Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
02/05/2015 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 7-OPPOSE ALEUTIAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
10:09:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Opposing the proposed designation
of an Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
10:09:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 7, labeled 29-LS0368\H, Nauman, 1/27/15,
as the working draft.
10:10:03 AM
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
10:10:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor of the proposed resolution, directed attention to the
Explanation of Changes Between HJR 7 and CSHJR 7(FSH) [included
in members' packets] and explained the changes. He reported
that both changes reflect the fact that, although the proposal
for the Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary was rejected
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the proposal "was still clearly on the table in terms of a
future submission of a request..." He first explained the
changes on page 3, lines 3 - 7, which clarified that, although
the nomination was deemed not sufficient, there had been an
invitation for a revised nomination to be submitted. Directing
attention to page 3, line 10, he explained that the phrase "or
any similar nomination" was inserted to address this possibility
of future nomination.
10:12:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 7,
labeled 29-LS0368\H, Nauman, 1/27/15, was adopted as the working
draft.
10:12:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that this nomination for the marine
sanctuary was an unwanted intrusion from an organization, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which had
moved forward without any consultation even from members of the
Alaska environmental community. He pointed out that PEER was
unknown even to those members of the Alaska environmental
community to whom he had spoken. He explained that the quest by
PEER to establish a large marine sanctuary in the Aleutian
Islands, effectively the size of the State of Alaska, had not
been requested by any of the local communities in the area. He
stated that "no one really knew about this" and he only found
out about this nomination when it was in the process and became
public. He emphasized that there was vigorous opposition by
"essentially everyone that is aware of it in the Alaska
Peninsula and Aleutian Island region." He pointed to the
letters of opposition included in the members' packets. He
declared that proposed HJR 7 would send a strong signal from the
Alaska State Legislature that the body did not approve of this
or similar actions as the communities had not been included in
the discussion even though the process required that communities
be participants. He offered his belief that it was not
necessary to add to the existing process used by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Board of Fisheries, the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the Aleutian Islands Risk
Assessment panel, and the National Marine Fisheries Service in
making determinations to this eco-system. He pointed out that
the risk from off shore oil and gas exploration had been
minimized by the recent presidential executive order withdrawing
32 million acres in this area from oil and gas leasing. He
declared that many of these proposed measures for protection to
a marine and seabird habitat were already in place. He
emphasized that the proposed resolution was still in order, even
though the initial PEER nomination had been rejected. He opined
that the PEER nomination effort could be re-submitted in a
revised application. He requested that the committee consider
the proposed resolution in order to send a strong signal that it
was necessary to include the consent and agreement from local
communities for any programs affecting them.
10:17:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
10:18:27 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
10:19:17 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
wished to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON declared his support for the proposed
resolution. He referenced the PEER website, which stated that
this nomination would be for the first national marine sanctuary
in Alaska. He offered his belief that there would be additional
nominations for other marine sanctuaries in the state. He
stressed that it was important to send a message that the State
of Alaska did not support this. He pointed out that some of
these marine sanctuaries in California had "devastated sports
fishing, for example..." He said that these marine sanctuaries
can take an industry almost out of business, and this could be
more devastating to the commercial fishing industry in Alaska.
He stated that he wanted to "stop it, nip it in the bud." He
avowed that the Aleutians would be the "first time we fight, it
will not be the last" in order to protect the ability to use our
natural resources. He affirmed his strong support for the
proposed resolution.
10:20:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered her belief that there was a large
national movement to do just this through administrative order
rather than go through the public process. She expressed her
concern for the "lack of talking to Alaskans." "We are the
biggest environmentalist that I know, Alaskans. We care about
our environment because we work, recreate, we eat from our
environment." She declared that this "flies in the face of how
we manage our state and how we manage our federal lands and how
we manage what's around us." She declared her support for the
proposed resolution.
10:22:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked about the process, should the PEER
nomination for the Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary be
re-submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that this nomination could be
approved administratively through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
10:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON concluded that the resolution underscores
the strong management regime already in place in Alaska, and he
lauded the work of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council,
as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game. He pointed out that the proposed
resolution had a zero fiscal note.
10:24:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report CSHJR 7, Version 29-
LS0368\H, Nauman, 1/27/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 7(FSH) was moved from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.