Legislature(2007 - 2008)Naknek
09/25/2007 02:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Naknek, Alaska
September 25, 2007
2:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to conservation and protection of wild salmon
production in drainages affecting the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
02/14/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/28/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
02/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
03/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
05/09/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
05/09/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/09/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/24/07 (H) FSH AT 4:30 PM Newhalen
09/24/07 (H) Heard & Held
09/24/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
09/25/07 (H) FSH AT 2:00 PM Naknek
WITNESS REGISTER
FRED PIKE
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, and responded to
questions.
BRAD RUSH, Student
Bristol Bay Borough High School
[Location unknown]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134.
ADAM DUBAY
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, and responded to
questions.
JODIE MCDONNELL
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SCOTTY SAVO, Commercial Fisherman
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
DAN MICHELS, Owner
Crystal Creek Lodge
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CARL ANDERSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
PAUL HANSEN, Commercial Fisherman
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MATT PRICE, Owner
Price's Guide Service
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
MYRA OLSEN, Deputy Mayor
Lake and Borough Assembly
Egegik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
GEORGE WILSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modifications.
SHEILA BERGEY
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
LINDSAY BLOOM
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
EVERETT THOMPSON, Member
Naknek Village Council
Shareholder, Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
MARK ANGASAN, Village Representative
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
ALEX SAVO
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, with
modifications.
PETE HILL
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with mixed concerns on HB 134.
GLEN ALSWORTH, SR., Mayor
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with mixed concerns on HB 134,
provided an overview of the socioeconomic concerns of Port
Alsworth, made recommendations, and responded to questions.
BETTY BONIN
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
VIOLET WILSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JEFF CURRIER, Manager
Lake and Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
MAUREEN KNUTSEN
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ALAN ASPELUND SR.
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with mixed concerns on HB 134,
and made recommendations.
PATRICIA EDEL, Owner
Bed and Breakfast/Sport Fishing Lodge
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RICK EDEL
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with mixed concerns on HB 134,
made recommendations, and responded to questions.
ANNETTE WILSON
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
PETER ANGESAN
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JOHN HOLMAN, Owner
No Seeum Lodge
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and made
recommendations.
DOUGLAS OLSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JOHN SAVO JR.
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and made
recommendations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 2:33:45 PM. Representatives
Seaton, Edgmon, Wilson, Holmes, Johnson, Johansen, and LeDoux
were present at the call to order. Representatives Neuman,
Gatto, Kawasaki, and Roses were also in attendance.
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
2:33:56 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to conservation and
protection of wild salmon production in drainages affecting the
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve; and providing for an effective
date."
[The motion to adopt CSHB 134, Version 25-LS0381\M, Kane,
2/22/07, was left pending at the 2/28/07 meeting.]
2:34:03 PM
CHAIR SEATON clarified the purpose of the bill and how it would
effect different entities by stipulating restrictions on water
usage. This action would have a wide range of implications, and
he emphasized that the committee is interested to hear from each
witness, what restrictions they would be interested in having
included or excepted from the bill. This bill does not directly
regulate water quality, rather it disallows certain water
usages, to maintain the current water quality. He restated that
the bill restricts water users/usage, not water quality.
Additionally, he pointed out that the bill would have an impact
on mining, or any development activities, because of water
usage, however, it is not "for or against Pebble Mine." He
asked the area residents to speak to what they anticipate could
result in unintended impacts, and what language, they would like
to have included in the final bill. Submission of written
testimony was encouraged. Finally, he acknowledged the presence
of several local school classes, taking part in the gallery.
2:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, as sponsor of HB 134, offered an
introduction of the proposed legislation. He emphasized that
the bill is currently a "work draft," and the testimonies being
heard will help to form the final bill. HB 134 builds on the
1972 bill, sponsored by then Senator Jay Hammond, to create the
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. Apparently some confusion has
arisen, as to whether this bill would create a refuge, and he
gave assurance that a refuge is not being contemplated. The
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve provides language in statute
stipulating that, if there is to be any surface economic
activity dealing with oil and gas, the legislature will be
involved, via the resolution process, prior to such activity
proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON directed attention to page 2 of the bill,
regarding potential damages to salmon habitat. He read the
conditions listed, that could cause such damage. A corporation
found in to be in violation would be subject to significant
fines; up to $1 million dollars per day. Listed in the bill,
following the protective conditions, are the exemptions, which
would not be subject to restriction/fines. For clarity, he read
the list of exceptions on page 2, subsection (b), paragraphs
(1)-(6). The crafting of this language, to create the
appropriate water use policies, is the major aspect being
addressed by these hearings. Subsection (c) sets forth the
fines for individuals from $10 up to $5,000 per day, and
corporations from $1,000 up to $1 million per day. He
emphasized that the intent of this bill is to protect the water,
and related resources, of the Bristol Bay area. Given the large
scale mineral developments on the horizon, this legislation is
necessary to protect the resource.
CHAIR SEATON corrected that the corporate fine is not less than
$100,000 a day, and up to $1 million. Further, he laid out the
protocol for providing testimony, and added the caveat that
testimony would not be taken via teleconference, at this
meeting. Future meetings, in Juneau, will allow for
teleconferenced testimony.
2:52:25 PM
FRED PIKE [Inaudible.] said, "You have to allow for local
development. [Inaudible.] But I am very concerned about salmon
quality, and protection of our salmon streams." He cited the
124 years of commercial fishing in Bristol Bay that have
provided numerous jobs to many people. [Inaudible.]
CHAIR SEATON drew attention to the speaker's statement regarding
the importance of not impacting normal, commercial development,
and asked what level of water usage he thinks should be allowed
under the bill before it is restricted.
MR. PIKE replied [inaudible].
2:56:12 PM
BRAD RUSH, Student, Bristol Bay Borough High School,
[Inaudible.] He stated, "They can't have their mine and
commercial fishing at the same time."
2:57:54 PM
ADAM DUBAY [Inaudible.]
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how he would like transportation to
be addressed in the bill.
MR. DUBAY responded [inaudible].
3:00:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if, as the local welding teacher, he
is preparing his students for future jobs on a gas pipeline, or
other industrial jobs.
MR. DUBAY replied [inaudible].
CHAIR SEATON responded to an unidentified, inaudible speaker in
the gallery, that this is a public hearing, not a debate or
question and answer opportunity.
3:02:06 PM
JODIE MCDONNELL [Inaudible.]
CHAIR SEATON said her question is of a legal nature and can not
be answered by the committee members.
[An auditory change took place, which helped sound quality].
MS. MCDONNELL said that she would like to see the fishery
preserved by preserving the watershed.
3:04:29 PM
SCOTTY SAVO, Commercial Fisherman, as a generational fisherman,
said that this town would not exist without the fishery. He
stated that he would like to see the waters kept clean to
preserve the resource for future generations of fishermen.
3:05:43 PM
DAN MICHELS, Owner, Crystal Creek Lodge, opined that the bill is
very well written. He cautioned the aspect regarding customary
use of gravel [inaudible]. Something like Pebble Mine, he said,
that big of a hole in the ground is going to be very permanent.
He questioned whether the trade off for jobs will be worth the
cost of the magnificent wilderness.
3:07:57 PM
CARL ANDERSON said he fished for half of his life, but he is no
longer a fisherman. [Inaudible.] He said, "I agree with the
bill, ...." [Inaudible.]
CHAIR SEATON clarified that his testimony supports allowing
commercial uses to be permitted in the future, but not the
expansion of other industries.
MR. ANDERSON responded that if someone wanted to come in and
drill for oil, it would be an opportunity for jobs, "but we
really don't want to see it." On the other hand, he said, if
someone wanted to come in and open a new guide service, or
expand a dock, the restrictions should not limit those
activities.
CHAIR SEATON questioned if he is looking at the scale of the
project, and does he support oil and gas as part of the energy
exemption.
MR. ANDERSON said, "That is correct."
3:11:04 PM
PAUL HANSEN, Commercial Fisherman, said he is a generational
fisherman of the area. He supports the status quo, and
expressed concerned for the possibilities of long term damage by
mineral exploitation.
3:12:43 PM
MATT PRICE, Owner, Price's Guide Service, cautioned that much
damage can occur in the long-term by a large scale mine. He
said he is for this bill and against anything that would allow
for a mine.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether he would support or oppose land based
oil and gas development.
MR. PRICE cited concerns that could arise around oil and gas
development, such as the sludge factor ruining the water systems
as has occurred in the Lower 48. He mentioned mining and the
devastation it could cause. He expressed concern for the
delicate area of the peninsula. [Inaudible.]
3:15:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the lodges that he manages have
water rights.
MR. PRICE replied, "I believe so."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that only eight lodges in the
area have water rights, and under this legislation other lodges
would have to close, or be subject to a daily fine.
MR. PRICE answered that he did not have that understanding.
[Inaudible.]
3:17:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented that the colleague from
Anchorage, has taken a dramatic interpretation of the bill. As
the sponsor he would not see the bill having such an effect on
the area lodges. Certainly, that is not the intent, and the
reason that it is still undergoing revision.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that on page 2, line 17, the language
stipulates "uses authorized, approved, and permitted before the
effective date...", which does not grandfather in existing
operations. Water use would need to be, or have been,
previously permitted. However, if people want to have that as
part of the bill, they should offer testimony to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he was stating the bill as
it is presented today. Further, he read from the fiscal note
provided by Department of Natural Resources (DNR) [2/27/07]
paraphrasing: "... industrial, commercial, recreational uses
will severely be curtailed or foreclosure of those uses." That
is an accurate reading of how the bill is worded today, he
emphasized and said, that what is being proposed will effect the
economic development of this entire area.
3:21:20 PM
MYRA OLSEN, Deputy Mayor, stated that she opposes the bill in
its entirety. It is hard to make a living today as a commercial
fisherman, and definitely not as a crew member. The borough is
currently experiencing a relocation of the residents for
economic reasons. People are looking for viable alternatives to
fishing to keep the community alive, she opined. This
legislation will stifle economic development in the region.
Neither does it appear to fix any problems; it discriminates
against who can use water. She maintained that water quality is
the issue that needs to be worked on through legislation, not
who gets to use the water.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:25:51 PM to 3:26:20 PM.
3:28:36 PM
GEORGE WILSON said he has lived in the area for 28 years,
raising his family, and enjoying both sport and subsistence
fishing. He opined that the recent upturn, in fish prices, has
been the nature of the fishery; sourced from a naturally
pristine environment and marketed as such. Additionally, the
salmon harvest in the Bristol Bay area represent more than an
industry but also a way of life, as a major link in the local
food chain. A large scale, commercial enterprise would threaten
that balance and interrupt the natural environment.
[Inaudible.] He stated that no large scale operation has ever
contributed anything to the environment; only detracted. One
report of an accidental spill of any pollutant, from an
operation like the Pebble Mine, would result in a complete
collapse of the fishing industry built on the market base of
being pristine and natural. However, he would not want to
eliminate any current industry, or prohibit the expansion of
existing holdings. He said he can't support large scale mining
or oil production in the area that takes away from and damages
the watershed.
3:31:50 PM
SHEILA BERGEY stated that she is opposed to HB 134, or any other
legislation, that would create a reserve with added restrictions
on any sort of economic development. Any large-scale mining, or
oil and gas development, should be allowed to be "played out"
through the permitting process.
3:33:39 PM
LINDSAY BLOOM said that although she is a board member of the
United Fishermen of Alaska; a member of the Bristol Bay Drift
Netters Association; a member of the Alaska Independent
Fishermen's Marketing Association; and contractor for Trout
Unlimited, she is speaking on her own behalf today. She cited
the need to protect fisheries throughout Alaska via this type of
legislation. She observed that the overriding sentiment
supports the intent of the bill: to protect fisheries and fish
habitat. "Not even water quality," she said. Unfortunately,
legislative loopholes are not apparent to those outside of the
body, or to lawyers. No fisherman is going to support something
that will get in the way of their livelihood, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he doesn't think there is anyone who
wants to see the resources damaged in any way. Recalling the
DNR presentation, at the previous hearing [9/24/07], he asked if
the department's extensive permitting process [should be
considered adequate].
MS. BLOOM responded that two red flags are immediately apparent.
One, she said, was the expected "comfort" to be achieved by the
production of a 1,500 page EPA document generated from base line
studies. This does not provide comfort, as it would be a
daunting task to penetrate such a document, neither is it
friendly for public participation in the process. The second
red flag, was the slide that indicated that statute dictates DNR
to be the coordinator for the permitting of large mines in the
state, however it didn't stipulate how the department should go
about this task. She said that she would be more comfortable
with Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) managing fish and
game habitat in Bristol Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested that she provide information to
the state departments directly, and pointed out that the
department heads are appointed as part of the governor's
administration. However, as legislators working directly for
the people of Alaska, the committee is eager to receive detailed
feedback, of what the public desires for their area. This
provides critical assistance to the legislators in the decision
making process. [Audio was lost for approximately six seconds.]
He encouraged the witness to feel free to contact the involved
entities, and submit constructive guidelines.
3:39:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what steps could be taken to provide
a comfortable permitting process, with regard to mining activity
throughout the state; aside from moving the habitat office out
of DNR.
MS. BLOOM said she would submit her response in writing.
3:40:03 PM
EVERETT THOMPSON, Member, Naknek Village Council; Shareholder,
Bristol Bay Native Corporation, introduced himself as an area
commercial fisherman since the age of seven, and a subsistence
user. He said, "I am here to support [HB] 134, because I
believe we don't have enough protection for our fish, and our
other natural renewable resources, presently." For optimal
marketing, he makes every effort to add quality to the fish; to
make a Bristol Bay caught wild salmon as desirable to the
customer as possible. The knowledge that the world's largest
open pit mine is located at the head waters of this fishing
ground, can only have an adverse effect on the market.
Additionally, he stated concern for effects on the spawning
grounds, considering the range of mining activities that would
be taking place: water usage, explosions, toxic tailing ponds,
dust, and energy use. What will be left behind, he asked. More
protection is necessary. The fishing industry is controlled by
the fisherman, and it is currently going through a period of
improved methodology, which has resulted in an expanded market.
However, the fishermen will not have control over mine
activities. Although he indicated that he is not against all
mining, he opined that this region would be the worst place to
locate a mine. It is not just Pebble Mine that is interested in
locating in this area, and he cautioned, "Once you let one
[mine] in, I believe more will be right behind them." Since
Northern Dynasty first came to Newhalen to make a presentation,
in 2004, he has undertaken an independent study on mining, and
its effects. He stated that he is a volunteer resource member,
and he related his experience of manning a booth at the Alaska
State Fair [Palmer]. By not protecting this resource, it will
cause a trade off of a non-renewable resource for one that is
renewable. If protected, however, the area fishery will become
more valuable on a world scale, as other areas succumb to
pollution. The areas Native Corporations have passed
resolutions, to protect the area, however, it is at the
legislative level that action needs to take place, he finished.
3:45:20 PM
MARK ANGASAN, Village Representative, said he is a commercial
fisherman, and does not know how many people are paying for
their electricity, heat and other basic needs. The majority of
the village economy is based on the fishery, and additional
opportunities are needed in the area. Until all the [permits
are completed], it will not be clear whether or not to allow the
mine. The sport fishing industry, this area is "a big
playground; that has to stop." Tourism and subsistence are
good, but we live in a cash economy and need solutions to our
problems, he said.
3:48:44 PM
ALEX SAVO stated that he supports HB 134, however, limits on
activities such as guiding, should be minimal.
3:50:50 PM
PETE HILL stated that he is a retired teacher, who has taught in
several villages in the area. He related that one of
disappointments, of teaching in these areas, was that the
graduates leave the schools "with nowhere to go." In order to
make a living they leave the villages, and he opined that this
is causing the villages to die. Although he is not opposed to
HB 134 in its entirety, he said he opposes it because of what
"it doesn't do."
CHAIR SEATON encouraged him to submit written testimony of what
he would like to see the bill cover.
3:52:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked what aspects does he agree with.
MR. HILL answered that he agrees with the section on the water.
However, the canneries should be dealt with and not
grandfathered in, as they are a major source of water and land
based pollution.
3:53:22 PM
GLEN ALSWORTH, SR., Mayor, stated that if any legislation
threatens the ability of the borough to generate economic
revenue from its lands, or the lands within its boundaries, it
could threaten the ability of the area to maintain the borough
tax base. The loss of the tax base would effect the schools and
other municipal programs. Restricting economic opportunities,
that residents can expect to garner from their land holdings,
could eliminate the future of the borough and its people. The
aspect of the bill that applies broad prohibitions on various
potential types of economic development, is a major concern to
the borough.
CHAIR SEATON asked what he meant by financing the borough.
MR. ALSWORTH responded that the borough has a large land
entitlement being processed. Assuming the receipt of the full
entitlement, the land could provide a potential economic base to
create businesses. The two current sources of revenue are a
fish tax and a bed tax for lodging. It would be important to
allow for the expansion of these two industries, as well as the
development of other revenue sources that have not yet come to
bear. The opportunity to diversify is imperative to the
continued health of the borough.
CHAIR SEATON inquired if the land selection was based on any
potential mineral content.
MR. ALSWORTH answered no, that was not his understanding. The
scope of the available land to select was fairly narrow. To a
follow-up from Chair Seaton, he said that the borough does have
a severance tax. To a further question, he said, it appears
that HB 134 could create difficulty for an existing lodge to
expand/build improvements, or for a new entrant to the market to
start-up. Water quality is a concern for everyone in the
region, however, the bill appears to address water usage more
than water quality. Finally, he said, it would be important to
be enhancing the salmon run, and he provided examples of how
that might be done.
4:01:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reiterated that the bill strives to
provide a higher level of protection for salmon, and asked
whether the borough supports that intent.
MR. ALSWORTH responded that habitat support needs to be
highlighted, supported, and defined. Then it can receive the
utmost protection. The fines for violating, he said, are not
necessary and somewhat useless. Once the damage has occurred,
no level of monetary mitigation can recapture the natural
elements of a desecrated stream; violation money cannot replace
what would be lost. Designing and permitting should not allow
anything that would ever do damage at that level; protection is
essential. He made suggestions for enhancing the salmon run.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON interpreted that the borough supports the
protective levels for salmon that HB 134 delineates.
MR. ALSWORTH agreed, and pointed out that the concern is for the
restriction of development "down the road." The constraints, he
said, could be like killing a gnat with a sledgehammer; the
people of the area should not become an endangered species. Use
of the water by the people, while supporting a major salmon run
is not necessarily mutually exclusive.
4:05:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she is not hearing him pledge
support for this bill, but given his concerns for the water
quality, would he support a more rigorous permitting process.
MR. ALSWORTH confessed that he is unfamiliar enough with the
permitting process that he would have no idea what permits would
be required to build a dock in front of his house. He reported
that it took him two years to receive water rights to keep his
garden watered. However, there has been no one from DNR
reviewing/enforcing his water usage. The permit is no better
than the enforcement.
CHAIR SEATON said the committee will incorporate his suggestion
for exempting fisheries enhancement programs.
MR. ALSWORTH finished by stating the positive focus that the
1972 Hammond bill, and these hearings have brought to the
region.
4:09:33 PM
BETTY BONIN said, "I truly believe that history repeats itself.
When you hear about the devastation, the oil and mining
companies have done in other areas, we need to pay attention."
She emphasized the need to protect the spawning grounds and the
fishery. The number of jobs that the mine will offer, do not
compare with the number of jobs that are supported by the
fishing industry. If developers are allowed to do what they
want to do, the area would be left "with a mess to clean up,
contaminated water, and contaminated salmon. However, the bill
should not restrict residents from their way of life; protect
the water, the salmon, and the spawning grounds.
CHAIR SEATON asked if she is supportive of the exemption for
energy projects, and should that include oil and gas
development.
MS. BONAN said she supports on-shore oil drilling only.
4:12:06 PM
VIOLET WILSON introduced herself as a generational fisherman
from a family that has fished the area for over 100 years, and
said that subsistence has always been a reliable resource. Her
understanding, and concern, is that one out of every three open
pit mines, in the world, has pollution problems. The fish have
provided her an existence, and she said, "If it wasn't for our
fish, only God knows where I would be." The fish support her
and her family.
4:15:01 PM
JEFF CURRIER, Manager, Lake and Peninsula Borough, suggested
that by creating this bill, the legislature is making an
assumption that the environment is not being protected well
enough, and another "layer" of laws are in order. It has been
clearly stated, however, that the residents will not trade the
fisheries for mines. He opined that HB 134 is flawed, and will
create more problems than it will solve. He warned those who
testified in favor of the bill to be careful what they ask for,
because they just might get it. The current process, with the
federal and state requirements, should work to protect the
environment. This bill is not necessary, he said.
4:19:21 PM
MAUREEN KNUTSEN stated that she favors the highest protection
for Alaska's waters. She opined that a large scale development,
such as an open pit mine with its potential for pollution,
cannot coexist with the fishery. Erring on the side of caution
is important. Considering the global effects of pollution, she
said that this resource can only become more valuable. Finally,
she recommended reading the book, Rivers of Life, to gain an in-
depth knowledge of the Bristol Bay watershed.
4:22:27 PM
ALAN ASPELUND, SR., expressed his concern for the younger
generation, receiving their native land allotments along the
river, and possibly being denied the opportunity to establish
lodges or guiding facilities. He recommended that a water
volume restriction be included in the bill. Such a restriction
would prevent large scale operations from misusing the area. He
stated that he supports maintaining the watershed's clean water.
4:28:26 PM
PATRICIA EDEL, Owner, Bed and Breakfast/Sport Fishing Lodge,
stated support for the bill, and recommended that it be written
to deal specifically with large scale commercial operations,
such as mining. She opined that it is imperative to include the
ability to impose large fines.
CHAIR SEATON asked what her position would be on oil, gas, and
energy development.
MS. EDEL provided support for on-shore development.
4:30:17 PM
RICK EDEL said that the bill is too specific in some areas,
while being too broad in others. The language on energy
projects could allow for unintended consequences, he cautioned.
Also, grandfathering may present problems, and such action
should be closely considered. He recommended that the bill:
focus on maintaining water quality; expand the area of
protection to all areas of Bristol Bay; allow commercial
development that doesn't interfere with water quality; and
define specific energy projects.
CHAIR SEATON inquired if he is supportive of on-shore oil and
gas development.
MR. EDEL responded that he could support on-shore development.
4:33:51 PM
ANNETTE WILSON stated support for HB 134 primarily because the
village of Igiagik is dependent on obtaining potable water
directly from Lake Iliamna due to the poor water quality in the
village. She observed that some of the fishermen are "go-
getters," and doing well, while others are not as aggressive;
hence less successful. She concluded by specifying her support
of the intent of HB 134.
4:36:00 PM
PETER ANGESAN said it would be important to put the "what if's"
aside and focus on the positive concrete aspects. He opined
that there is no future in fishing, the villages are dying, and
crime rate is up; due to lack of employment. At one time there
was concern for the oil operations in Prudhoe Bay, but that
hurdle has been crossed and having worked there, he attested to
the clean operations. Further, he pledged confidence in the
permitting process and protection agencies to do a good job. He
reiterated that he supports all fronts: progress, sustainable
life styles, and HB 134.
4:41:07 PM
JOHN HOLMAN, Owner, No Seeum Lodge, stated support for HB 134,
and cautioned against impinging on existing operations, while
attempting to protect the area. He recommended narrowing the
bill to focus on the Pebble Mine. Additionally, oil and gas
developments would pose pollution problems for Bristol Bay, and
effect the fish returns. Mining and oil developments should be
held to the same standards. Protection of the water, on a grand
scale, is the priority concern, he finished.
4:44:18 PM
DOUGLAS OLSON relayed that he is a commercial fisherman who
markets his own product. The marketing edge is based on the
pristine environment that the catch is produced from. He said
he is pro-progress, but caution should be exercised on how the
progress is defined. Having moved to Alaska from a mining town
in California, he said he has severe doubts about the permitting
process. A nonrenewable paycheck is not worth trading in for a
renewable paycheck, he said.
4:47:07 PM
JOHN SAVO, JR., said he is a generational fisherman. He cited
the number of people in the villages who traditionally subsist,
without other skills, and he asked what would happen to them if
the resource were not there. He recommended that the
restrictions for energy production include nuclear plants and
river dams.
4:48:51 PM
CHAIR SEATON gave thanks to the gallery, and solicited written
testimony.
[HB 134 was held over.]
4:49:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 4:49
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|