BBWA on January 21, 2014.\42\ EPA stated
    that the BBWA was not designed to duplicate or replace the Permit/NEPA
    Process and acknowledged that certain analyses were not undertaken in
    the BBWA that would occur during the Permit/NEPA Process.\43\ Among the
    most significant gaps was that the BBWA employed hypothetical
    assumptions as to mine operation and mitigation rather than considering
    the techniques a developer would propose in an actual permit
    application.\44\ EPA nevertheless expressed confidence that its
    analyses were conservative and that compensatory mitigation techniques
    were unlikely to offset impacts of the nature described in the
    BBWA.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ See Background Facts at Section VII.
        \43\ See id. at Section VII.A.
        \44\ See id.
        \45\ See id; see also id. at Section IX.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Based on the BBWA, EPA issued its notice of intent to proceed under
    Section 404(c) on February 28, 2014.\46\ EPA gave the Corps, the State
    of Alaska, and the Pebble Partnership 60 days to submit information to
    demonstrate that no unacceptable adverse effects to aquatic resources
    would result from any associated mining discharges.\47\ The Corps
    declined to provide substantive comments on the ground that there was
    no pending permit application.\48\ The State of Alaska and the Pebble
    Partnership reiterated their respective positions that the Section
    404(c) action was premature and that the BBWA was flawed.\49\ Their
    response letters did not persuade EPA to change course, and EPA moved
    forward with its Section 404(c) action.\50\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ See id. at Section VIII.
        \47\ See Background Facts at Sections VIII, VIII.B-C.
        \48\ See id. at Section VIII.A.
        \49\ See id. at Sections VIII.B-C.
        \50\ See id. at Section VIII.D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On July 18, 2014, EPA Region 10 issued a Proposed Determination
    relating to development in the Pebble Deposit Area.\51\ EPA premised
    its regulatory action on a hypothetical scenario assessed in the
    BBWA.\52\ EPA proposed restrictions based on its conclusion that an
    ``unacceptable adverse effect on fishery areas'' would result from
    development that would cause estimated losses of habitat greater than
    those associated with the hypothetical 0.25 billion-ton mine it
    evaluated in the BBWA.\53\ Since that time, litigation has ensued, and
    there is currently an injunction in place temporarily prohibiting EPA
    from further proceedings.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ See id. at Section IX.
        \52\ See id.
        \53\ See Background Facts at Section IX.
        \54\ See id. at Section X.E.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    B. Observations and Conclusion
        Over the course of this review, I have arrived at a number of
    observations, including:

          The issue of whether mining should occur in the Bristol
    Bay watershed is of the utmost importance to the State of Alaska's
    environment, economy, people, and fish and wildlife;
          To date, the Pebble Partnership has not submitted a
    permit application. Thus, EPA relied on hypothetical scenarios rather
    than the characteristics of a mine as it was actually planned to be
    built and maintained;
          EPA failed to address important considerations that would
    be included in the NEPA/Permit Process, including meaningful
    participation by other state and federal government agencies,
    mitigation and controls as proposed by the developer, and an array of
    public interest factors;
          The Permit/NEPA Process has been used for decades and has
    been widely endorsed by environmental groups;
          EPA relied upon the BBWA in its Proposed Determination
    but acknowledged that there were significant gaps in its assessment and
    that it was not designed to duplicate or replace the Permit/NEPA
    Process; and
          EPA's unprecedented, preemptive use of Section 404(c)
    inhibited the involvement of two key participants: the Corps and the
    State of Alaska.\55\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ See Conclusion and Observations.

        These observations have informed my conclusion that that EPA's
    application of Section 404(c) prior to the filing of a permit
    application was not fair to all stakeholders.\56\ I find that:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ See id.

            The fairest and most appropriate process to evaluate possible
            development in the Pebble Deposit Area would use the
            established regulatory Permit/NEPA Process to assess a mine
            permit application, rather than using an assessment based upon
            the hypothetical mining scenarios described in the BBWA as the
            basis for imposing potentially prohibitive restrictions on
            future mines.\57\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ See id.

    The Permit/NEPA Process is more comprehensive than the preemptive
    Section 404(c) process employed here. EPA conceded in comments to peer
    reviewers that there were gaps in its assessment that would be
    addressed during a Permit/NEPA Process.\58\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While I recognize EPA's authority to initiate Section 404(c)
    actions, here EPA acknowledged it did so in an unprecedented manner.
    EPA's use of Section 404(c) before a permit filing compounded the
    shortcomings of the BBWA noted by several peer reviewers, the State of
    Alaska, and the Pebble Partnership: the use of hypothetical assumptions
    that may or may not accurately or fairly represent an actual project;
    and the failure to take into account mitigation and control techniques
    a developer might propose.\59\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An environmental impact assessment is bound to provide more
    accurate information if it assumes that the mine will be built in
    accordance with the developer's plans, rather than a hypothetical mine
    plan which even EPA acknowledges is likely to be different from a
    developer-submitted plan. This project is too important, for all
    stakeholders, to pilot a new, untested decision-making process. The
    fairest approach is to use the well-established Permit/NEPA Process,
    and I can find no valid reason why that process was not used.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \60\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The statements and actions of EPA personnel observed during this
    review raise serious concerns as to whether EPA orchestrated the
    process to reach a predetermined outcome; had inappropriately close
    relationships with anti-mine advocates; and was candid about its
    decision-making process. I have not attempted to reach conclusions on
    these issues. First, any such findings would not affect my overarching
    conclusion about the process that should have been followed. Second,
    the record remains incomplete on these issues. EPA declined my requests
    to cooperate with this review, so I allow there may be benign
    explanations for these actions. There are also troubling gaps in the
    documents EPA has produced in response to Freedom of Information Act
    requests, including those said to be lost as a result of a computer
    crash and EPA personnel's use of personal email.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ See Conclusion and Observations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I believe the information unearthed to date merits the development
    of a complete record by those who have the subpoena power necessary to
    look at these questions more closely. Government oversight by the
    proper authorities must play an active role in ensuring that agencies
    do not engage in preordained decision-making. Thus, I urge the EPA's
    Inspector General and Congress to continue to explore these questions
    which might further illuminate EPA's motives and better determine
    whether EPA has met its core obligations of government service and
    accountability.\62\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is my hope that the policymakers involved in charting the course
    of the Bristol Bay watershed's future find this report helpful. I have
    tried to describe the history of EPA's actions accurately and
    objectively. As we look to the future, I urge policymakers to consider
    requiring the use of the Permit/NEPA Process. This process, which
    entails compliance with NEPA and other regulatory requirements, an
    environmental impact statement, and input from EPA, other relevant
    agencies, and the State of Alaska, will supply the gaps in information
    which the BBWA left outstanding. This decision is too important to be
    made with anything less than the best and most comprehensive
    information available.\63\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ See id.

     Supplemental Written Testimony Provided by Richard K. Borden, Owner,
                       Midgard Environmental Services LLC
        I would like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
    Westerman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    present this supplemental written testimony on the ``Pebble Mine
    Project: Process and Potential Impacts.'' This supplemental written
    testimony provides additional information and clarification on three
    issues which arose during the hearing on October 23, 2019: 1) concerns
    were raised by some Subcommittee Members as to why the Pebble Project
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be scrutinized now, when
    the process is still ongoing; 2) there was contradictory testimony on
    the relative height of the proposed Pebble bulk tailings dam compared
    to other tailings dams in the global inventory; and 3) there was
    contradictory testimony on the uniqueness of the design for the
    proposed Pebble water treatment plants.
                     Environmental Impact Statement Process
        The Pebble Project EIS schedule published on the Army Corps of
    Engineers website predicts the final EIS will be completed in early
    2020 and a record of decision will be issued by mid-2020. The schedule
    does not include any more opportunities for public review of the
    revised EIS before it is issued as final. This is a major concern
    because the Draft EIS contains so many strategic errors and omissions
    that I consider it fatally flawed; and a Final EIS could be issued
    without allowing public experts in geology, mining, environment,
    communities and fisheries to confirm that their concerns have been
    adequately and honestly addressed. If the fatal flaws in the Draft EIS
    are not fully addressed, this would almost certainly require, at a
    minimum, the completion of a Supplemental EIS, recirculated in draft
    for public comment. It is for this reason that I believe the Pebble EIS
    process does need to be scrutinized at the highest levels.
                          Relative Tailings Dam Height
        According to the Pebble Project Description written by the Pebble
    Partnership and incorporated into the Draft EIS as Appendix N, the main
    embankment of the bulk tailings dam will be up to 545 feet high. Based
    upon additional research completed after the hearing, the proposed
    Pebble tailings dam is almost certain to be higher than 99% of the
    tailings dams constructed to date across the world and may be higher
    than 99.9% of the existing dams. Six of the eight largest mining
    companies in the world by market capitalization have recently published
    tailings dam inventories in response to several large-scale and high-
    profile tailings dam failures. In sum BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Vale,
    Glencore, Newmont and Anglo American manage over 650 tailings dams.
    Only two of these dams are over 545 feet high which means that the
    proposed Pebble dam would be higher than 99.7% of the tailings dams
    managed by the world's largest and most experienced mining companies.
    Furthermore, only 1% of the tailings dams managed by these six
    companies exceed 400 feet in height. No data could be found for the
    fifth and six largest mining companies in the world which are China
    Shenhua Energy and Norilsk Nickel of Russia.
        A commonly cited estimate is that there are more than 3500 tailings
    dams in the world. Many of these dams are associated with small
    historic mining operations and with small mining companies. It is
    almost certain that these dams are, on average, smaller than the very
    large, high-tonnage operations managed by the world's biggest modern
    mining companies.
                     Proposed Water Treatment Plant Design
        According to the Pebble Project Description written by the Pebble
    Partnership and incorporated into the Draft EIS as Appendix N, ``the
    annual average [water] surplus is estimated at approximately 29 cubic
    feet per second for the maximum mine site footprint''. This equates to
    an annual average of 13,000 gallons per minute that will need to be
    treated towards the end of the mine's life. The Draft EIS also predicts
    that water treatment requirements will rise to 22,000 gallons per
    minute in early closure. The proposed water treatment plant designs are
    extremely complex, still have significant uncertainties and are likely
    to have very high operating costs. According to Section 4-18 of the
    DEIS ``both facilities would employ treatment plant processes commonly
    used in mining and other industries around the world''. While this is
    certainly true of individual plant components, I am not aware of a
    treatment flowsheet with this many steps and of this complexity being
    applied to such high flows anywhere else in the world. In this respect
    it is unprecedented.
        The contaminated water flows predicted at Pebble are larger than
    about 95% of the 108 global mine water treatment plants detailed in the
    2013 report ``Review of Mine Drainage Treatment and Sludge Management
    Operations'' (Canadian Mine Environmental Neutral Drainage Report
    3.43.1). The most common treatment technology for high flow volumes
    used in the metals mining industry involves relatively simple lime and
    flocculant addition to raise the pH and remove dissolved metals.
    However, the treatment technologies incorporated into the two proposed
    Pebble plants are much more complex. They include initial metals
    precipitation with lime, sodium hydroxide and other reagents, secondary
    metals precipitation using sodium hydrogen sulfide and other reagents,
    clarification and ultrafiltration at both plants. The open pit
    treatment plant also includes reverse osmosis and a biological reactor
    for selenium removal. The main water treatment plant also includes
    nanofiltration, followed by gypsum precipitation via lime addition,
    clarification, reverse osmosis and evaporation (EIS Chapter 2 and
    Appendix K, 4.13).

    Chart and Email Provided by Alannah Hurley, Executive Director, United
                             Tribes of Bristol Bay
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Screen captures, ``CNN Exclusive: Complaint Seeks Investigation of
    Alleged Insider Trading That May Have Come From a Trump Administration
        Leak,'' Provided by Brian Kraft, Owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Companies Opposed to Proposed Pebble Mine, Submitted for the Record by
                             Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
        Nearly 200 leading companies in the fly fishing and outdoor
    gear industry groups have voiced opposition to the proposed
    Pebble Mine.

                         Guides, Outfitters and Lodges:

                         AK Adventures   Alagnak Lodge    Alaska Alpine
                                          Alaska           Adventures
                Alaska Bear Adventures   Alaska's         Alaska Fly Fishers
                                          Fishing
                                          Unlimited
                                          Lodge
             Alaska Rainbow Adventures   Alaska           Alaska Trophy
                                          Sportsman's      Adventures
                                          Lodge*
          Alaska Trophy Fishing Safari   Bear Trail       Beluga Air
                                          Lodge
         Beyond Boundaries Expeditions   Blue Fly Bed &   Blue Mountain
                                          Breakfast        Lodge
                                          Guide Service
                Bristol Bay Adventures   Copper River     Crystal Creek
                                          Lodge            Lodge*
                      Deneki Outdoors*   Enchanted Lake   Epic Angling and
                                          Lodge            Adventure
                          Fishing Bear   Fish and Float   Frigate Adventure
                                          Alaska           Travel
                 Frontier River Guides   Grizzly Skins    Iguigig Lodge
                                          of Alaska
                        Iliamna River LodKatmai Service   Katmai Wilderness
                                          Providers        Lodge
                            No See Um LodSweetwater       Tikchik Narrows*
                                          Travel Company
                         Togiak River LodRainbow River    Royal Coachman
                                          Lodge
          Western Alaska Sport Fishing   Wild on the Fly

                              Brands and Retailers:

                                  Abel   Abu Garcia       AirFlo Fly Fishing
                                                           Tackle
                All Star Graphite Rods   Albright         Berkeley
                                Beulah   Berkley          Boss Tin
                       Brunton Outdoor   Castaway Rods    Chota Outdoor Gear
               Clackacraft Drift Boats   Clear Creek      Cliff Outdoors
                                          Fishing Gear
                             Cloudveil   Cortland         Costa del Mar
    Diamondback Fly Rods and Fly Reels   Dragon Tackle    Dr Slick Company
                      ECHO Fly Fishing   Elkhorn Fly rod  Exefficio
                                          and Reel
                            Fetha Styx   Filson           Fly Water Travel
                                                           LLC
                      Frontiers Travel   Fenwick          Fishpond
                      Galvan Fly Reels   Gamakatsu        Gamma
                                   G. LooGreys            Guideline
                                 Hardy   Hatch Outdoors   Hendrix Outdoors
                             HMH Vices   International    Islander
                                          Sportsman's      Sportfishing
                                          Exposition
                Jim Teeny Incorporated   Johnson Fishing  Kaenon Polarized
                                      LL Lamiglas         Lateral Line
                                      LooLoop Tackle      Marryat
                              Mitchell   Montana Fly      Mustad
                                          Company
                        Nautilus Reels   Norstream        Orvis
                 Outcast Sporting Gear   OPM Fishing      Optic Nerve
                                          Tackle
                             Patagonia   PENN             Pflueger
            Pro Troll Fishing Products   Pure Fishing     Rec Components
                             Redington   Renzetti         Rep Your Water
                      Rising Fish Nets   Rio Products     RL Winston Rod
                                                           Company
                        RO Drift Boats   Ross Reels       Sage
              Salmon Trout Steelheader   Scierra Fly      Scott Fly Rods
                                          Fishing
                                 Simms   Shakespeare      Shallow Water
                                          Fishing and      Fishing Expo
                                          Supplies
                          Smith Optics   Snowbee USA      Spiderwire
                         St Croix Rods   Stream Works     Stren
                                Targus   Temple Fork      Tibor Reels
                                          Outfitters
                                          Flyrods
                          The Fly Shop   The Fly Fishing  Thomas and Thomas
                                          Show
                               Turrall   Ugly Stik        Van Staal
                              Vosseler   Wapsi            Waterworks Lamson
                        William Joseph   Wind River Fly   Woolrich
                                          Fitter
      Yellow Dog Flyfishing Adventures

                                      Media

                           Amato Books   Fish and Fly     Fly Fish America
                  Fly Fishing Magazine   Fly Fusion       Grays Sporting
                                          Magazine         Journal
                      Hendrix Outdoors   Match the Hatch  Ribolowacki
                                                           Magazine
                             The Drake   This is Fly

        Over 100 jewelers, representing more than $6 billion in
    annual sales, have pledged support for protecting Bristol Bay
    from the proposed Pebble Mine.

                                    Jewelers

                          Beaverbrooks   Ben Bridge       Birks and Mayors
                                          Jewelers
                        Boucheron (UK)   Commemorative    Fortunoff
                                          Brands Inc.
                      Fraser Hart (UK)   Goldsmiths       Hacker Jewelers
                     Helzberg Diamonds   Herff-Jones      Ingle & Rhode (UK)
                                      LebMappin and Webb  Tiffany and Co.
                           Zales Corp.

          Timeline of Pebble Mine Process, Submitted for the Record by
                             Hon. Peter A. DeFazio

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Year                                                    Label
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             2019                                         EPA announces final repeal of Proposed Determination
             2019           EPA directs Region 10 Administrator to resume withdrawal of Proposed Determination
             2019                                      President Trump meets with Alaska Governor Dunleavy \1\
             2019                                                                                            PLP proposes project amendments \2\
             2018                                 EPA suspends proposal to withdraw its Proposed Determination
             2017                                                                                            PLP submits new and revised permit application
             2017                                       EPA proposes withdrawal of 2014 Proposed Determination
             2017                                                                EPA settles litigation with PLP, promising withdrawal of Proposed Determination
             2017                                    EPA Administrator Pruitt meets with Tom Collier, CEO of PLP \3\
             2016                                                         IG Clears EPA of bias or wrong-doing
             2014                                Federal judge signs a preliminary injunction halting EPA work
             2014        EPA Releases Proposed Determination, with recommendations to limit the scope of a mining
                                                                                                       project
             2014                                                                                            PLP calls on EPA to halt 404(c) process, files suit
             2014                                                EPA Announces intent to pursue 404(c) process
             2014        Final Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment is released, finding inevitable negative effects
             2014                                              Rio Tinto Group divests its 19.8% ownership \4\
             2013                                                  Anglo American divests its 50% interest \5\
             2012                EPA Releases two draft watershed assessments for public input and peer review
             2011                                               Mitsubishi Corp. divests its 9.1% interest \6\
             2011                                                                      EPA study period begins
             2011                                                                 Formal plan filed by Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) \7\
             2010                            Zale Corp. joins boycott of precious metals mined from Pebble \8\
             2008                      Tiffany and Co., Ben Bridge Jewelers, Helzberg Diamonds, Fortunoff and Leber
                                                                boycott of any metals mined at Pebble \9\ \10\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Most events: https://pebblewatch.com/epa-in-bristol-bay-timeline/, otherwise noted below.
    1 https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/us/epa-alaska-pebble-mine-salmon-invs/index.html
    2 https://pebbleprojecteis.com/files/083461a0-998f-4686-8f6a-38546b64c632
    3 https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/pebble-epa-bristol-bay-invs/index.html
    4 https://www.adn.com/economy/article/latest-blow-pebble-prospect-mining-giant-rio-tinto-pulling-out/2014/04/07/
    5 https://web.archive.org/web/20140821042341/http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/
      NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=615657
    6 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/877197/000095014211000433/eh11000089_sc13ga4-ndml.htm
    7 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164771/000106299311000722/exhibit99-1.htm
    8 https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/fishing/2010/04/major-us-jewelry-maker-boycott-alaska-pebble-mine-gold/
    9 https://www.alaskajournal.com/community/2008-02-17/major-retail-jewelers-take-stance-against-pebble-mine
    10 https://earthworks.org/media-releases/jewelry_retailers_opposition_to_pebble_mine_gains_momentum/

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

      Question from Hon. Don Young to Alannah Hurley, Executive Director,
                          United Tribes of Bristol Bay

        Question 1. What rivers are your members fishing that are directly
    tied to Lake Iliamna?
        Answer. UTBB represents 15 tribes in Bristol Bay that make up over
    80% of the total population of the region. The Pebble project is in an
    area that has the capacity to impact both major river systems in
    Bristol Bay. Please see maps and further explanation below.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The mine site is in the area of the Koktuli river that flows into
    the Mulchatna River, which then flows into the Nushagak River that
    connects the area to all of Western Bristol Bay. Additionally, the mine
    site area is connected to the Upper and Lower Talarik Creeks that flow
    into Lake Iliamna, which empties into the Kvichak River, that connects
    to the area of all of Eastern Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula.
    Every one of United Tribes of Bristol Bay communities are connected to
    the waterbodies that will be impacted by the Pebble Mine.
        Please don't hesitate to reach out with any further questions and
    we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure decisions
    regarding Bristol Bay by the U.S. government are based on a robust
    scientific process that respects and incorporates the traditional
    ecological knowledge of Bristol Bay's tribes.

              Question from Hon. Don Young to Brian Kraft, Owner,
                            Alaska Sportsman's Lodge

        Question 1. How many of your direct hire employees are members from
    the communities surrounding Lake Iliamna?
        Answer. Three.

                                    [all]