planning commission city and borough of juneau, …

Planning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 2004 of 32

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

SPECIAL MEETING

August 31, 2004 The Special Meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Johan Dybdahl. I. ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Mike Bavard, Johan Dybdahl, J. Mark Pusich, Marshal Kendziorek, Jim Scholz, Dan Bruce, Maria Gladziszewski, Jacqueline Fowler, Peggy Ann McConnochie Commissioners Absent: A quorum was present. Staff Present: Dale Pernula, CDD Director; Peter Freer, CDD Planning Supervisor; Peggy Boggs, Asst. City Attorney, CBJ Law Dept. II. REGULAR AGENDA MIN2004-00003 AN ALLOWABLE USE PERMIT FOR GOLD MINE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION WITHIN THE RURAL MINING DISTRICT AT BERNER’S BAY. Location: Berners Bay Applicant: Coeur Alaska, Inc.

Ms. Gladziszewski declared a conflict of interest and she was allowed to step down. Mr. Scholz disclosed that he is in the barge business and there are a lot of barge operations involved in this project. He has met with the city attorney and the attorney did not feel there was a conflict of interest in this matter. Mr. Kendziorek said it had been suggested by Mr. MacKinnon that Mr. Kendziorek had a conflict because he works for the Permanent Fund. He has spoken with the city attorney about this and he was told there was absolutely no conflict involved.

Staff Report: Mr. Freer reviewed the staff report included in the packet. He gave a quick overview of the review process and explained what the revised mining ordinance allowed them to review. The Assembly’s intent in the revised Mining Ordinance was to focus on areas that are traditionally within municipal authority. For areas that are under the authority or review of outside agencies, those areas were not meant to be part of the review under the Allowable Use permit. He gave the example of habitat and said it was specifically excluded as a review item in the revision of the Mining Ordinance last year. Essentially the CBJ just has a pie slice of the


overall review of the project and they have delegated the environmental review to outside agencies essentially trusting these agencies to protect local interest in their review. This permit is a first and it is new to all of them. The applicant has applied for Alternative B as it is identified in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), therefore staff has not analyzed the other alternatives in the draft. The applicant has indicated further that at such time as a Record of Decision for the project is issued, and that is anticipated now, on or about November 19th, with the publication of the Final EIS, that if there are changes in the project that require a permit modification, they understand that and will undergo that process at that time. There is some chance that an alternative could be chosen that doesn’t precisely line up with Alternative B. He then referred to a PowerPoint presentation showing the area.

Staff Recommendation: Traffic 1. Speed limit signs that are provided by, or are comparable to, Alaska Department of

Transportation speed limit signs, shall be posted in readily visible locations at the tidewater and mill site ends of the haul road.

2. Coeur shall state in the approved Plan of Operations that passengers and freight vessels must reduce speed and/or alter course to lessen the wake effect on other boat traffic in the bay, particularly non-motorized vessels.

3. Unless weather, safety procedure, emergencies, or Federal Aviation Administration requirements dictate otherwise, the mine operator shall operate helicopters at elevations and along the flight path that follows, in order to minimize noise levels on residential areas and recreational users of Berners Bay. • The minimum flight elevation shall be 1,000 feet above ground level. The highest

practicable elevation shall be maintained, preferably at least 2,000 feet above mean sea level.

• The flight path shall be: from the Juneau Airport, head west while immediately climbing to FAA-directed or highest practicable altitude, cross the Mendenhall River, turn north to Montanan Creek and proceed northwest following the creek drainage, on past Windfall Lake toward the mouth of Cowee Creek, north across Berners Bay, and then along the coastline of Lynn Canal to Comet Beach.

Parking and Circulation 1. The applicant shall develop and operate a bus commute for mine workers for the life of the

project. This requirement may be waived only upon modification of this permit A fully-operational bus commute system, which includes both a bus commute and park-an-ride as described in conditions 2 and 3 below, must be in place before any Occupancy Permit is issued to the applicant or the Allowable Use Permit will be revoked.

2. The park-and-ride facility must be located between Mile 6 and Mile 12 of Glacier Highway, and must be designed and sized to support daily bus transportation to and from Cascade Point for all mining shifts and all mine workers per shift. The park-and-ride facility must provide enough parking spaces for two shifts of workers, or 100 vehicles.

3. The bus commute shall consist of round-trip bus transportation from a park-and-ride facility to the Cascade Point Terminal and back. The busses shall be operated daily, 365 days per year, and shall be operated so as to provide transportation to and from each work shift. The


busses shall have sufficient capacity to transport all hourly mineworkers scheduled for each work shift.

4. The applicant shall institute a company policy that its employees utilize the bus commute on a daily basis.

Exterior Lighting 1. Lighting at the marine terminals shall be used only during loading and offloading of workers

and materials, or when the terminals are otherwise in use, and applicant shall use an appropriate low-intensity lighting system to implement this condition.

2. Lighting must, to the extent that safety is not compromised, be directed downward, and remain within the perimeter of the site.

3. Lighting must be of a type that provides for adequate illumination without unnecessary glare. The applicant shall install a low-level lighting system, subject to Department approval, that provides for onsite safety while minimizing or eliminating offsite glare.

4. Lighting required by the Coast Guard as Aids to Navigation is exempt from these recommendations.

Signs 1. Speed limit signs and other signs managing traffic on the haul road shall comply with

appropriate Alaska Department of Transportation standards for highway signage. 2. Signage at the park-and-ride facility must comply with standards in CBJ 49.45.

Safety No recommendations Noise 1. Company policy shall forbid the use of “jake” brakes, or compression braking, on trucks

transiting the haul road to Slate Creek Cove, except under emergency circumstances . 2. Only rubber-tired machinery may be used to load and offload freight at the Slate Creek Cove

marine terminal. Track machinery may be used for on and offloading only when rubber-tired machinery is incapable of handling the loads.

3. (see the Traffic section for a condition on helicopter flights.) Dust 1. The speed limit on the haul road shall be posted at 20 miles-per-hour to minimize the amount

of airborne dust. 2. The applicant shall abate visible airborne dust as necessary to protect the visual quality of the project area. Visual Screening 1. Retain the values of the Modified Landscape VQO in the materials and colors used in

construction of the Slate Creek Cove marine terminal. 2. Minimize tree clearing at the mine and mill complex and along the haul road. Maintain as

large a buffer or standing timber as possible between the haul road, mill and processing area at Berners Bay.

3. Use earth tone colors and finishes on the exterior of the mill and processing buildings.


Surface Subsidence 1. The company must maintain a 150-foot crown pillar to assure stability and prevent surface

subsidence. 2. The employment of mining techniques that modify the 150-foot crown pillar must be pre-

approved in the Plan of Operations and be shown to have no increased potential for contributing to surface subsidence.

Avalanches and Landslides 1. The tailings pipeline must be buried for the entire mapped area of the Snowslide Gulch

avalanche path. Burial must be at a depth and length that will assure the integrity of the pipeline to withstand a 100-year avalanche event.

2. If the tailings access road remains open for use during the November to May avalanche season, then the applicant shall be required to prepare a Snow Safety Plan that includes, at a minimum, the following:

a. avalanche search and rescue training for on-site employees; b. travel protocol on the tailings access road; c. placement of probes, beacons and shovels in all vehicles crossing Snowslide Gulch; d. radio checks for all travel across Snowslide Gulch; e. a system for daily and/or weekly avalanche forecasting; f. designation of an on-site ava lanche expert; g. other practices and procedures that assure worker safety and rapid response to

avalanche events. The plan shall be prepared by an organization such as the Southeast Alaska Avalanche Center, or another comparable qualified organization.

3. If the tailings access road remains closed for use during the avalanche season, then the applicant shall be required to incorporate avalanche awareness training into the required 40 hour Mine Safety and Health Administrative (MSHA) training class that is given to every new miner hired for the project. The applicant is required to consult with the Southeast Alaska Avalanche Center, or a comparable qualified organization, in developing avalanche awareness training. Specific attention shall be given to the avalanche hazard posed at Snowslide Gulch.

4. Snow removal equipment must be staged on the mill side of the tailings pond access road, and must be in a ready-to-operate condition in the event the tailings pipeline is damaged. This equipment must be available to clear the access road of avalanche debris just as quickly as it is declared safe to do so in consultation with a qualified individual or organization such as the Southeast Alaska Avalanche Center. This consultation shall occur immediately following an avalanche event.

5. If the tailings access road is available for use during the avalanche season, signage must be placed warning all drivers of avalanche danger on the road. The road must be closed during periods of high avalanche risk as determined by mine officials in consultation with the Southeast Alaska Avalanche Center or comparably qualified organization or individual. This consultation shall occur on a daily basis during the November–May avalanche season.

6. A snow shed shall be constructed over the Kensington portal to shed snow away from the portal and prevent the portal from being covered by snow and impeding escape from the mine.


Erosion 1. Coeur shall identify methods in the approved Plan of Operations for the employment of best

management practices that allows for quick action to be taken where erosion is imminent or under way.

2. Provide worker training in the employment of best management practices, including both techniques (how MBPs are employed) and protocols (when and where MBPs are employed).

3. Reclaim disturbed areas on steep slopes and avoid disturbing steep slopes during inclement weather.

4. Construct all storm water diversion ditches to accommodate a 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event.

Mr. Bavard referred to the letters in the packet regarding helicopter flights and noise from the trips back and forth. He asked Mr. Freer if he had any comments on that process. Mr. Freer said the helicopter flight route that was identified in the report is the same flight route that was identified in the 1992 EIS for the project. The land route was chosen for safety reasons. However, they have had several email letters from residents in the Montana Creek area who object to this routing. If no decision is made on the project tonight and there is time to re-examine helicopter routing, this is an area that might have some productive discussions with the applicant to see if there aren’t some other routing configurations. Ms. Boggs pointed out that the Kensington application refers to another pending permit and that is Goldbelt’s Conditional Use application for marine terminal at Cascade Point. Kensington workers will use the Cascade Point terminal to board boats to access the mine. The Cascade Point hearing is scheduled for September 14th. The Commission may decide to make its decision on the Kensington AU after it has heard the information on the Cascade Point project. This might remedy any assertion that the Commission engaged in an impermissible phased hearing process. She said she did not believe it was phasing, but this would be a precautionary measure.

Mr. Kendziorek asked why she did not feel this was phasing because he thought that clearly these projects were joined at the hip. Ms. Boggs said that under the CBJ Land Use Code, the definition of mining operations specifically excludes off-site transportation facilities and other activities conducted off-site. Anything not on the affected surface is not considered part of the mine so it is just sort of one step removed from the mine project. What this means is that Coeur didn’t need to include Goldbelt’s project in the application. She did not believe that the Commission had the duty to review them together, therefore, it is not a phasing issue. In addition, one of the concerns of the Supreme Court in one of the main phasing cases was that the Commission would feel compelled to approve a second part of a permit that was approved. Here, the Cascade Point project is going to undergo more stringent review at the Conditional Use permit process, so she thought it would go through the appropriate process.

Mr. Kendziorek asked Mr. Freer if the material they were going to be putting into Lower Slate Lake was considered waste rock or mine tailings. Mr. Freer said he thought it was considered fill for the purposes of the Corps of Engineers permit. Mr. Kendziorek asked if it was just within the past year that the EPA changed the definition to allow that to occur. Mr. Freer said his understanding was based on testimony from the applicant at the Wetland Review Board meetings


and at other permit forums where the tailings had been described as largely benign or neutral. The potential restoration of Lower Slate Lake has been described as possible.

Mr. Kendziorek asked Mr. Freer to discuss the “significant public need” and how that need was determined. Mr. Freer said he did that based on the record. The Comprehensive Plan has a policy that favors mining development. There were several actions taken by the Assembly, one that he did not include in the staff report that he would refer to now included a December 2002 strategic planning session that was held by the Assembly in which they established two goals and assigned to the Lands Committee. One was to revise and streamline the CBJ Mining Ordnance, the other was to expedite permitting of the Kensington Mine. In addition, the Assembly has identified the Kensington Mine as one of its 20 economic development priorities for the borough and the actions to revise the Mining Ordinance established on record the desire to expedite mining projects, particularly projects under review.

Mr. Kendziorek noted that the staff report refers to the 1998 Best Management Practices and that they can “be adapted” to fit the current application. He asked if those had been adapted and if they had been changed in any way. Mr. Freer said the company provided a long list of best management practices today that should have been included in the blue folder, that would represent the most recent version of those best management practices. Mr. Kendziorek said they had yet to identify the actual location for their lot for the bus transfer. Mr. Freer referred to Coeur’s presentation to the Planning Commission in April of this year. They gave an overview of the project and indicated that they would prefer to locate the bus facility somewhere near their Valley offices. Staff identified 6 mile to 12 mile of Glacier Highway so as not to tie the location down too tightly. He said it may be possible that a portion of the vacant Kmart parking lot could be used for a bus terminal or a park-and-ride facility. The idea was to provide some flexibility in the location of such a facility, but to make sure it was centrally located so that the bus commute continued to make sense. Locating the bus commute at Amalga Harbor or Tee Harbor would be less sensible from the standpoint of reducing traffic impacts on the highway. Mr. Kendziorek said Coeur was only applying for a ten-year permit based on 1.1 million ounces of reserve, but there has been discussion of 5 million ounces. The previous application was 1.9 million ounces, in the permit they currently have, and he asked where the other .8 million ounces went. Mr. Freed said he was not qualified to answer to that, but in presentations that he has heard from the mining company, they are looked at as both economic reserves and resources. Economic reserves are more known and investments and other decisions can be made on that number because it is a fairly hard number in terms of what is known to be recoverable. The resource number is a softer number because it is an estimate of what might be there but it’s too indeterminate to make economic decisions. His best guess would be that, like Greens Creek, these numbers will become firmer as development and continued exploration takes place.

Mr. Kendziorek asked if there was enough tailing storage available in Lower Slate Lake should they find the 1.9 million ounces that they had in their previous permit. Mr. Freer said in his understanding, Lower Slate Lake has been sized to accommodate a mine that withdraws 1.1 million ounces of gold. The project is being permitted through the NEPA process in its current


configuration. Any expansion of tailing storage, he imagined, would have to undergo another NEPA review and would either need some form of local review, either through a summary approval, or a modification of the permit, or even a new permit. Mr. Bavard clarified Mr. Freer was recommending approval of this application, complete with the conditions listed on pages 54 – 60. Mr. Bruce asked Mr. Freer if he had any comments on the proposed modifications as suggested by Coeur. Mr. Freer said with regard to dust control, he was aiming at not a lot of fugitive dust from the site. It is primarily going to be surface dust from the road, the waste rock pile and the borrow pits. His idea was that the pits should be watered on some sort of a regular basis but Coeur has responded that days without precipitation may not necessarily contribute to dust accumulation or to fugitive dust. He thought they wanted to offer an alternative condition that would be more based on the kind of practices they have employed at their mines in Montana. He said he has not seen the actual language for that but if it accomplishes the same thing, to suppress fugitive dust, it would achieve the same intent that the condition currently in the report does. With regard to hourly employees being the only required employees who have to take the bus, rather than all employees, Mr. Freer said he did not have a number break out of what that means in terms of hourly and salaried employees. He would expect that the salaried employees would be much fewer than the hourly employees. The intent was to bus as many workers as possible, to avoid large volumes of traffic at long distances. He thought the same thing would be accomplished.

Mr. Pusich referred to the letter from SEACC, which asked about the fueling of the catamaran, and he asked for more explanation on that. Mr. Freer said that one of the areas they were authorized to examine under the revised Mining Ordinance was traffic and so he did touch on the barge traffic and other traffic at Slate Creek Cove, however he did not go into a lot of detail on that because he did not want to go into an area where they were duplicating reviews undertaken by other agencies. He did speak with a gentlemen at the EPA in Anchorage today, Matt Carr, and got information regarding the spill prevention counter measure and contingency plans. Mr. Freer said he thought Coeur had also provided some information on that specific item as well, which was available in the blue folder. Both EPA and the Coast Guard will have, and these plans can all be amalgamated into a single plan, but they will both have Facility Response Plans that will be required. The Coast Guard will also have what is equivalent of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, but it is under Title 33 of the federal regulation that the Coast Guard has their marine pollution regulations. Under the regulation of EPA, a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan will be prepared. That plan does not have to be reviewed or approved by EPA, it does have to be prepared by a registered engineer who is familiar with the project and the site and it must be retained on site and be available to EPA upon any inspection. The fuel is proposed to be unloaded in double walled 6,500-gallon isotainers compared to Comet Beach where the offloading was to be done with a flexihose. Mr. Pusich clarified that would be taking place at Slate Cove. Mr. Freer said that was correct and it was also the location where all the fueling of the catamarans would take place.


Mr. Kendziorek said under the geophysical hazard section of the JCMP it says quite specifically that industrial and resource extraction activities in high landslide or avalanche areas are prohibited unless it is determined that they reduce the threat of landslides, avalanches on existing and potential development. He assumed that Snowslide Gulch had it’s name for a good reason and yet the only explanation for why this is not in compliance with that section is that it is going to be a mining development there which seemed kind of a circular argument. Mr. Freer said no other development would take place in this location except the mine development. Precautions are being taken both in the design of the project and in the conditions regarding avalanches to safeguard against any hazards that might be created by avalanches in Snowslide Gulch. For example the tailings pipeline must be buried and if any transit is to take place in that area it must be under the auspices of a fully developed Snow Response Plan. Mine facilities have to be located where the minerals are. He said he realizes that this is a geophysical hazard area but the land is not being developed in a manner that other uses or activities might locate there. It’s a single use and activity in that location. Mr. Kendziorek clarified he meant there was no potential for any other development in that area. Mr. Freer said at this time, that is what he would say. This is strictly a mining development and he thought it was highly unlikely they would see development of any kind. Mr. Kendziorek clarified he thought it was a low probability of potential development.

Public Testimony Rich Richins, representing Coeur, the applicant. They believe the project has been extensively studied and debated. It has been designed and redesigned and there have been over 900 studies completed on this project. In terms of environmental studies, they have invested about $25 million. They have reviewed the staff permit closely and they believe it identifies the major issues related to the Allowable Use permit requirements. They also believe that it identifies a good range of Best Management Practices, most of which they have all ready included in their operating plans. They also believe that the staff report describes in a fair amount of detail, the different types of monitoring plans and additional oversight that other agencies will be providing to the project. This includes the US Forest Service, the EPA, DEC, the company itself, and certainly MSHA from a safety standpoint. They generally support the staff’s recommendations with the two exceptions. The one deals with bussing and they have been actively discussing particular sites that they would bus out of. They all are located within the area that Mr. Freer has identified in the staff report. From a business stand point they will continue to negotiate for the best opportunity, but they feel they can definitely comply with what Mr. Freer has outlined. From the standpoint of the dusting issue, their main concern is that it not be tied down so tight. If they had a very cold stretch with icing conditions and this type of thing, watering might be very difficult, it might create hazards from a safety standpoint in terms of road use, so they just want to be practicable. They certainly understand the need to reduce the dusting and that would be their intent both through this condition and other conditions that the Forest Service and DEC might impose. With regard to the breakdown of staff that they would want excluded from the busing requirement, that primarily would relate to safety and to their ability to have their safety person and environmental person able to go to the project whenever the need arises, as well as the general manager and several other key engineering support personnel. It does not represent a large majority of their staff, it is very limited and they certainly could set some sideboards around that.


He thought that what they have presented in terms of a scaled down project, their whole thrust has been to develop a project that is not subject to fluctuating gold prices. They want to start the project up and stay operating. They have attempted to make it better environmentally and they think the proposal before the Commission tonight is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. They believe that the other federal permitting programs will bear out their contentions. He said they sometimes get frustrated at Coeur in terms of some of the things they read in the paper about the company not being financially viable. As of today, they have $227 million in the bank. They hope to be able to commit a large portion of this to building this project and at this point in time they have zero net debt so from the standpoint of their economic capabilities, they are very well positioned to build this project and to bring a very good project to the community. The other thing he wanted to clarify is there’s been a lot of discussion about the number of people they would hire locally. He said they have a very strong local hire policy and a local Native hire policy. They will be giving preference to this policy and they have made it very well known to the Forest Service and the EIS contractor that Coeur does not agree with their assessment of how many people would come from outside of Juneau. They have a strong local training program and they have put it into practice several times now in terms of large exploration programs that they have designed and that they have implemented using local people. He said he has provided a couple of letters that clarify other items related to fuel transport and also fueling of marine vessels.

Mr. Scholz clarified they would be bringing the fuel in in isotainers and he asked if it would remain in isotainers or would there be a bulk storage tank on site at the port terminal or at the mine portal. Mr. Richins said all the storage is in isotainers and he would draw the analogy of a cartridge system that plugs into, in this case either the generators at the plant site or the generators at the dock site. They have no day storage bulk containers planned for so essentially they will plug in a 6,500-gallon container, run it until it’s empty and then plug in the refill cartridge. Mr. Scholz asked if the prohibition against compression braking or “jake” brakes would create an unsafe situation for the drivers. Mr. Richins said they have talked about that internally and they don’t believe that it will impair either their safety or their operating abilities. Mr. Scholz asked him to estimate, over the ten-year life of the project, what the tax revenues might be to the CBJ. Mr. Richins said their most recent estimate is a little under a million dollars a year so roughly $9-10 million over the life of the project. Mr. Kendziorek asked how many million tons of tailings or waste rock did he anticipate in this application. Mr. Richins said he thought the number was 4.5 million tons. Mr. Kendziorek asked why the original 1990 Kensington venture sized to hold 30 million tons. Mr. Richins said at that time they were operating under a totally different mine plan and that mine plan called for the ultimate development of about 20 million tons of tailing. The basic mine plan has been sized down so that they are able to mine a higher grade, which he felt was a difference between about .139 ounces per ton versus a little over a quarter of an ounce or .25 ounces per ton, so they are mining significantly less material and hence they have significantly less tailings to deal with.


Mr. Kendziorek said in the 1998 permit it indicated that there was an expectation of 1.9 million ounces and now it is 1.1. He asked where the other .8 was. Mr. Richins said the other .8 is not recovered and essentially it is left behind in the mine as waste. Mr. Kendziorek said it seemed like based on the previous permits, expectations and even the SCC filings, that there is upwards of 5 million ounces of gold in there that Coeur would like access to. He was very concerned that they were putting in a half of a mine now and they would come back for the other half later. Mr. Richins said their current mine plan is developed around what they know today and what they can put in economic mine plan up against. Ideally back in 1998, he thought it was important to understand that they actually started that whole permitting process in 1988 so in this day and age there is a considerable amount of time that goes by in the permitting process. Things change, gold prices change, the price of fuel changes, a lot of different aspects of the project change that effect the economics. The bottom line is that at the end of 1998 when they got to the completion of the permitting process, the project was not economic. What they did was go back and try to develop a project that was smaller, that was more manageable, that would be less susceptible to fluctuating gold prices and as it turns out that project ends up being one that would create about 1.1 million ounces of gold.

Mr. Bavard asked Mr. Richins to talk about what he envisions for the helicopter use. Mr. Richins said their main access will be via boat and the helicopter support that they would require would be limited to unusual circumstances like safety considerations and that kind of thing. They do not envision any significant helicopter traffic as a result of the project. With the 1998 project the primary access was via helicopter. Mr. Pusich asked how they have potentially minimized the impacts in the Slate Cove Marine Terminal with the current design. There have been questions coming up regarding the flushing of the marine environment in that area. He asked Mr. Richins to defend their design as far as being low impact. Mr. Richins said the design of the facility has been sized down to the extent that they can size it down and still maintain the landing ramp, which has about 29,000 cubic yards of fill. They have oriented that arrangement such that it does not protrude out into Slate Creek Cove to the extent that the original design extended. They have looked long and hard at that proposal and they believe they do need that ramp for particularly the construction phase. There will be a lot of large equipment they need to bring into the site initially in order to be able to not only build the project but to build the rest of the dock. Mr. Pusich clarified that in his mind, the landing craft ramp was an essentia l part of the project.

Mr. Scholz asked if he could give an idea of what 29,000 cubit yards would look like. Mr. Richins said he thought it would extend out into the cove to a depth of about minus 10 feet. He could not really tie it to a feature that was of similar size. Mr. Kendziorek said he was concerned with the boat traffic in Berners Bay and he asked what they would do to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of that boat traffic on recreational users. Mr. Richins said the first thing they needed to do was have a regular schedule so that they could publicize it and everyone could be aware of what that is. They would also have to control the speed of the boat, which would help manage the wake. They have talked about a designated route and they have also talked about coming up with a schedule that would minimize the


number of trips across the bay during certain times of the year like important fish runs. Right now they are looking at three to five and it was possible that during the eulachon run, potentially they could cut that number down to the low side. They have also talked about, in terms of their barge routing, coming up with a schedule that during that sensitive period, would limit the number of trips by storing additional fuel and that sort of thing at the site. He thought there was a lot they could do to be a good neighbor and they were working on it. He thought the BMPs that were presented as part of the packet, which will also become part of the Plan of Operations for the project show some of the ideas in that regard.

Mr. Kendziorek asked how they would deal with the impact if there were a major slide in the Snowslide Gulch area. Mr. Richins said the tailings pipe and the utility lines were buried through that section so they would not envision any issue there. The access to the tailings facility is actually an alternate route which is not impacted by Snowslide Gulch. They would need to maintain that access in order to be able to monitor the operations of the tailing storage facility itself, and to do water quality monitoring with regard to the discharge. Mr. Kendziorek asked if there were any fuel lines along that same route. Mr. Richins said no, the fuel would all be contained in isotainers and the isotainers, for the sma ll generator that would be located at the tailing storage facility, they would envision using a isotainer as the fuel supply and the generator would be for the purpose of the pump back of the water, the reclaimed water, back to the mill and also there is a ground water seepage pond below the tailing facility. That water is also collected and pumped back to the tailings facility and that would be why they would need a generator at the site.

Sylvia Gard, 2670 Fritz Cove Road, resident since 1963. She spoke in opposition to the industrialization of Berners Bay. She thought the Bay was a priceless wilderness, a wonderful quiet place where they should view and study sea creatures and wildlife. The Bay should be saved for future generations to enjoy. The EPA should enforce the Clean Water Act and not allow the mine tailings in lower Slate Lake. This beautiful alpine lake and its salmon streams should not be destroyed. Instead of using Berners Bay the Kensington Mine should use Lynn Canal for all of its commercial activity. The extra money that the mine will make by ruining Berners Bay is not as important as preserving this fantastic wilderness. Also, the mining company should be required to put up a bond before starting operation to cover the cost of environmental clean up. Richard Gard, 2670 Fritz Cove Road. In 1962 he moved to Juneau. The magnificent backcountry is what has kept him here and Berners Bay is the epitome of that backcountry. No where else in our vicinity can you see interlaced rivers or runs of spawning herring and eulachon with the marine mammals that prey upon them. Hundreds of people are attracted to Berners Bay each year to observe the spectacle or simply to taste the wilderness. The new Kensington Mine proposal would change the character of Berners Bay. Lower Slate Lake would be dammed and filled with mine tailings. There is ample evidence that mine tailings are toxic elsewhere and he did not think these tailings would be an exception. He felt certain the Dolly varden in Slate Lake and the Dollys and the salmon in Slate Creek would be decimated. Further, a road, a mill, and two industrial docks would be visible inside the Bay. A new stretch of highway would be built or barged and frequent ferries would transit the Bay and the experience of every recreationist


would be diminished. Some supporters of the present proposal have stated that all of these extremist environmentalists are against the mine. That is not true. Most people, including himself, who are against the proposal do not oppose the mine. What they oppose are mine operations inside Berners Bay. What they want is to hold Coeur Alaska to their original 1997 proposal, which has all operations facing Lynn Canal. The only reason to move inside Berners Bay is to make more money. He felt that the revised Kensington Mine proposal was something that society could afford to let alone and he suggested that the Commission revisit the original proposal where all development is outside Berners Bay. He also requested that the Commission require a bond so that the area is restored to something near its pristine condition after the mine closes.

Bruce Baker, 18392 Tee Way. He was speaking on behalf of Lynn Canal Conservation (LCC) which is a non-profit Haines based conservation organization with a long-standing interest in protecting the Berners Bay area environment. LCC has asked him to provide the Commission with its comment letter and he handed that to Mr. Freer. The LCC is a member group of the SE Alaska Conservation Council. The letter concurs with many of the points SEACC made in its August 26th letter to the Commission. The main point is that the latest in a series of Kensington Mine proposals is simply not consistent with the habitat standard of the JCMP. This program requires that one, there be a significant public need for the project, and two, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to meet the public need. The public need for this project has simply not been demonstrated. The mine as proposed would profit the few at the expense of the many. The mine might benefit Coeur and its shareholders but that would occur at an enormous cost to Southeast Alaskans who would no longer be able to enjoy the quality of monetary and non-monetary activities they have been able to enjoy in the past. To say that the mine would create some jobs in the short term and that it is borough policy to support mining begs the question as to whether it is in the overall public interest and therefore fulfills the standard of significant need. Second, even if a public need could be demonstrated, there is inadequate analysis in the borough staff memo or the Draft EIS as to whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative such as a dry tailings facility in a Slate Creek or other near by Berners Bay watershed.

Andrew Eller, Slip B-15, Douglas Harbor. He spent a good part of the day looking through the Allowable Use permit and applauded some of the recommendations that have been made to the Commission. One is to limit of the amount of traffic on the Glacier Highway by using commuter buses from a known spot. He also would applaud the recommendation of limiting boat traffic during the concentration of gorge fish during the springtime. Slate Cove is a pretty interesting spot and he has spent the last three seasons out there studying the eulachon run. He referred to the slides to show what he has seen out there. What feeds on all these fish is Sea Lions and whales and seals and people. He camped up on the Antler River and in one day, the local use of Antler River for fishing was 29 people. He was concerned about the amount traffic because Eulachon are known as skittery fish because if they get into an area and something changes, they often leave with that change. This has occurred up at the Chilkat River in Haines where fewer fish were caught after the highway was developed. He’s seen it also on the Columbia River. He said it was hard for him to make any recommendations to the Commission because he would not be offering the CBJ any cash, but he asked them to work with Coeur in further restricting the traffic in that springtime concentration. He also hoped they could take it slow with construction of the mine. He was also concerned with the use of the Cascade Point facility by Goldbelt and


he’s noticed that Goldbelt is permitting development of Cascade Point for tourist activities and again he did not know if it affected the CBJ because there is no mention of the volume of that. That includes bus traffic out the road, and there is no mention of the amount of marine traffic. In the Allowable Use permit it says the principal impacts to the users of Berners Bay from marine traffic are expected to be noise, wakes and an increased level of activity within the Bay. He would like to add the pollution factor to that list. He questioned the containment of human waste in portable toilets at either marine facility and he was not sure if the human waste was suppose to be disposed of in the bay from the boats. From his experience, he notices during high tide periods, you can see by the glacial color of water that it just gets pushed up right to the head of that Bay and he would assume that during those periods, any waste or pollutants would also get concentrated there. He felt that needed a little more study. Also the noise, in the state land lease permit, there was lighting which is covered in the Allowable Use permit, but he thought it was going to be powered by generators on site and he found no information regarding the decibels that that would create. Typically sounds on the water tend to go quite a bit further so that may be louder. He was concerned with the Lower Slate Lake tailing facility in that aluminum and removing that from the water as it sets. He thought the company had come up with a couple ways but you can tell it’s an issue because there’s talk of pumping the water back up to a treatment facility to remove what he thought was aluminum. His concern was that over the long term, if they dam is going to be there maybe 80-90 years, who is going to monitor those levels once the company is gone. He said he could see the need for the economics of the project but he felt the risks in developing this side of the Bay, at the scales proposed, would be harmful. He felt that sticking to the Lynn Canal side as originally proposed might be one of the better balances.

Mr. Kendziorek asked Mr. Freer, given the current Mining Ordinance, can they place any kind of conditions on this permit to protect the eulachon and the herring in that area. Mr. Freer said not that would be enforceable locally, but there are conditions recommended under the JCMP review that will be forwarded to the State of Alaska during the Alaska Coastal Management review of the project. It is possible that some licenses, permits and other activities will pick up some of these at the state level. He added Joe Donahue who is the project review supervisor for the State Coastal Management Program was in the audience and he was prepared to respond specifically to the interface between the JCMP and enforcement through the ACMP. Mr. Kendziorek asked that under the previous ordinance, would they have been able to condition it to protect those resources themselves. Mr. Freer said they might have had a louder voice with the resource agencies and trying to push that, but they would not have had the means to enforce it themselves. Kat Hall, testifying on behalf of SEACC. She had a testimony prepared, which focused largely on fuel handling and storage and she sees that Coeur has made an attempt to address the specific issues they had raised. She thanked them for this information. Full disclosure in a project like this is the goal. But she asked why did Coeur have to have these very basic yet important issues spelled out to it and why did it wait until just a few hours before a public hearing in which it hoped to obtain approval on its permit application before it answered these questions. Coeur claimed in its comments on the CBJ staff report that it is developing “the most socially and environmentally conscience project possible”. If this is the case, and if this project has been extensively studied as Mr. Richins has stated, then why did Coeur fail to answer these basic


questions on its own. In addition, this is a perfect example that demonstrates that Coeur’s plans keep changing. The draft EIS says that the launch ramp is not essential, but now we are hearing that it is. The public never really knows what is going on with this mine and is left extremely hard pressed to provide any kind of meaningful input. The citizens of Juneau deserve more than this and she asked if this was the kind of company they wanted to entrust Berners Bay’s incredible resource values and existing uses to. They hoped the Planning Commission would represent all the interest of the borough, not just those of the mining industry. She encouraged them to take a hard look at the application and see to it that public health, safety, and general welfare were protected in the review of this project.

Jay Crapella, Douglas resident. She has followed this issue as well as she could and tried to understand and be informed. She supports the positions of Friends of Berners Bay and of SEACC. She has Coeur's response to SEACC’s comments but she did not have the time to review it very well since it was only available right before this meeting. She would need to spend time reviewing it in order to feel comfortable with Coeur’s response. She has many concerns about the project and she said they know that herring no longer spawn in Auke Bay and she wonders if that will happen also in Berners Bay. She is a kayaker and she loves fish and she has a lot of concerns about the safety of boat traffic in Berners Bay and about fuel storage facilities. She drove out the road today to go kayaking and was pretty surprised at how many big holes were in the road. The road already needs maintenance and has not had it so she wonders if the road will receive the maintenance that it needs. John Hudson, 16445 Pt. Lena Loop Road, representing Friends of Berners Bay. There are many in the audience tonight and since 1985 they have been the voice for Berners Bay when various proposals have come up that they felt would threaten the place. They are a grass-roots organization and one of the member groups of SEACC and they are comprised of people who use Berners Bay and surrounding lands for various outdoor activities like hunting and fishing, boating and a variety of other things. Their members place tremendous value on Berners Bay because of its remarkable scenic beauty and solitude, its wild in character and ecological riches, its cultural resources and because the area is easy to access. They also appreciate the important economic contribution of Berners Bay to the local commercial fishing and guiding industries. They believe the Kensington project, in its current form, would adversely impact the natural character, solitude, environmental health of this productive ecosystem because of the preferred alternative effectively industrializes Berners Bay. There are many components of this mine that will influence the Bay and adversely impact this wonderful treasure that the members enjoy. Many of those issues are not the subject of tonight’s hearing on this Allowable Use permit. One that is is the subject of fuel handling and where fuel will be stored, how it will be taken from land and fueled for the marine transport vessels. Some of those issues have been brought to light by Mr. Richins, however, anytime you store fuel on land near a water body and have to put it into vessels, there invariably will be fuel spills. They may be small or large. Berners Bay is a remarkable place not because of the scenic beauty alone but because of the productive fish and wildlife populations and at the base of the food web, especially in the spring, are the eulachon and the herring that come there to spawn. In fact one of the last spawning populations of herring in Lynn Canal occurs in Berners Bay. This year it happened from near the Forest Service cabin all the way up to near the Cascade Point. Research conducted by the Auke Bay Lab related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown that hydrocarbon concentrations of only one part per


billion can cause severe deformities and mortality in herring and certainly could affect other fish in Berners Bay. It is hard to picture what one part per billion is but it is certainly much less than the state’s standard for hydrocarbon in marine waters. There’s great potential for loss of these fish populations in Berners Bay related to marine transport facilities at Cascade Point and Slate Cove and the refueling of vessels there.

Ed Fogels, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and Permitting. He heads up the state agency team that is involved in the state agency permitting activities for the Kensington Mine project. He wanted to explain the state’s role in permitting the Kensington Mine to date. He coordinates a team of agency representatives from various resource agencies, the Departments of Environmental Conservation, a bunch of experts from the Dept. of Natural Resources, Dept. of Law, Community and Economic Development and Fish and Game. Their job is to evaluate all the permits for the mine on the state side and weigh in, and also participate in the NEPA process and help with the development of the EIS. For the Kensington, they have been involved in all aspects of the project and they started by being plugged in to the EIS from the very beginning. They are also responsible for issuing all the state authorizations for the mine, including the two tidelands leases, one for Cascade Point and one for Slate Cove, they are issuing the draft permits for the road upgrades and restricting public access on the road to the mill site from the Slate Cove dock. They have two water rights that they are proposing to issue for the mine, they have fish habitat permits that are necessary for the Slate Lakes tailings facility and for other work in the anadromous waters. They are also responsible for issuing the 401 Certifications, which is how the DEC approves the Army Corp’s Wetlands Permits and the EPA’s Clean Water Discharge Permit. They are also responsible for the Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. Even though their permits may not be the major substantive permits, in most cases they do have a lot of avenues throughout their permitting process which they can affect the process and actually help mitigate some of the impacts that a project like this might generate. For the tideland leases, they all have stipulations for fueling and if they determine that an area like Cascade Point is a very sensitive area, with respect to fueling, which all signs are pointing that way, they can have stricter refueling stipulations in the tidelands lease and they may even be able to require monitoring of marine waters for hydrocarbon levels. That is a way that the state’s permitting authority can help mitigate some of these impacts. The Fish Passage Permits for the Lower Slate Lakes tailing impoundment is the states’ authorization that addresses how fish are to be handled during operations and after the mine closes, it is also the way they can specify that the Reclamation Plan must result in a productive lake after mine operations. The two DEC 401 Certifications, the one for the clean water discharge is the state’s way of agreeing that the EPA’s done a good job in issuing the NPDES permit for protecting the water quality and insuring that all the waters that leave the site meet state water quality standards. The 401 Certification for the wetlands permit is their way of assuring that the Army Corp of Engineers does a good job of evaluating the fill that goes into the Lower Slate Lakes to make sure that it is clean fill and meets the standards that are specified by federal law. Finally, one of the key things they will be doing, the DNR is responsible for the reclamation bond on private lands in the mine site area which are a fair number of them, a lot of the facilities will be on private lands so they will be working jointly with the Forest Service to ensure that there is a financial assurance package in place to make sure that if something happens during the life of the mine, that the agencies have the financial capability to go in and do all the reclamation work and clean the place up. Currently they are now evaluating public comments on all their state permits.


They have quite a few of them and their goal is to make their final decisions on whether to make their final decisions on whether to issue these permits concurrently with the finalization of the EIS, which right now is scheduled to be about November 19th.

Ms. Fowler asked what would happen to the bond if the company claims bankruptcy. Mr. Fogels said that was the purpose of the bond. It is so the agencies have a pot of money somewhere so that if the company does go bankrupt they have access to the monies to go in and do the reclamation. Ms. Fowler referred to his comments where he said they “can” make changes and she did not think that sounded very definite. She asked if they were going to make these requirements. Mr. Fogels said currently in the process they just finished a 45-day public comment period on all of their draft tideland leases decisions. They have a stack of comments and they are going through those and they will evaluate and probably change the authorizations to reflect comments and new additional information that they may have gathered.

Ms. Fowler said the staff reports talks about oil spill response equipment but there was nothing specified. She asked Mr. Fogels if his agency was going to require something of that nature. Mr. Fogels said their stipulations typically specify specific procedures for refueling and he thought there probably would be some stipulations in there about having a Spill Response Plan. He was not sure that his stipulations would get into that great of detail as that would be covered by DEC or EPA authorizations that are real specific to spills. They will just require that they have appropriate Spill Response Plans. Mr. Kendziorek said in the April 14th letter from the EPA, they go into great length about why they don’t care for this alternative and he asked how that squares with the decisions that are coming down the pike and based on Mr. Fogels’ discussions with the agencies, are the EPA recommendations going to be followed or are they simply more comments to be worked through. Mr. Fogels said the letter from the EPA brings up a lot of issues and they are all going back to revisit those issues. Some of the real significant issues that they bring up are the characterization of these tailings that go into Slate Lakes. The agencies are revisiting and looking at all the information and they will come up with a position, whether they agree or disagree, with the EPA’s recommendations in the letter and that will come out in the DEC 401 Certification. They spend a lot of time looking at the chemical characteristics of the tailings that are to go into that lake and up to this point, the state agencies are all pretty convinced that you can reclaim them and you can get that lake back to a productive state and water quality standards will be maintained. Jim Wilson, 2355 Ka-See-An Drive. He wanted to see the Commission support the staff’s report and their recommendations. He thought they had done an excellent job and that Coeur Alaska has done an excellent job. He felt they needed to get on with reopening the Berners Bay mines, mines that operated in the early 1900’s. The issue on the road getting out there: it’s important to remember that road was built for an industrial purpose back in the early 1970’s.

B R E A K 8:25 p.m. – 8:35 p.m.


Chris Wyatt, 12175 Glacier HWY. Executive Director for the Juneau Chamber of Commerce. The Juneau Chamber of Commerce endorses responsible, sustainable development to maintain Juneau’s high quality of life while advocating for economic vitality throughout Southeast Alaska. The Juneau Chamber Board, representing over 300 businesses in the CBJ has been a proponent of the Kens ington Gold Project for over a decade. Coeur has worked since 1987 to develop the best environmental project at Kensington. They have listened to the residents of Juneau, Haines, and other local communities and they have downsized the project to make it simpler and better. Coeur has been a responsible operator, community participant and environmental protector. Federal, state and local agencies will continue to monitor the project even after the permits have been issued, using strict regulatory procedures, assuring environmentally and economically viable practices. The Chamber Board supports Coeur’s application for an allowable use permit for a gold mine development and production within the rural mining district of Berners Bay and urges the Commission to issue the permit. Mr. Kendziorek asked who was on the Chamber board and Ms. Wyatt said they had 15 board members. Mr. Kendziorek asked if Commissioner Scholz was still on that board. Ms. Wyatt said he is on the board and he abstained with anything having to do with the Kensington Project.

Bill Leighty, 227 Gastineau Avenue, former member of the Juneau Energy Advisory Committee. He felt that something important had changed in the decade or so of the permitting process for this mining project which was extremely important and had not been apprehended or even paid any attention to in the permitting process and that is the increasing recognition of the danger and importance of increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. The most important is probably CO2, which is the result of burning fossil fuels in all of our civilized operations. The staff report is silent about energy and greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere. The last time he saw a number associated with the mining project was couple of designs ago when the annual fuel consumption was expected to be about 3 million gallons for the mining operations alone. In addition there would be fossil fuel consumption for the support activities. The only clue in the staff report is there’s a 3.5-megawatt diesel electric generator which if it operated at 85% capacity over a years time would burn about 2.7 million gallons. Each gallon of fossil fuel that is burned puts about 20 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Over that 10 years, the importance is increasingly recognized indicated by a couple of things, obvious is the changing climate that we all experienced in Juneau over the past 20 years. Second Scientific American had a report about a month ago called Hot Times in Alaska about the State of Alaska literally thawing. August 16th Business Week has a lead article called Global Warming, Why Business is taking it so Seriously. Consensus is growing among scientists, governments and business that they must act fast to combat climate change. This has already sparked efforts to limit CO2 emissions and many companies are now preparing for a carbon-constrained world. The Commission’s responsibility is to ask Coeur how they are preparing for a carbon-constrained world and to consider adding a condition to the Conditional Use permit that the mining operations be powered by renewable source electricity rather than fossil fuel generated electricity. This can be accomplished in two ways. One is to extend an overhead electric line and submarine cable or a combination of the two from AEL&P’s grid to the mining operation so it could operate off supplying a new load for the Lake Dorothy hydro plant. Another possibility was proposed by and Anchorage fellow about five or six years ago and that was to put a hydro plant near the mine and supply the mine with hydropower. He thinks that


fell through for a number of reasons and perhaps the mining company was just not interested in that complication because there is no incentive for them in the permitting process to have anything to do with accommodating the problem of increased greenhouse gases emitted into earth’s atmosphere. In addition to CO2 there is also the problem of oxides of nitrogen, which are generated when ANFO is used as an explosive. The nitrogen is oxidized and some of the oxides of nitrogen are even more potent greenhouse gases than the CO2. He said the Commission may not have a means within the conditions they are dealing with to add another condition to this mining operation so he suggested they defer their decision until they have more information. Secondly, they need to pay attention to the energy policies in the Comprehensive Plan. There are about six policies right in the Plan that have been there since 1996 which could well apply and could be the rational for the Commission to apply a new condition to the Conditional Use permit. Failing that, if this project goes forward as permitted, he proposed the following scenario that would be unfavorable and would cause us to regret that we hadn’t acted today. If Russia ratifies the Keota Protocol in ’04, then it goes into force. The 125 signatory nations who have ratified suddenly are required to reduce their CO2 emissions and bare the cost of doing that. That will increase pressure on this country to do the same. If forced to make a decision to invoke some sort of rationing or allocation scheme, gold mining might be at the top of the list and industrial cruise ship tourism might be number two or three on the list to be cut. He offered to send his comments and the article he referred to anyone who was interested.

Mr. Kendziorek asked him to forward both those to CDD. He asked Mr. Freer, given that this was an Allowable Use rather than a Conditional Use, was there any power within the current ordinance that would allow the Commission to place any kind of condition such as Mr. Leighty has discussed. Mr. Freer said there was a provision that say “compliant with other sections of this code” but he was not aware, and would take a closer look, for any code requirements. There is a series of Comprehensive Plan policies that deal with energy use in public buildings and residential construction and so on, but nothing that enforces those, to his knowledge, in the code. Wayne Bertholl, 9359 Miner Drive. He spoke in support of Coeur Alaska’s well-engineered mining plan for the Kensington Gold project. He requested that the Commission use reasonable, acceptable regulatory control where it is deemed necessary. They have the opportunity for a resource to be extracted, processed, and exported to the world markets. If this operation has excessive regulating responsibilities, it will add to the operating costs and it will not allow this operator to meet delivered product competitive cost per unit. All businesses require some kind of return on investment, it is a real basic part of doing business in the private sector of all industries. They expect that Coeur has made well-engineered plans to work within reasonable cost requirements by this body, it is part of their work plan and he thought they had done their homework well. He challenged the group to use their recommendations wisely and not to instigate questionable layers of oversight or regulatory cost layering. A lot of people work in the service area but if you look at all of Southeast, you can’t survive only on services. There is not enough work to go around, so we need industry and we need to find a way to work with people who want to provide industry opportunities. City, state and federal government agencies do not provide a value added product that is packaged and exported. Private industry does that. Government needs to find a way to work with the industries. When you are trying to be in the private sector, you basically have to import the material, you process it, and then you


try to export it to the world markets. Our local brewery has to import some of their stuff before they can begin. Green’s Creek mine extracts a resource, they process it and they then export it. This is a similar operation but it can also reach a point that it is cost prohibitive. He urged the Commission to do their own unbiased studying, and make their own decisions and make them wisely.

Duff Mitchell, 3274 Pioneer Avenue. Representing Kake Tribal Corporation. He said he is also a member of the Berners Bay Consortium, which is an organization that is in concert with Klukwan, Goldbelt, Kake Tribal Corporation and Coeur Mines. The Consortium was formed January 1995 so it is almost 10 years in the making. They support the Coeur proposal and they ask for immediate approval of their CBJ Allowable Use permit. They feel it meets all the prudent reasonable feasible standards and the local environmental needs. He thought they had done a good job and said it has not been rash; it has been years in the making. The mine will create local jobs and as a representative of a native corporation he is kind of offended by some of the comments where 80% of the people will be non- locals hired. They have been working with Coeur and it has been stated all along that 25% of the jobs will be Native hires. They support the Cascade Point location of the dock because they feel that Echo Cove is a mixed use and a lot of people are in there. It would be overwhelming and it would create dredging which would also hurt the environment more if it was put into Echo Cove. They also support the Slate Cove dock. He said he has crabbed there for a number of years and he knows when a breakwater gets put in sometimes it creates better crab grounds. They are not putting in a big footprint. With regard to the eulachon and the herring, he said he grew up here in Juneau and the number one contributing reason why there are no herring in Auke Bay is because they were fished out. He remembers as a kid seeing people with buckets pulling them up and you can only do that so many times. It is disingenuous to say that a little bit of traffic here and there is going to create the herring to disappear when it has been documented that a large reason he rring don’t exist in certain areas is due to over fishing. They also feel that the mine has a regional impact and not just for Juneau. Kake had a population close to 800; it is now running about 500 and he was sure as soon as the PFD comes out, there would probably be another 100 people moving out. There are no jobs there. Other small native communities outside of Juneau are not blessed with a robust economy like Juneau and the unemployment factor is profound. Coeur, through the BBC Human Resources Consortium is looking to promote, train and hire people so that they can potentially work and commute. Those people will have to take planes or boats to come to Juneau and so there is the filtering effect that the mine spins off outside of the mining industry into the service industry.

Neil MacKinnon, 1114 Glacier Avenue. President of Hyak Mining Company which is the underlying land owner on the Jualin side of the Kensington Project and where most of the facilities will be sited. The industrialization of Berners Bay began 113 years ago. At one time there were over 300 people living and working at the Jualin Mine. There was a mine just to the north, a mine to the south. There was the Kensington, with as many people working on that side. There was a lumber mill at Sawmill Creek and there were extensive operations. There was even a sultry over on the west side of Slate Cove. Activity continued well into the 50’s and then the area went dormant along with a lot of mineral prospecting in the region. It began again in the 70’s, which started the new phase of mineral exploration of which Coeur is part of and one of the main players in. To say that it is pristine wilderness kind of brings the point that you can have


mining and industrialization in Berners Bay and yet you can still have your wilderness because it comes right back. Twenty years after the mine is gone, no one will know the difference. As to the staff report there were a couple of things that he found most reasonable and well thought out. He did have a couple points though. With regard to boat wakes, how would they determine which boat rocked the kayak, whether it was the fast ferry going by, the Kensington crew boat, or the guy in the 42-foot Tolly Craft that is doing 12 knots right down the middle coming out of Echo Cove. It is common courtesy and that is where the problem is going to lie, trying to make people be courteous. The mine itself and the operators will be courteous because that is part of their business. They don’t want people screaming at them because the first kayaker that gets rocked in his boat is going to be yelling at the mine, even if it was the guy in the 42-foot Tolly Craft or maybe the Allen Marine boat on their annual Audubon cruise to see the eulachon spawn. In addition, watering rock for dust is crazy. Rock is not dust, rock is rock. If the situation does create dust then it needs to be watered to hold it down. If it is not an operating pit and you are driving over it then why worry about it. The alder come back real fast, three to four years and they will be taking over. The other point was that staff does not want a Cat to unload equipment. Rubber tired equipment to unload freight will be okay 99% of the time but there will be occasions when it will take a Cat probably pulling a tractor trailer or forklift to move items. Making it a prohibition would make it onerous. With regard to question on Snowslide Gulch, the reason Snowslide Gulch is called that is because there’s a gulch there. The reason there is a gulch there is because there is a change of rock type from slate into the hard crystal diorites. It has eroded along that contact. It is very steep and it builds snowslides. He has never yet seen a big snowslide there. A lot of little tiny ones come continuously traveling down that bank. In wintertime with a buried pipeline it will be no problem. It is nothing like you see down here at Thane. Someone asked about economic benefits and he said if you study a mine and you study it through the first layer of distribution of capital, of the wealth that is created by pulling it out of the ground, 1/3 will end up in the hands of capital, in this case Coeur, the company that puts up that money to make the mine, 1/3 goes into the hands of labor, and 1/3 will end up in the hands of government. The government gets to split it three ways, state, federal, and local. So out of a million ounces at $400 an ounce, they are looking at $130 million that will come through government. Every mine he has ever studied has come out this way.

Myrna Gardner, 4524 Kanata Street. She was not representing the mining industry or environmentalist groups. She is an Alaska Native, she was born and raised in this state and her family has ties back here for over 10,000 years. She lives here and she knows people here and she has friends and associates here and what she sees is a dying state. There is no timber, we can’t cut the trees, we can’t mine, we can’t fish, we all have to open up our doors, run the cruise ships, run the helicopters, run the charter boats, run every industry possible from May 1st to September 30th and then we are supposed to close our doors. She finds that very distressing and she trusts that as the Planning Commission they will do their diligence and that their public interest and respect will be to the Juneau people, the people who live here year round and want jobs, who want self respect, who want dignity, who want to be able to go to the bank and say I would like to buy a home and not hear the bank says you don’t have a year round job so how are you going to afford that. Kensington Mine is going to bring jobs. It is going to bring an alternative industry into this community. It will impact Southeast Alaska, the secondary and third financial impact effect. A new dollar will change hands five times. The people and friends we know can buy gas and fuel and can buy groceries. They don’t have to go to the


unemployment lines or public assistance. She has heard tonight that Coeur is a financially stable company, that we have done over 900 studies on this, DEC, EPA, DNR, USCG, DCED, all federal, state, local regulations, they all will make sure that this mine is operated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws. She would not presume to come here and say that these people are not competent in their field, that when they make recommendations and they say that they will insure that this company complies with the laws, that they wouldn’t. She would never presume that and be that ignorant and say that to these people. She has to trust in their competence, she has to trust in their capabilities and that they have done their diligence when they make their reports. She has to trust that the Commission has read all the reports and done their diligence and that your interests are to this community and to the people who live here. She also listened to the people talk about the eulachon and the herring. She owns a herring roe and kelp permit, which is a commercial fishery. Her brother, dad, uncles, cousins, and son each own one. Herring are a spook fish but they spawn wherever they want to and they repeat. Craig, Alaska didn’t have a herring spawn for the last 15 years but last year they had the largest spawn they have had in decades. They do move, all fish move, everything moves. We don’t want to move, we want to live here. We want to have jobs. She wants to have her friends have jobs and she does not want them in the unemployment lines. She wants them to have self-respect, dignity and pride. She has listened to testimony about public need and she said Alaska has 950 million acres, hundreds of thousands of river, streams and bays. The bay they are talking about, the adjacent properties, belong to the native corporations. Do you land on these, do you encroach on people’s property, do you disturb their land? She does not know these things but when she sits here and listens to people talk about being in the bays and going in the areas of somebody’s private land she wonders if they asked permission. Her responsibility was to come here to say she is a resident, she a citizen of the state, she will be here after September 30th and she would like the Commission to support this industry and help get people off unemployment and get them year round jobs.

Mark Crutchfield, 1751 Anka Street, Business Manager for Local 1501, Alaska Millwrights and Machine Erectors. Coeur is committed to local hire and they are committed to native hire first, Alaskan hire second. Talking about public need and the creation of jobs, talk about a future for our community, our children, that is the most important thing. There can be a balance between development and conservation. They do have the technology and the ability to do both. He supports the permit process for Coeur Alaska. Jim Strassburg, Clam Cove on Gravena Island near Ketchikan, Director organizing for the Alaska Regional Council of Carpenters. He said all they have to do to look at the effects of over regulation is to look at the community of Ketchikan. It has been turned into a ghost town because they have not been allowed to use the natural resources that are in their midst. When you live in a rain forest you can’t cut trees and you can’t mine, it looks like the only thing you left is tourism. Their families can’t really make a living on tourism in Alaska. It started out as a situation that looked like it would be pretty good but it has developed into a situation where it’s a lot of jobs that pay $7-10 an hour. They are good jobs for college kids to come up here in the summer time, leave in the wintertime, taking the money with them. When we first started getting involved as a union, or as labor, they got involved and started looking at mineral development and started to realize that mineral development in Alaska was probably the next place that Alaska can sell her natural resources to the world market. He did not think there was


any doubt that the industry has the capability to extract the minerals from the land and leave the land in as good of shape as it was when they started. It may take a few years but the alders are going to grow back, especially in Southeast Alaska. The way things grow here in a temperate rain forest, it is really ludicrous not to be able to use our natural resources. He said the members of the union that live and work in Juneau support the development of the Kensington Mine.

Teresa Germain, 3930 N. Douglas Highway. Born and raised here, so she has seen the development that has taken place in Juneau and she knows that tourism is a large industry right now, but she works for Tlingit and Haida Central Council and she works with people every single day that do not have jobs. They are in the business of providing training opportunities for their tribal members. They are taking jobs for $7-8 an hour, part-time jobs that do not offer retirement or medical benefits. A development of Coeur would offer jobs not only their tribal members, but all the residents of Juneau, if they want to work in the mine, plus all the other service industries that are going to be increasing in business because of the things that Coeur will be doing. Everything will have a domino effect in it. She is Alaska Native and also a Goldbelt shareholder and she goes out to Echo Cove and this coming weekend there are going to be 300-400 people out there camping, running their ATVs, destroying the land, with no concern about the landowners themselves. They don’t pay us to use that property. She did not know that there were mining operations out there before. Nothing shows that there has been a mine up there operating before. It is up to the Commission, the state and the federal government agencies to make sure that these business developments, these industries, do the right thing. The regulations are in place to make sure health and safety issues are being met and that there is water quality control. We are here to either show support or not show support for the industry. She thought everyone here had jobs but there are people who are on welfare and with the federal government changes and the 60-month limit for their benefits, every single day they have families that reach that limit and they have no financial support whatsoever. They need to create jobs and do something that will give them that self- respect and the money that they can survive on. It will give them money to put clothes on their kids’ back. Not allowing this permit to go through will close those opportunities down to everyone of those families that need these job opportunities. She said they were willing to work and provide their monies to train those people. They have made a commitment to do that because they know it is important to their future. It is not the kayakers that are at stake right now. We go out there, we fish the herring, eat those herring and survive on that food. It is the Commission’s responsibility to make sure that everything does remain intact. Before the non-natives arrived in this country, in this land, it was pristine. They did not have regulations back then to keep non-natives from coming, yet you are here. We have trusted you to live with us, to help us. We can work and live together but when you are going to listen to a hand full of 29 people that want to go out kayaking, verses 500 people that need jobs, just in one community, not addressing Angoon that has 80% unemployment, Kake, probably 70% unemployment, all of the other smaller communities. Coeur has made a commitment to work with those villages and to provide people jobs. You have allowed Greens Creek to exist and there are people coming in from Missouri who work for two weeks, get on the plane, fly back down to Missouri and take that money with them back to that state. It is not coming here. If you are going to allow Greens Creek to do that, then allow Coeur to do the same thing, but this time it will be our people in those villages that will commute back and forth. They will then be able to survive and provide for their children. Denying this permit will deny the future of this community and this region an opportunity that may not ever come back again.


Michael Satre, 8832 Gail Avenue, representing the Juneau Branch of the Alaska Miners Association. They are a statewide membership organization that supports miners, mining and mineral resource development here in the State of Alaska. The Juneau Branch of the AMA. strongly concurs with the findings that the Kensington Project will comply with the applicable elements of the CBJ Code. They also believe that the conditions of approval that have been stipulated will make the Kensington Mine a safer and more efficient project. They would however ask that the Commission give the applicant due consideration for the minor changes to these conditions that were proposed earlier this evening. The Juneau Branch of the AMA has watched Coeur Alaska over the years as they have worked with due diligence to deliver a project that is economic, permitable, and most importantly benefits the community of Juneau. They strongly agree with the concept that there is significant public need for this project as it will diversify our economy and strengthen our community. They ask that the Commission issue the permit without delay.

Michael Allison, 8533 E. Valley Court. One of the benefits to having these meetings is to allow each one of us as we look at this project as individuals, to measure our own thoughts and feelings against those of others. Each of us has our own opinion and feeling about whether or not we are going to kayak or fish or whatever. Coming here he had the idea that he was for the project and after listening to everybody he still feels that way. He believes that the whole alphabet soup of EPA, DEC and the host of others and their oversight make someone like Coeur do what they are suppose to do to make sure that they are environmentally sound. He views this body as looking at it more from a socioeconomic view than from the environmental view because he feels they get sufficient scrutiny from those other bodies to cover that base. He thought it was interesting that because somebody goes into Berners Bay, in this case Coeur, that we automatically assume that that area is toast, we can never go back to it an it will be gone for years. He thought that was an incorrect assumption. The pipeline has proven that there can be industry and it can be done environmentally safe and we can coexist. They keep talking jobs, and his concern was that the term “capital creep” continues to go on, the capital slowly moves to Anchorage whether we like it not, position by position and we continue to find ourselves relying solely on either government or eventually it is going to be the tourism industry. He thought the Assembly and many in the community would like to see diversity. We talk diversity but quite often let, what he considers to be a minority, shoot it down for various reasons. He sees this as an opportunity to diversify and he has every reason to believe that Coeur will do it as an environmentally conscious neighbor. He encouraged the Commission to allow them to have the permit and move forward.

Nancy Waterman, 227 Gastineau Avenue. The Planning Commission and the CDD Director should wait to issue an Allowable Use permit until the US Forest Service has identified its preferred alternative when the Record of Decision for the project is issued on November 19th, 2004. The transportation needs of Alternative A are considerably different than those of Alternative B. Additionally, she suggested that a condition of this Allowable Use permit include the requirement of a new Allowable Use permit if the mine life is extended, or a new or Supplemental EIS is required for additional tailing storage capacity or other changes in operation, rather than using a summary approval of the director. This is a dynamic project, it tremendously affects a community of creatures other than ourselves, a habitat that is very


valuable and also public and private development. She asked staff and the Commission to discuss the need for another go around if there are changes in the project. Dennis Watson, 9333 Northland, resident since 1992 who has had an opportunity to operate large businesses and small businesses here in Juneau since that time. When you are interviewing people for jobs you are also listening for key statements to make the decision so he wanted to say he was very strongly in favor of development of the mine as presented. He has the faith in the Commission that they will make the responsible decision. He came here tonight with certain expectations, one of them being that there would be a decision made this evening. He firmly believed that each Commission came here tonight with a position in mind and perhaps with the information received tonight, they will change their mind one way or another. Deferring this to a later date, he does not see where any wiser decision would be made. The technical information has been produced by the various government agencies and has been more than responsive enough to address all the issues. The impact that this organization will have in the Juneau area and in Southeast Alaska is very much needed. This is a fragile economic community and it doesn’t take much for state government to downsize just ever so slightly and guess what happens, every employer in town gets worried. Federal government is the same way. They are the largest employers in this area. The tourism industry, if you want to work seven days a week, 14 hours a day, you can make a living, you just don’t have a life. He felt it was important for the Commission to stay focused on the issues and that the economic issues were part of their decision. He heard a comment about regulating traffic in Berners Bay and thought if they go into that arena they would be leaving themselves open for further challenges. Greater Auke Bay requires much more supervision than it is getting today. His expectations is that there will be a decision made and that the Commission will make the wise one and will focus on the issues that they have the responsibility to give that opinion on.

Andrea Doll, 12175 Glacier Highway, representing herself and not anyone else or any other organization. She comes from different kinds of background and one of them is real estate. She is a great believer in a strong economy and an established community. She recently had an opportunity to go to Boston and she had a badge on saying where she was from and as she would walk down the street, people would ask where she was from. When she said she was from Alaska they would stop dead in their tracks and they would get a dreamy look in their eyes and then they would follow her around and talk with her and let her know they would like to come to Alaska. Before she ever came to Alaska, Berners Bay had sort of a mythic reputation. She heard about it before she even came. When she thinks about these people in Boston and New York and Cleveland and Detroit and how they stop dead in their tracks and they think about places like Berners Bay, they pay a great deal of money to come to places like this. They pay it this year, and next year, and the years after that and every single year goes by and there is less and less, fewer and fewer places to visit in the world, they pay more and more to get there and to have that experience. She appreciates jobs but she wanted to let them know that Berners Bay is a gem and it is known throughout the world and she thought it should be protected.

Dave Goade, 2412 Ka-See-An, Executive Vice President for Goldbelt Inc., Juneau’s Urban Native Corporation with 3,400 Alaska Native shareholders. It is no secret that they have been in support of the Kensington mine project for quite some time. He thanked staff for being objective in this issue and through this process. It appears in his reading of the permit that they have done


a pretty good job of being objective and they wound up with a set of conditions that are workable and reasonable and tie in directly to impacts that the Allowable Use permit is suppose to be making. They are suppose to tie these impacts with ways to mitigate, minimize or avoid certain things are addressed in the Allowable Use permit and fashion the conditions to take care of these things. Goldbelt is also working closely with Coeur on making sure that their transportation system works and that includes the busing. Goldbelt has buses and they have long proposed that it makes sense to bus worker, especially to this site. Their development at Cascade Point has taken that into account. That is not part of this permit but is a separate permit that the Commission will see next month as the Conditional Use permit for the dock at Cascade Point where they tie in and can provide miner employee transportation. On the commuter transportation and using buses to mitigate and minimize the amount of vehicle traffic along Glacier Highway, it will work every day, week, and year. It is not a complicated thing to do and it will not be a problem. He said he heard a comment earlier that he found disturbing. He understands there are a lot of strong feelings whether a person is for or not for the mine development and feelings about Berners Bay. He has been working for Goldbelt for over eight years and before that he worked for CBJ in the CDD, for over 12 years. He has had a chance to work very closely with Coeur on many different projects and aspects of the mine project and he has always found them to be very forth coming. He thought there was a comment earlier that they were somehow deceitful about presenting information and he thought there was plenty of information. Sometimes questions come up late, sometimes information comes in, and it may not come in when you want it but it comes in maybe the day of the meeting. At least information is presented and when he was working at the city sometimes he asked questions right at the last minute as something came up and the applicant had to scramble to produce the information, but they did it. He felt that was what was going on in this case. He has always found Coeur and Rich Richins to be very forthcoming, very professional and they always answered his questions.

Tim Strand, 9089 Ninnis Drive. Listening to the comments, it seems tonight’s decision should not be pro-mining or anti-mining. The question here is the access to the mine. When you look at Alternative A versus Alternative B or some of the other alternatives, he couldn’t help but think they could meld several alternatives together and come up with an idea that not only preserves the mining but all the construction jobs and long-term mining jobs. He does not have a problem with mining. Protection of Berners Bay for subsistence fishing for future generations is really incredibly important. People come to Alaska because of the wildlife from a tourist’s point of view. When you just look at the typography of this area, he did not think that it had to be looked at as a yes or no, a win or lose, he thought that if the Commission would go back and say can we spend a little more time, can we wait for the Forest Service recommendation, can we some how rethink access to the mine in a way that will preserve Berners Bay for future generations and also for the people currently who really love and use Berners Bay. He thought there may be a better solution, not necessarily yea or nay, he thought the mining can develop and go on and he thinks taking another look and really thinking about it, it may be a few months and time well spent.

Susan Schrader, member of the West Mendenhall Neighborhood Association. She wanted to confirm that the Commissioner’s did have access to a email message from one of their members on behalf of the whole Neighborhood Association requesting that the Commission do take a careful look at the helicopter flight path. She thought she heard Mr. Freer say the flight path was dealt with in the 1992 EIS. That was 12 years ago and there has been considerable more


helicopter flight seeing traffic over the West Mendenhall Neighborhood and there is also more people living in the west part of the Valley. Mr. Richins noted that helicopters would not be significant use but her understanding was that they would be used primarily during construction and according to the staff memo, that might include anywhere from 12-14 roundtrips per month, 24-28 overhead flights. That is not a whole lot, not when they are being inundated right now with close to probably 16,000 flights, but the point being is there is a very good option, a very reasonable option and that would be to fly out west over Auke Bay and up Lynn Canal, that would avoid the residential area and would avoid additional impacts to recreation areas and Windfall Lake. When you live under the flight path, every little helicopter makes a difference and if they can give the West Mendenhall Valley neighbors a little bit of respite by at least cutting back on a small amount of helicopter noise, they would be very appreciative.

Rich Richins, applicant, came forward again to respond. He wanted to run through the notes he made while listening to the testimony. Point one involved the bond and he thought the DNR representative gave a good accurate definition of the bonding process. It involves both the Forest Service and DNR. In this case Coeur is proposing to do an insurance-backed bond so there is actually a bond amount that is based on the real or actual cost estimate of doing the work that has to be agreed to by both the Forest Service and DNR, but in addition to that, their projects all involve two more phases. One of those is an insurance policy that addresses any unforeseen environmental episode that could potentially evolve during the course of the project and the other aspect of their bonding package is a concurrent fund. That is to say there is actually a pot of money that they can dip into and do concurrent reclamation as the project evolves. There was another comment made about Alternative A, the permitted project and the whole transportation route that is involved with Alternative A. He said they originally permitted a project back in 1992 that also involved Comet Beach access and at that time there were major issues involved with Cyanide and the mixing zone. They redesigned the project to eliminate both of those components and as a result of that they got good support from the commercial fishing industry. More recently here, when they came up with the new proposal for Slate Lake, they actually, during the draft EIS public comment, received letters from four commercial fishing industries as well as a commercial crabbing group in support of using the Berners Bay routing in terms of transportation. They were very positive about the fact that they moved the transportation out of the commercial fishing area in front of Comet Beach. There was also a comment about aluminum and water treatment and he wanted to make it clear that the aluminum that exists in Slate Lake is naturally occurring aluminum. There has been no previous mining activity in that drainage and that aluminum conditions essentially exists in nature itself. They are working with DEC to develop site-specific criteria to address that situation and there are state regulations that allow them to do that. In the event that they cannot come up with a site-specific criteria that satisfies the state, they have also provided them with a contingency plan whereby they would provide additional water treatment. Even the state is shaking their head in this case because it is a very unusual situation because you would have to treat what already exists and make it better before you could use that drainage as a mining area. There was also a question about boat wastewater and how they would handle that. Coeur has a policy and he knew DEC also had a regulation that would require the boats to transport any human waste to an approved facility for disposal. There was also a comment about the EIS and the proposal that involves eliminating the ramp. There was some sort of implied situation there where the company, he thought the fact of that whole situation was that there’s an Alternative C in the EIS that involves elimination of the


ramp. That is not an alternative that the company designed but rather an alternative that the EIS contractor came up with to literally be able to display additional alternatives. There was a comment about fueling and they have been very forward and forthcoming in terms of their proposal for fueling at Slate Creek Cove. They also presented that alternative to the Wetland Advisory Committee about a month ago so he was sure they were fully aware of Coeur’s proposal and they considered that in their recommendations to the Commission. There was a comment about monitoring and how Berners Bay would be monitored. The company has worked with NMFS, the Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife service and they are funding a cooperative monitoring program which involves both herring spawning, water quality, and petroleum residue monitoring and that program will provide the environmental baseline for measuring any impact to the project going forward and where they do see any measurable impact, that will provide them the opportunity to put into place additional mitigation. There was a question about spill response equipment and a Spill Response Plan. They do have a plan that is a policy within the company. All of their operations have Spill Contingency Plans and as part of those Plans they go through a program every year where they update their training, provide additional equipment, and replace the equipment that was used if there were spill situations. From an energy perspective, they have downsized the project and in the materials that he provided he has shown where the original permitted project was estimated to use about 6.5 million gallons annually. The new project will use about 2.7 million gallons. Finally to summarize, they appreciate the opportunity to come before the Commission this evening. They have worked very hard to make the project better and he himself has worked on this project since 1987. There are a lot of people in the industry that say he has made a career of it but he did not do that on purpose. The project had gone through a number of revisions and he can honestly say it is the best project that he has been involved with.

Ms. McConnochie referred to comments about waiting until November 19th and she asked Mr. Richins how he felt about that. Mr. Richin said they were very anxious to have this permit decided. They feel comfortable that the project they proposed, that the Forest Service and other agencies are considering will be selected. They have no indication that there are any flaws that would cause it not to happen. Mr. Kendziorek said he was concerned with the economic impacts. He referred to the time when Green’s Creek had to shut down when the price of silver was down. They shut down quite quickly and there was a pretty major economic impact to this town because suddenly these people had no jobs. He was worried about the boom and bust nature of this particular project and he asked what would happen on year 11 when this mine goes dark. Mr. Richen said what they have tried to do is design a project that will sustain itself in an environment that does involve certain price fluctuations. They have tried to make it smaller, more compact and more manageable. They have less people that will be employed by the project than the original proposal in 1998 that was approved. On the front end they have a construction period that would involve 16-18 months. If the project were to conclude at year 10 there would be another three to four years of reclamation, which is a scaled down employment opportunity but never the less, an employment opportunity. They have tried to control everything within their power and they feel comfortable that this project will accomplish that.


Mr. Kendziorek asked again what would be the economic impact to this town when they shut down. Mr. Richins said it was similar to any other business. They will go out and aggressively try and extend the mine life. They have never said that they are not going to. They have said that the current mine plan is a 10 year mine plan. Mr. Dybdahl said given that the Cascade Point Project is not before the Commission until the 14th, asking the Planning Commission to look at what has been presented to date, making an assumption that that project did not get approved, how would the workers get to the mine. Mr. Richins said they were certainly betting that Cascade Point would be approved. He could not say they have contingency plans lined up in the event it is not. It is extremely important that that permit be approved. Mr. Dybdahl said the reason he asked the questions was because even though they have received advise from council tonight that the two may not be tied together, there could be a real risk to the company’s project if the Planning Commission were to approve it and then it was challenged. If there was any doubt at all that the two could and should be tied together, and they could be accused of phasing, then that would be detrimental to the project and may be well worth the wait for however many weeks it is until that project is addressed.

Mr. Richins said his attorney’s have taken a similar look at the situation and they believe they are in good standing so they are anxious to get their permit and to see Goldbelt get their permit, in that order. Mr. Bavard said the helicopter issue was a big issue back in 1998 and he could not remember how they arrived at the flight path. He asked if the FAA was the regulatory agency on the flight paths or where does the city stand as far as making a condition to actually tell the helicopter pilots or FAA where they want this flight path to be. Mr. Freer said he spoke with someone at FAA and the primary reason was given as a safety reason for flying over land as opposed to flying over water. Mr. Bavard remembered talking about it quite a bit last time and he thought it was a regulatory agency that came up with the flight path, not the Commission. Commission Action: Mr. Bavard said he thought they needed to hear from council, and council has spoken on the issue and it does not appear that phasing is an issue as far as her research has done. The applicant has said that their attorneys have looked into it also. Ms. Boggs clarified that she did not think it was phasing and she thought the Commission’s decision tonight would be defensible. She did recommend waiting as a precaution in case she is wrong or in case a court decided she was wrong. She said she was not the ultimate arbiter of this. Mr. Dybdahl said the last time around they all believed they were not phasing either and it was proved otherwise and that project never went anywhere. He only wanted to bring it up because it was a real risk and he thought with the Cascade Point dock project coming up the 14th, prudence would suggest that maybe they continue this item until sometime after that date.


Mr. Bruce said it seemed to him they were talking about two weeks and if the Cascade Point project is approved, the issue is moot as to whether or not there was phasing in this project as a practical matter because the necessary permit would then be in place. He guessed there was risk but the applicant has indicated that it is willing to take that risk.

Mr. Kendziorek thought there was a very real risk of phasing and not just in terms of the Cascade Point part of it. The biggest problem for him was several fold but it boiled down to one thing, that this application is incomplete. It is incomplete because as Mr. Richins just said, “they will try aggressively to extend the life of the project.” In a meeting they had back in April they talked a bit about extending it and potentially they talked about plans to use Upper Slate Lake as another tailings disposal area. The whole survivorship of Lower Slate Lake and the restoration is dependant on the survivorship of Upper Slate Lake to recolonize Lower Slate Lake through both invertebrates and the fish that are in Upper Slate Lake. He did not think it was possible to evaluate this project adequately on a 10-year mine life because he thought all the data indicates that it’s much longer. It all comes down to betting on the outcome, the greatest probability to him appears that this is not a 10-year mine but a 15 plus year mine. The previous applications all had significantly more mining involved than they have now. The phasing happens because the second phase and other phase of this is what happens after they come back for their revised mining plan for the next five years or the next 10 years after this permit expires. He thought this application was incomplete because they are not looking at the full plan, they are not looking at what happens to Lower Slate Lake if they have to use Upper Slate Lake, they don’t even know where the parking lot is. He thought the project should stop right here, right now. Mr. Bruce said that Green’s Creek’s project has grown over the years and no one has raised a phasing issue there. It has undergone subsequent environmental review with each expansion of the growth so he did not find a lot of merit in Mr. Kendziorek’s argument that this would be phasing since they are hypothetically talking about the project expanding in 10 years. The permit they have in front of them is very well defined.

MOTION – by Bavard, to approve MIN2004-00003, accept staff’s findings, analysis and recommendations and add the two items that Couer has requested, namely the hourly issue for the workers on the commuting and also on the water treatment on the dry water days of watering for dust, page 2 on their letter of August 30, 2004. Mr. Kendziorek said there were a few places where he would like to see the conditions strengthened. On page 17, condition 4, he recommended that the condition say the applicant shall institute a company policy that “requires” hourly employees to utilize the bus commute on a daily basis. He would also like to see on page 24, condition 1, rather than say the company policy should forbid the use of “jake” brakes, that it “must” forbid . . . except in emergencies. On number 2 of the same page, where it says only rubber-tired machinery should be used, he thought it should read only rubber-tired machinery “may” be used to load and off load freight.

Mr. Bavard accepted the first two changes but asked for discussion on the rubber tire item. He said there was a possibility that there may be something else may be needed for some unknown reason. He thought the rubber tire intent was there, which he thought was good, but to preclude something that may arise for a short period of time, he saw that as a problem.


Mr. Bruce suggested that in the event that the use of track machinery is necessary, the applicant shall mitigate the impact of the use of said equipment. Mr. Kendziorek agreed that was acceptable. Mr. Pusich said that during testimony tonight they heard an idea for a new condition for the Allowable Use permit regarding if the mine life was extended or expanded or other changes were made to the mine operation plan, that it come back before the Commission. Mr. Dybdahl said that when the ordinance was revised, he thought that provided the ability for the summary approval by the CDD Director. Mr. Freer said they were approving a specific operation with this mine and if mine life is to be extended at some future time, staff would need to revisit it with either an additional permit, a modified permit, or summary approval. The staff report identifies all of those. It was after this staff report had been prepared that they again took a look at the revised Mining Ordinance, which said that mines permitted by and Allowable Use permit were no longer subject to the provisions of Chapter 49.65 of the code. That code contains the provisions for summary approval and it appears that perhaps inadvertently that summary approval has been taken away. He was not sure if that represented Assembly intent or not, which would bring it back to the Planning Commission.

Ms. Fowler asked if state and federal agencies started to diminish the environmental protection that they are assuming is going to be in place, would it come back to the Commission through the Allowable Use permit through the Coastal Management provision. Mr. Freer said there was no automatic restoration of power at the local level if those powers are modified or eliminated at the state or federal level. He thought it would be a political process that would bring amendments to local ordinances back before elected officials and appointees, like the Commission, for consideration. What she was referring to was a proposed DEC regulation about mixing zones in anadromous fish stream, higher concentrations of pollutants could be placed in anadromous fish streams before they dissipate. Mr. Pernula asked that the Commission not take action tonight because of the advise of the city attorney’s office. Mr. Bruce said he did not construe what she said as recommending that they wait until the 14th. Ms. Boggs did recommend it as a precaution. It would be defensible if they did it tonight. But if her calculations were wrong and a court decided differently, because of some small risk of a counter argument like Mr. Kendziorek makes, her advise would be that the Commission would not lose anything in her view, by waiting two weeks, to group these together.

Mr. Bavard asked if it would be appropriate to move to continue this item or leave the motion as it stands. Mr. Dybdahl said he could withdraw his motion and then the chair would entertain a motion to continue. Ms. Boggs said that Mr. Pernula has indicated that that would be proper procedure and she concurred.


Mr. Bavard asked the Commission if that was the direction they wanted to go. Mr. Dybdahl said he brought it up initially. He was persuaded by Mr. Bruce. If they were willing to assume that risk, as the applicant, then he was willing to vote on it tonight. Mr. Pusich said he had not understood what the city attorney’s advise had been and now that she is recommending that they continue this, he would side on the side of staff on this one and wait the two weeks and deal with it then. Ms. Fowler said from her perspective it appears to be phasing because if they don’t approve on the 14th the Cascade proposal, that puts Coeur in a very different position. She sees the two as connected and she thought they should wait and look at that proposal. Mr. Bruce said he did not know how many Commissioners would be here in two weeks. They have heard the evidence, it is fresh in their mind, the applicant has indicated a willingness to accept that risk and he said he sees it as fairly minimal. He does not see this a phasing and he is ready to vote on it tonight. Ms. McConnochie said she was relying on Ms. Boggs’ first words, that it was a defensible position. She agreed they were all present, and they had the testimony fresh in their minds. The applicant has answered the Commission’s questions. She did not personally see this as phasing and she thought it was reasonable for them to make a decision this evening rather than postponing for two weeks. Mr. Scholz said he also did not see this as phasing. He sees lots of additional opportunities for other locations for the terminal if the next permit is not approved. He was not concerned about that issue in this case. He wanted to see the Commission move forward.

Mr. Dybdahl said that the Mr. Bavard’s motion stands. Mr. Kendziorek encouraged the Commission to vote no. This was a very incomplete proposal and to some extent, a travesty of a mining ordinance has really put them in a pretty bad situation. They should be able to bond this and do the things that we need in our community, not the things that state or federal officials in DC think we should do, but we can’t, its been taken away from us. He said they really should look at recreation because it matters, but they can’t condition it. herring, sea lions, whales, those things really matter but they can’t condition it. His goal was to protect Berners Bay, not stop the mine. We’re told to count on the state and federal government to protect our interest and yet those very rules and regulations that we rely on are continually being eroded, such as the mixing zone ordinance, the dismantling of the coastal management program. He was concerned that this was going to be appealed and they were going to lose and they’d be right back where they started. It’s a huge risk and they should be saying no.

ROLL CALL Ayes: Pusich, Bavard, McConnochie, Bruce, Scholz, and Dybdahl Nays: Kendziorek and Fowler Abstain: Gladziszewski


Motion carries: 6:2

Mr. Bruce said they take action in reliance upon existing state regulations and protections and he thought it would be appropriate in his opinion, for the Commission to oppose the proposed changes. He did not know if it was appropriate for a letter to come from the Commission to that effect or if the Commission members even agreed.

Mr. Bavard said he had not seen the proposed changes yet. Mr. Bruce said he would like to see staff add that to the next meeting agenda so that they can get a copy of the proposed change, and know what the impacts will be and what the Commission can say or do about it. Ms. Fowler said technically it is an issue because they have approved certain things based on the reliance that these other agencies had certain regulations in place and now the playing field is changing. To her it is a technical piece also that they need to comment on. Mr. Scholz said that apparently there is some feeling from Commissioner’s that regulations are changing to the detriment. He felt that regulations were actually going the right direction so he did not view this as a big negative thing. Mr. Bruce said it would be nice for them to have some education as to what the impact of this change is and then they can vote on whether or not they can make a comment. If they can make a comment, then they can vote on what that comment is going to be. We are engaged in the public process just like DEC is and he thought it was important that the people who come before the Commission know that we express our views to these other agencies that interplay with us in the decision making process. Ms. McConnochie said she thought it was important to be up on exactly what the changes are because she did not like it when people come up and testify and misrepresent what those changes will be, and she can’t take in their testimony and know whether it is right or wrong. She would like to know what the facts are. III. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION - by Kendziorek, to adjourn. There being no further business and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

planning commission city and borough of juneau, …

Documents