Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/28/2007 08:30 AM 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 | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 28, 2007
8:38 a.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
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
WITNESS REGISTER
LORIANNE RAWSON
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
PETER CHRISTOPHER, SR., Member,
New Stuyahok Limited Corporation
Nushagak District Advisory Board for the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation (BBNC)
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
RAE BELLE WHITCOMB
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134, and
responded to questions.
MARILYN KONUKPEOK
New Stuyahok Limited
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
WASSILLIE ILUTSIK
Aleknagik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
BRUCE JOHNSON
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
TREFON ANGASAN, Board Member
Alaska Peninsula Corporation
Contractor for Northern Dynasty
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Port Alsworth, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 134, responded to
questions, and provided a recommendation.
RALPH ANGASAN, President
Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC),
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
GARY NIELSON
Kokhanok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
RANDY ZIMIN
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
RAYMOND WASSILLIE, Shareholder
Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC)
Member, Lake Iliamna Advisory Committee (AC)
Alaska Boards of Fish and Game
Newhalen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
EVA NIELSON KING
South Naknek Village Council
South Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
MARLENE NIELSEN
Kokhanok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
KEVIN JENSEN
Pedro Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
GABRIEL ANDREW
Stuyahok Limited
New Stuyahok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134, and
responded to questions.
NICK LEE
Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
VALLE PETERSON
South Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
SCOTT BRENNAN
Chief Operating Officer
Renewable Resources Coalition
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 134.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
LINDSEY BLOOM,
Alaska Independent Fisherman's Marketing Association (AIFMA)
Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association (BBDA)
Contractor, Trout Unlimited
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134, and
responded to questions.
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134, and
responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:38:28 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Johnson, Johansen, LeDoux, and Edgmon were present at
the call to order. Representative Holmes arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
8:38:57 AM
HB 134-PROTECTION OF SALMON SPAWNING WATER
8:39:51 AM
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."
8:41:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt proposed
CS for HB 134, Version 25-LS0381\M, Kane, 2/22/07, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for discussion.
CHAIR SEATON announced that Version M was before the committee
[for discussion].
8:41:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that the CS was drafted to
include addition language on page 2, lines 22, and 23. The new
paragraphs read:
(5) unincorporated communities; or
(6) transportation projects, energy projects, or
seafood processing.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that a controversial resource
development project is pending in Southwestern Alaska, in direct
correlation to the Bristol Bay drainage area; home to the
world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. The environment in the
area is pristine, wild, and supports commercial and sport
fishing industries, as well as a generational subsistence
lifestyle. The intent of the bill is to bring attention to the
current use of the area in relationship to the proposed
development of a non-renewable resource project, of mammoth
proportions. He stated that the constituents, he represents, do
not believe that the measures currently in place are capable of
protecting the habitat and wild fish runs against this type of
development. As proposed, CSHB 134 will ensure that any
development taking place in the region protects the fishery, and
that violations of those protections are treated seriously.
This bill, he underscored, provides "salmon comes first ...
legislation." He continued:
There are going to be those that say that this is a
transparent attempt to stop the Pebble Mine, or to
stop any industrial exploration out there. ... The
intent of this legislation is to protect our way of
life and to protect our fisheries first. What happens
afterward in terms of development, in terms of any
other industry coming in ... that's an after the fact
matter. I also want to put forward that ... I am not
anti-mining, I'm not anti-development. I'm pro-
development and I'm also pro-commercial fisheries.
8:44:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON described the areas current mining
activities: 12 exploration sites, including the Liberty Star
"Big Chunk" claim encompassing 153,000 acres, or 421 square
miles; and a proposal by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
open up 2.5 million acres of public land for mineral entry. He
acknowledged that the Bristol Bay Management Plan was recently
rewritten emphasizing the promotion of the regions mineral
development. The two critical industries to be considered are
the historical, productive fisheries and large scale mining, of
a magnitude never experienced before in Alaska. The [Pebble]
mine will be developed in an area noted for its wild abundant
salmon runs and other wildlife. He underscored that this bill
raises the bar regarding protective measures for salmon, and
makes a public statement that "we as a state ... place a higher
value on our existing fisheries and ... a higher value on our
pristine wilderness." This does not exclude other industrial
development, he said. Speaking directly to the bill, he
directed attention to the LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS and provided a
brief review of the creation of the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve, and the subsequent implementation of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The
preservation concepts of these two acts, as well as Title 16,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), were the base
materials used to draft HB 134. Building on the current
measures, and focusing on the five major salmon producing
watersheds of Bristol Bay, CSHB 134, includes substantial
violation penalties for persons, or corporations. He detailed
Section 2, page 2, paragraphs (1) and (2); the new prohibitions
proposed as additions to AS Title 16. He read the exemptions to
the prohibitions, as stipulated in subsection (b), paragraphs
(1)-(6). Finally, he pointed out subsection (c), which
establishes the monetary penalties to be imposed on violators.
He stated that the bill is "a work in progress" and invited the
committee process to take its course to create an improved and
viable bill.
8:52:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON invited the committee to ask questions of the
sponsor, prior to the opening of public testimony.
8:53:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that this bill may have
unintended consequences, and asked why it has not been limited
to imposing restrictions on mining; is there a reason to include
other forms of development.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that HB 134 is not about
excluding development, but it is about protecting salmon. He
pointed out that mining may not be the only threat to the
fisheries. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every
possible future development that may have negative impacts on
the fish habitat, he ascertained that it is possible to craft a
bill with stringent measures to ensure the protection of the
fisheries.
8:55:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES observed that HB 134 is regional with a
primarily effect on the sponsors constituents. She asked what
the local residents concerns were, regarding the proposed mining
project [Pebble Mine].
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed that the catalyst for this bill is
the proposed Pebble Mine development. Having canvassed a good
portion of the region, he reported widespread concern. The
residents realize that there will be long term impacts, from a
mine of this size. Concerns are for irreparable damage, and a
lingering, continuous degradation to the environment, which many
large scale mine sites have demonstrated long after activities
have been completed. Furthermore, communities are receiving
mixed messages from Northern Dynasty, "of what the mine will
be." He reiterated that the purpose of HB 134 is to focus,
acknowledge, and support the fishing industry, as the long-term
backbone of the regions economic wealth.
8:57:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referenced page 2, line 20, paragraph (3),
and express concern for the word "future." She asked how this
language allows for the possibility of growth for the Native
communities in the region.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON assured that "this bill is forward
looking," and acknowledged that some communities are expanding
while some are struggling to maintain population. This
divergent nature is occurring throughout rural Alaska, and he
opined that the trend is for the populace to move to urban
areas. The economic factor has been a primary reason for this
pattern, and the current high cost of energy has become
prohibitive in the Bush.
9:01:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested clarity on page 2, line 23, and whether
the language prohibits the development of oil and gas projects.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded the intent of that provision was
not to prohibit such development.
CHAIR SEATON recommended revising the language, on line 23, in a
future version of the bill, to clarify the intent.
9:02:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON called attention to page 2, section 2, lines 20 and
22, and queried the intent of the language "municipal uses"
[line 20] and the stipulation of "unincorporated communities"
[line 22].
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested deference to the drafters of the
bill for the specific language crafting, however, the intention
is to exempt municipal uses and the uses by unincorporated
communities.
CHAIR SEATON asked how the stipulation of "uses" might effect
tribes, villages, or Native Corporations, not listed in the
bill, and if the provision proposes to exempt uses but not
specific entities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that page 2, line 21,
paragraph (4) identifies "traditional, cultural" uses and he
suggested that the necessary specificity could be brought to
this section through committee discussion.
9:06:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested clarity of the language on page
2, lines 17-23, and how the "uses" relate to the entities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reiterated that this is a drafting
question, and pointed out that the intent of the section has
been defined.
CHAIR SEATON offered that the confusion appears to be whether
the stipulation for "use" refers to a specific entity or the
resource use of that entity.
9:08:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked:
What happens to transportation, energy projects, or
seafood processing, which hasn't been authorized,
approved, or permitted before the effective date [of
this act]; like a new seafood processor ... or a new
energy project, or a new transportation project.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that, under this section, such
projects would be exempted.
9:08:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN warned against elevating one industry
above another. Southeast was once dominated by the timber
industry, resulting in a long-term conflict between the
fishermen and lumber workers.
CHAIR SEATON requested that committee questions to the sponsor
be directed towards clarifying the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked:
If unincorporated communities are exempt ..., what
would keep the nearest community to Pebble Mine from
annexing that as part of their community and
proceeding anyway they chose.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON the intent is to exempt unincorporated
communities, during the course of ordinary types of activities
involving waters that pertain to salmon habitat; the uses that
are already taking place.
9:11:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
9:12:34 AM
LORIANNE RAWSON, Naknek, Setnet Commercial Fisherman, stated
opposition to HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
There used to be 13 operating processing plants in the
Naknek and Kvichak river systems. The Kvichak today
has none and the Naknek has four operating each
summer.
In our village of South Naknek, we had five operating
processors using four-to-five canning lines. Today we
have none.
We used to commercial fish both Naknek and Kvichak
river systems, now we are fishing in a special harvest
area inside the Naknek River. The Kvichak River for
many years has not produced enough salmon to allow any
commercial fishing. The outside district of the
Naknek section has been closed to help the Kvichak
River salmon run shortage.
We used to be able to make our annual income from
commercial fishing. Currently, if we don't have
steady employment which is scarce; commercial fishing
contributes very little to annual income needs.
Of course you always hear about the very few fishermen
who do extremely well. However they are just a few.
The majority of our village fishermen are setnetters;
our village has approximately 55 salmon permit
holders.
The processors used to buy all five species of salmon,
now in the Naknek they only buy one; sockeye. Our
season used to start early June and end late August or
early September. Now our salmon season at best is
approximately 4 ½ weeks.
Not only do we have low runs of sockeye to harvest and
very low salmon prices, the Kvichak River can not
produce enough to allow us to harvest to make up the
difference in volume.
In addition to low runs and low fish prices, the
Alaska Board of Fish places more and more restrictions
on our local setnetters. Last year we were only
allowed six openings to twenty-two openings for the
drift fishermen in the Naknek River Special Harvest
Area. We were forced by new regulations to remove all
running lines whether we had a skiff or not and many
of our people were cited because of these unbelievable
regulations.
The Alaska Board of Fish in December 2006 did not hear
us when many of our village setnetters gave testimony
and placed even more restrictions on us. More than
likely we will have even less fishing time than we had
last season. The Alaska Board of Fish caters to the
lower 48 drift fishermen, not Alaskans, especially the
setnetters. We seem to be the enemy.
I don't think the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
could give you an answer why the Kvichak River,
Iliamna Lake, Lake Clark, Kokhanok Lake an[d] all of
the streams can't produce. Local commercial fishermen
believe the reason is prior years of over escapement.
God only knows when we will ever be able to commercial
fish like the days Alaska was a territory and our
salmon was under Federal management.
With what I am telling you about our state of
commercial fishing, if you were in our shoes wouldn't
you support any kind of natural resource development
like the Pebble Project?
The fish processors have had 120 years to hire locals;
they did not in the late 1800's and still do not
today. In just a few years Pebble Mine has hired more
locals than the processors ever did in the last 120
years. The lodges do not hire locals, with one
exception; one of the fine lodges in Senator Gary
Stevens' district hired "one Native" to pick up their
garbage.
The low runs of the Kvichak River and Iliamna Lake
systems cannot be blamed on any natural resource
development because there isn't any yet.
I am opposed to any legislation that will either
restrict or make it financially unfeasible for me and
my family to live in my village. We need to develop
our natural resources. We can not make it on
commercial fishing, we need jobs.
9:17:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that only one Native Alaskan is
employed at one of the area lodges.
MS. RAWSON answered, "That is what I was told. ... The lodge
owners bring in their own personnel, as well as the seafood
processors."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many lodges are in the area.
MS. RAWSON estimated that there are more than ten.
9:19:06 AM
PETER CHRISTOPHER, SR., Member, New Stuyahok Limited
Corporation, Nushagak District Advisory Board for the Bristol
Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), stated support for CSHB 134. He
called attention to the City of New Stuyahok, Resolution 2007-
02, Resolution Supporting House Bill 134, contained in the
committee packet; signed by 230 of the communities 520
residents. Everyone in the community are dependent on the
Nushagak River fish runs, he said, and detailed the subsistence
and commercial harvest of the river. He reported on the high
volume of fish experienced in the recent harvests of the
Nushagak River and stated that he participates in the driftnet
fisheries in four districts: Kvichak, Igiahk, Nushagak, and
Togiak. Not only are the wild salmon a concern for the
residents in these areas, but the freshwater fish must be
protected, as well. He described the subsistence fishing in the
various waters of the area, and the importance of the health of
these waters. He reported that New Stuyahok is the second
largest village on the Nushagak River, and he named the eight
villages that have organized to become the majority shareholders
of the BBNC; given the Yupik name for "The Caretakers of Our
Land."
9:26:29 AM
RAE BELLE WHITCOMB, Dillingham, stated support for HB 134, as a
subsistence user and generational resident of the area. She
opined that this bill is an important means to support the
Native's cultural way of life. Furthermore, she said, the use
of the water correlates to every activity, for every use:
drinking and bathing, as well as for the fish and game. The
communities survive on the food that the land supplies. She
countered that the lodges will hire locals who want to work, and
that they support the economy in a variety of ways. She stated
concern that the inappropriate use of the land will be
detrimental to the villages and the wildlife: putting a road
through may effect the caribou migration pattern, chemicals in
the water could be harmful to the health of future generations,
and a dam could cause problems when an earthquake occurs.
9:29:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired if Ms. Whitcomb would support
transportation projects such as road construction.
MS. WHITCOMB responded that if a road were built "from
Dillingham all the way through," it would depend on the use,
users, and how it is built.
9:30:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how far the proposed Pebble Mine
would be located from Dillingham.
MS. WHITCOMB answered that it would be sited about 80-90 miles
[northeast] from Dillingham. However, she said, the Nushagak
River is huge and effects a large area, including the caribou
range. She stressed that this is an issue of protection.
9:31:40 AM
MARILYN KONUKPEOK, New Stuyahok Limited, stated support for CSHB
134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am still, and plan to be forever, a resident of New
Stuyahok. I am raising my three kids there, as it is
our place where we call home. I've been raised and
taught to live a subsistence life style and yes,
subsistence is our main source of living in New
Stuyahok. I'm instilling this type of living within
my own family, as subsistence is our way of life.
Subsistence is our Yupik cultural tradition, and our
cultural identity. My people lived on the Nushagak
River for generations to generations. We the younger
generation have survived living in the rural living no
matter how hard the urban settings get in the way of
surviving. We, the people of New Stuyahok, and the
people of the Nushagak River are strong as one. We
survive because we know our Yupik culture traditions,
and live in a subsistence life style. We respect our
lands on the Nushagak River as our lands provide us
our subsistence way of life. We need to protect or
Yupik culture identity, and our subsistence way of
life. I'm asking to be heard on this issue because I
reside in New Stuyahok, and also use the lands on the
Nushagak River. I am once again in full favor of the
concepts of CSHB 134. I'm speaking today on behalf of
myself, my children, and my future grandchildren.
9:34:47 AM
WASSILLIE ILUTSIK stated opposition to HB 134. He reported
that, in 1995, 5 commercial operators were located within the
Wood Tikchik State Park. Business has increased, and last year
there were 62, however, these lodges and guide operators are not
local; bringing in their own workers from the lower 48 states.
Two years ago, he recalled, eight men from the village worked to
get their six pack guiding licenses, but none of them were hired
by the lodges. Being a crewman on a fishing vessel pays a
variable amount from $250 to $4,000, per season. There are no
jobs in the village, and any type of economic development would
be welcome. He underscored that there are no Natives being
employed by the seasonal tourism industry. He opined that HB
134 has been crafted to stop the Pebble Mine project, but he
expressed concern that it could also stop other needed economic
development. In response to a question, he reiterated that
eight village men were licensed as guides, but none were hired
by the lodges in the area.
9:38:54 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON stated support for HB 134, and reported that, as a
commercial fisherman along the Nushagak River, he has been able
to support his family. He acknowledged the economic hardships
of the area, and underscored that a mine is not the answer. The
potential damage, that the mining development could cause, would
be devastating and long lasting. Although some employment would
be created for a period of time, it would be at the cost of the
renewable natural resources and subsistence needs; a way of life
could disappear forever. Village life is difficult, he
admitted, and putting a few people to work would be good, but
not at the ecological risk level that projects on the scale of
the Pebble Mine present.
9:41:31 AM
TREFON ANGASAN, Board Member, Alaska Peninsula Corporation
(APC), Contractor for Northern Dynasty, stated opposition to HB
134. He reported that he and his wife are driftnet and setnet
permit holders, respectively, and live a subsistence lifestyle
common to the area. The issues raised are all valid, he opined,
but this bill would eliminate subsistence in Bristol Bay.
Subsistence is managed by the state, as a priority use on
unclassified lands. By classifying this 22 million acres as a
refuge, other user groups will be competing for the same
resource. Additionally, a refuge is not managed under the
system of local advisory committees cooperating with the Board
of Fisheries. A governor appointed citizen group would be in
control. In this way, he predicted, the Natives will lose
subsistence opportunities. He reminded:
When we have competition for resources ... throughout
history the Native people have lost. They have always
lost. ... Subsistence is not regulated as a priority
on refuges. It's just not. Who are we trying to
protect here, look a the record: 1800 permits in
Bristol Bay; less than 700 permits are owned by
Alaskan residents. What about the village
corporations. The 22 million acres of land that this
area is going to encompass, they lose the opportunity
to develop the land that ANCSA gave them. In my mind,
that's a "taking," because ... we selected lands, as
village corporations, based on the opportunity for
economic development and the sub-surface resource
opportunities. Those restrictions were not in place
when we ... selected those lands. Now this regulation
will curtail that, because our lands are along the
river bank.
9:45:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON interjected that HB 134 does not establish a
refuge.
MR. ANGASAN maintained that his concerns are for the
restrictions to be imposed by HB 134, and the 22 million acres,
encompassed with the five Bristol Bay watersheds named, to be
regulated under the regime as a refuge.
CHAIR SEATON stated that Legal Services will be asked to clarify
management regulations for a refuge vs. a reserve.
MR. ANGASAN commented that a reserve is created for the
protection of the resource, which is usually good. However, he
elaborated:
In this case it's like killing a gnat with a sledge
hammer. Because you're going to kill the mine, which
is a gnat in the eyes of the other use groups; the
other $400 million revenue that's generated from the
sport fish community, and all of the subsistence
users. ... The subsistence users will lose. ... We're
going to be back here in 50 years telling you that the
subsistence people have lost, because they no longer
have a subsistence priority under this regulation.
MR. ANGASAN stressed his concern for the "taking" aspect that
clouds this issue. A provision would need to be inserted in the
bill to compensate for the loss.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that the Bristol Bay Reserve has
existed since 1972, without compromising subsistence use in the
area and that the intent of HB 134 is to maintain that status.
9:49:44 AM
GLEN ALSWORTH, Mayor, Lake and Peninsula Borough, stated
opposition to HB 134, and offered that "the law is only as good
as our commitment to enforcing the law." To create a large
special management area without the funding for enforcement is
pointless. It is currently difficult for the "state folks" to
respond to common fish and game violations, due to the lack of
financing to afford the necessary staff. As Mayor, he stated:
We really believe that economic development and
environmental protection can coexist. ... There is no
sacrificing pristine habitat, ... healthy fish, ...
pure water, those are not up for discussion. ... We
ought to ... be talking about enhancing habitat.
MAYOR ALSWORTH said that HB l34 removes land, via
reclassification, that might otherwise bring economic viability
to the area, and requested that the committee consider attaching
a fiscal note to this legislation to compensate the Lake and
Peninsula Borough for these lost economic opportunities. The
communities have been promised land, and the ability to develop
that land to produce an economic base. If that is not
available, the local tax base will be lost and the residents
will survive in perpetual poverty, and be a parasite to the
state coffers. He observed that the bill allows certain
entities exemptions to the restrictions otherwise imposed.
However, he underscored that no entity should be allowed to
destroy habitat, or create a detrimental environment for the
salmon; not businesses, residents, or municipalities.
Exemptions are not the answer. He maintained that well written
law, which is adequately enforced, will provide protection for
the environment and a scenario in which the villages will be
able to thrive.
9:56:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what action Mr. Alsworth would
recommend on this bill, if he were voting on it today.
MAYOR ALSWORTH stated that he would table the bill, pending
further discussion. The concept of protecting salmon is
important. However, he noted that advancing one resource over
another is not a gain.
9:58:28 AM
RALPH ANGASAN, President, Alaska Peninsula Corporation (APC)
stated opposition to HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
APC [Alaska Peninsula Corporation] owns about 400,000
acres of land in and around three of the major rivers
that are the subject of HB 134. Our holdings include
about 180,000 acres of land in the Iliamna Lake area,
about 140,000 acres of land along the Naknek River,
and about 90,000 acres of land adjacent to the Ugashik
system, including Port Heiden. APC has over 600
shareholders with 5,000 years of history in those
Bristol Bay drainages. We oppose HB 134.
We want our children's children to continue to live
and work at home, in Bristol Bay. HB 134 would strip
any economic or social reason for any of us to remain.
It proposes, with no basis in science, no objective
findings whatsoever, to create a virtual monopoly for
the preexisting lodges and fish processors, and to
foreclose any new industry, whether it be mining or
oil development, or alternative power that is water-
dependent.
Because the bill allows for only existing permits, it
effectively blocks any future economic growth.
Communities along the Nushagak would be prohibited
from any extraordinary growth or needs for water or
discharges because the bill freezes community needs at
"existing and ordinary present and future needs."
Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek cannot grow.
The exploration now occurring with[in] 2 miles of the
Naknek River for geothermal sources would likely come
to a grinding halt.
HB 134 would fine my corporation up to $1,000,000 a
DAY if we filled in a bog. It would fine my few
shareholders who could still eke out a living in their
communities for riding their four wheelers over the
bogs of our lands in the summer, for causing adverse
affect - like tire tracks. But, with fish prices at
60 cents a pound, and fuel at over $5.00 a gallon, and
electricity at 40 cents a kilowatt hour, and no new
opportunities, perhaps there won't be much 4 wheeler
traffic. Bristol Bay is already in severe economic
crisis. It is rapidly losing population. Increasing
the pressure on us will only increase the outward
migration and depression in the region.
HB 134 will increase outward migration. Because,
under HB 134, there won't be any new economic
opportunities. Only uses presently authorized,
approved and permitted at the time of the bill. The
few remaining salmon processors are covered. That is
probably why fish processors donated to the campaign
of the sponsor of HB 134. But maybe my great
grandchildren do not want to gut fish in order to eke
out a living.
Perhaps they can go to work at a silk-stocking fishing
lodge for peanuts. That is perhaps why lodge owners
donated to the sponsor of the bill. But lodge owners'
responsibilities are only to their families, nor are
their families struggling to make ends meet as the
community they live in dwindles, its schools closed
for lack of population. I have over 600 shareholders'
futures to worry about. And they can't all work for a
few lodges, even if they wanted to.
The sponsor of this bill is in the hands of the rich
and powerful who want to convert Bristol Bay into
their colony, and keep it there. Fish rich and people
poor. That is not my vision, and it is not the vision
of my people. We can preserve our salmon fishery and
still diversify. Without HB 134.
HB 134, in fact, is not the vision of Framers of the
Alaska Constitution. The Framers guaranteed us the
right of water appropriation, regardless of the
watershed, and prohibited laws that divest us of the
use of waters, our interests in the lands and the
right to earn a living on our own.
HB 134 goes too far. Every stream, every bog, every
aquifer, every swamp and lake that is in any way
interrelated to or connected with the Nushagak,
Ugashik, Egegik, Naknek, or Kvichak Rivers is off
limits under HB 134. Any use of other than for
drinking water is prohibited unless it is already
permitted. What about the future?
The vision contained in HB 134 is the vision of the
processors to pay 60 cents/lb for fish and send the
profits to Japan. It is the vision of Anchorage and
Seattle lodge owners and money managers to charge
thousands of dollars a week for 16 weeks a summer for
outsiders to stay at their lodges, and take it all
home. Their vision is to fine some Native kid on a 4
wheeler who goes through a blueberry bog that is
connected in some unknown way to the Kvichak,
thousands of dollars a day in fines. Or to fine APC
$1,000,000 a day if it has the audacity to provide for
a new industry. That is no vision of the future.
That is colonialism, and colonialism should have ended
th
in the 19 century. It is up to you to end it now.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked for agreement that everyone, in the
Bristol Bay Region, is a product of the environment, and that
every residents relies heavily on and supports the natural
resources/salmon to provide an income, as well as a subsistence
life style. The witness concurred.
10:06:19 AM
GARY NIELSON stated opposition to HB 134, as a generational
fisherman of the area. At one time, he said, anyone could go to
Bristol Bay, catch some fish, and make a living, but limited
entry was imposed and took that opportunity away. Then the
parks system came in, and took more of what the Natives used
away. These restrictive bills limit the economic and cultural
development of the area. He opined that HB 134 would impose
extreme limitations causing the villages to experience an
"economic and cultural suicide." The region is growing, but
with these limitations "there is no where to grow to." Due to
the limited entry system, the fishing opportunities have been
cut in half. Although he owns a business, it is difficult to
stay above the poverty level. He stressed the need for any type
of economic development, mining or otherwise, that might bring
relieve to the area.
10:08:43 AM
RANDY ZIMIN stated opposition to HB 134, as a commercial
fisherman, subsistence user, and business owner. He stated that
he would oppose any type of further restrictions on "our lands."
Currently, reserves and parks already restrict resource use by
the Native people to a "tiny strip of property." With this bill
his home would be within a refuge. He contested Representative
Edgmon's claim that the majority of the residents support HB
134, although he conceded that there were no hard numbers to
support the dispute. The protection of the people, and their
right to live in the area, is as important as the protection of
the fish and water. He opined, that without some type of
economic activity, the area will die. "Everything can co-
exist," he said.
10:11:47 AM
RAYMOND WASSILLIE, Shareholder Alaska Peninsula Corporation
(APC); Member, Lake Iliamna Advisory Committee (AC), Alaska
Boards of Fish and Game, stated opposition to HB 134, as a
resident of Newhalen, located 12 miles from the site proposed
for the Pebble Mine. He reported the conditions to be found in
his community, prior to and following the arrival of Northern
Dynasty; performing exploratory work. The presence of Northern
Dynasty has meant jobs, and with the possibility for the village
residents to earn a wage "their hearts are lifted." He
suggested tabling this bill as it represents too many
restrictions to the Native villages.
10:15:50 AM
EVA NIELSON KING, South Naknek Village Council, stated
opposition for HB 134, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House bill 134 introduced by Rep. Edgmon and The Jay
Hammond State Game Refuge Proposal by Senator Gary
Stevens (both separate bills) are as restrictive as
all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges in Bristol
Bay. Currently the Bristol Bay region acre for acre
is more impacted by National Parks and Wildlife
refuges than any other region in Alaska. In fact the
Bristol Bay region has the second largest state park
in the United States.
Either of the two bills considered will in fact stop
any development in our region. It is an anti-
development as one could ever be. Village and
Regional Corporations will not be able to develop and
more importantly villages such as South Naknek will be
choked from developing any needed infrastructure in
the future. These bills, no matter how you read them,
are a classic example of a taking by our government,
of our rights and development potential. Remember you
cannot restrict or take away our rights and privileges
from village and regional corporations including our
village communities without legal consideration. If
you do, it is a taking and the State will find itself
in court - without question.
We feel it is a sorry state of affairs when some
politicians introduce legislation like this to pay off
political debts to their donors and for special
interest groups.
Where in the world is our Alaskan spirit? Anymore it
seems it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a
Republican - both parties are acting like the old
Democrats, which is anti-development and anti-work.
If you choke our village and region from development
you better be prepared to provide a lot of welfare
checks.
In deed we are commercial fishermen. However, as
resident fishermen [we] are a minority.
For your information our village has lost two-thirds
of our population and our village school is closed.
Because of our commercial fishing situation, a lack of
catch coupled with low fish prices has forced many of
our people to move to look for employment. Gone are
the days where we as commercial fishermen can make a
decent annual living from it. Our only hope is what
Northern Dynasty is offering - with out diversifying
our economic base more and more villagers will move
out. We are wondering why our State government
want[s] to take this potential economic benefit away.
If you are not going to permit any mining what exactly
do you have that can replace investments by private
enterprises? You say you are only applying better
safeguards to protect our resources by this
legislation. Current environmental protection laws
and regulations have enough restrictions to protect
the environment, although laws and regulations lack
enforcement.
By the way, do salmon processing plants both shore
based and off shore, including fishing boats get a
free pass to pollute our waters? We know some fish
companies oppose the Pebble Project because of
"environmental issues", however isn't this the pot
calling the kettle black?
The fishing industry has been polluting our country
for about 100 years or so, and our waters - where is
the state's oversight? Why not come and dig some
holes around current and old cannery sites. Come and
take a look at our beaches after a fishing season.
Why isn't the State of Alaska concerned about these
polluters?
Do some get "free passes" and others have to be as
clean as the driven snow?
How about local employment? The fishing industry has
had over 100 years to employ our people. How many
have they provided year around jobs to (for resident
and other Alaskans)?
Northern Dynasty has employed more of our people in
the last couple of years than the fishing industry has
in over a hundred years. There is something wrong
with this picture. Can you give us and our region
some needed support? Where are you when we need you?
We feel you don't actually care about better
safeguards, but rather to stop development PERIOD.
Why not be honest with us with your true intentions -
that this is paying your political debts, providing
for special interest groups; sport fishing lodge
owners, sports outfitters, sports fishermen, etc. And
killing any development opportunities - why not be
honest?
Jay Hammond was a fine person. However, another
refuge will not provide a viable living for us who
live in villages. People from our village are a proud
people who want benefits of a more diversified
economy. Therefore, I am opposed to Senate Bill 67
which provides for the Hammond Game Refuge in Bristol
Bay Headwaters and House Bill 134 which expands the
Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve.
10:20:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON cautioned the speakers that this hearing is to be
used solely for the purpose of addressing issues related to HB
134, and that witnesses should demonstrate proper respect for
everyone present and refrain from using it as a forum to impugn
anyone.
10:21:25 AM
MARLENE NIELSEN stated opposition to HB 134, as a commercial
setnetter, berry picker, moose hunter, and processor of
subsistence fish. She stressed that the area where she conducts
all of these activities will be classified as a refuge, with the
passage of this bill, and will destroy her way of live. Her
ancestors have lived on the shores of Lake Iliamna for 10,000
years, and now sport fishermen and hunters want to take the
rights away. The bill states that salmon need to be protected,
and she asserted that no one knows that more than the Native
people, who could not survive without them.
10:23:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES clarified that HB 134 refers to but does
not create a refuge. A bill currently in the senate addresses
that subject.
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that a request will be made of the
sponsor and Legal Services for a clear definition of management
terms; reserve vs. refuge.
10:24:23 AM
KEVIN JENSEN stated opposition to HB 134, paraphrasing from a
written statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am opposed to HB 134 because I don't want to live in
a refuge. I don't want to worry about whether or not
my dragging a couple of trees in place over a stream
so that I can hunt on the other side is going to earn
me a fine or jail time. I don't want my heritage and
cultural rights to subsist as my forefathers did to be
stomped on by a group of people intent on using any
and all means at their disposal to fight a process
that has not even begun. With or without the mine, we
as a tribal people manage our resources better than
anyone who has attempted to do so, and this is an
historical fact.
Our tribe is preparing to begin a waterfront project
that we have been in need of for quite some time. We
are also trying to finish our new landfill, which will
require a bridge to reach the site. However, I have
to ask myself whether or not these projects will ever
reach fruition under this bill. Our children explore
our lands on foot and by all terrain vehicle, is the
use of these ATVs going to be a point of contention?
If I read the bill right, then yes they will, and
that's not something I can agree with.
To use our lands and waters as a fulcrum to leverage
this body to pass laws that will forever change the
way we live is just wrong. I want to live on our
ancestral lands the way we always have, without
"outside" entities changing our lives without so much
as a by your leave. I don't believe this bill was
created so much to protect our waters and fish as it
was to shortsightedly tilt at a windmill that hasn't
even been built.
I implore you to oppose HB 134, not just for my tribe,
but for our descendants.
10:27:10 AM
GABRIEL ANDREW, Stuyahok Limited, stated support for HB 134,
referring the ancestral and future subsistence use of the land.
A subsistence life style provides its own riches. He stated
that he works as a land use agent, which requires him to monitor
the sport fish industry on the Nushagak, Wood Tikchik, and
Nuyakuk Rivers, and the Mulchatna River drainage. When the
sport fishing guides come in, they offer employment to the
villages on the Nushagak River. A hand full of locals, who have
their six pack licenses, have been hired as guides, and are the
preferred guides, as they know the area. He reported that there
is direct and indirect, economic benefit from the seasonal lodge
operations. Additionally, some APC shareholders own lodges in
the area, and only employ locals. He emphasized:
No fine is big enough to punish a mining or oil
company that damages or pollutes any water system.
Once an area is poisoned by chemicals, it will not be
restored; the damages are permanent. Any development
that threatens our natural resources in our area
cannot support generations to come with jobs. A
Canadian mining company is not going to move in and
replace our natural resources. Their plans are to
take the ... precious minerals, pollute the land and
rivers, and a few people would be put to work. A few.
... But at the cost of many generations of [a]
subsistence way of life. ...
10:31:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to earlier testimony that the
lodges do not hire locals and asked which is correct.
MR. ANDREW responded that permits are issued, for the use of
Bristol Bay Corporation (BBC) lands, from which he draws a
salary to monitor the lodges. Local help is hired to provide
logistical support for lodge supplies. Also, in Ekwok and
Koliganek there are local lodges, who hire local resident
guides.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON queried how many of the 60 plus lodges
reported, are locally owned by shareholders.
MR. ANDREW answered that seven lodges are locally owned, and he
monitors the use of the corporations land.
10:34:04 AM
NICK LEE, Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association, stated support
for CSHB 134, as a Bristol Bay fisherman, paraphrasing from a
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am for responsible resource management that ensures
that the fisheries of Bristol Bay remain sustainable
for the fish as well as the fisherman. The Bristol
Bay Salmon fishery supports many jobs for people
inside and outside of the drainage. It also provides
tax revenues to the local communities.
I believe we need higher standards to protect the
habitat of the greatest Sockeye run in the world. The
stakes are too high. Having a massive tailings pond
straddling the ridge that divides the water sheds of
the Kvichak and Nushagak river systems scares the hell
out of me. There is too much seismic activity from
volcanoes and earthquakes to safeguard the project
from an environmental disaster. Small amounts of
copper, sulfuric acid, and cyanide can be detrimental
to our fish stocks.
The Alaskan Fisheries have still not recovered from
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The stake holders have
still not been compensated.
ASMI with the help of the State of Alaska has marketed
Wild Alaskan Salmon and has differentiated this
product from other salmon caught or farmed elsewhere.
One of the biggest selling points is our pristine,
pure water where our fish currently live. Consumers
are very aware of the health benefits of wild Alaskan
Salmon. From the low mercury levels to the high
amounts of omega 3 fatty acids. Wild Alaskan Salmon
is sold as a health supplement. If there are any
issues with contaminated water in Bristol Bay's
streams, lakes or rivers it will be detrimental to the
marketing of all Alaskan Salmon. This will not just
effect the marketing of Bristol Bay Salmon, it will
impact the sales and marketing of salmon caught from
Western Alaska, Kodiak, Prince William Sound and SE
[Southeast].
The potential for economic growth in the Bristol Bay
commercial fishery is unknown. What I can tell you is
that the price in the least 6 years has been as low as
40 cents and fisherman this year have been paid as
high as .82 cents/lb. I believe that the price will
continue to increase as our quality improves and new
markets are developed. Last year, permit holders
elected to form the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood
Development Association through which drifters will
tax themselves 1% of their profits for product quality
improvements and marketing. This demonstrates
fishermen's belief in and desire to work towards
capitalizing further on the economic potential of
Bristol Bay's sustainable commercial fishery.
The wild Salmon Protection Act, along with the Jay
Hammond State Game Refuge bill will help all of the
Alaskan fisheries by enhancing the pure, pristine,
contaminant free image of Wild Alaskan Salmon and help
keep Bristol Bay sustainable for the fish and
fisherman.
10:38:03 AM
VALLE PETERSON stated support for HB 134, as a generational
subsistence fisherman. She opined that the bill supports
healthy development and subsistence. The village is suffering
from a lack of jobs, however, introducing chemicals from adverse
development will impact the future Native generations. She
opined that the results of chemicals in the water may not be
evident for sometime, but may eventually have a domino effect.
"Without salmon, our region would essentially ... fade away."
It is important to protect the image of Alaska wild salmon,
harvested from pristine waters, as a marketing tool for the
entire state.
10:41:17 AM
SCOTT BRENNAN, Chief Operating Officer, Renewable Resources
Coalition, stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Renewable Resources Coalition is a non-profit
corporation formed in Alaska, by Alaskans to protect
Alaska's renewable resources and the existing jobs,
families and communities they support. The Coalition
also seeks to promote awareness of public policy
issues that affect the well-being of businesses and
individuals that depend upon fish and game resources.
Our more than 300 members include many Alaskan
businesses and individuals from the commercial, sport
and subsistence fishing communities and we strongly
support the salmon conservation concepts at the core
of HB 134. While the committee process plays an
important role in refining legislation and there are
certainly opportunities for word-smithing and
addressing nuances, the concepts at the core of HB 134
are sound and we strongly support them as expressed in
the CS for HB 134. I would like to highlight several
reasons that we support stronger salmon conservation
measures in Bristol Bay.
Bristol Bay's wild salmon are a powerful economic
engine for our state. In 2005 alone, the Bristol Bay
salmon economy was worth more than $330 million
dollars with $62 million of that total coming from the
sportfishing sector alone. Please include the
attached economic report from renowned Natural
Resource Economist Dr. John Duffield of the University
of Montana in the record of these deliberations.
Current salmon protections in Bristol Bay today range
from non-existent to inadequate due in large part to
the actions of the Murkowski Administration. These
recent rollbacks have eliminated the much-needed
checks and balances from our system and have done
great damage to our ability to protect clean water and
healthy wild salmon in Bristol Bay. From the
dismantling of ADF&G's Habitat Division to allowing,
for the first time in many, many years, toxic mixing
zones in salmon spawning habitat, the damage done in
recent years is significant and serious cause for
concern. HB 134 would restore and improve our
inadequate salmon habitat protection and it represents
a step in the right direction.
For additional details regarding the inadequacy fish
habitat protection and the resulting risks, please
consider the following statement offered in written
testimony before the Board of Fisheries in December
2006 by Lance Trasky, former Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Habitat Division Regional Supervisor for
Bristol Bay. Please also include Mr. Trasky's
testimony in its entirety (attached) in the record for
this hearing. "…if mine permitting is allowed to
proceed under current state and federal standards and
permitting processes the very large scale mining of
sulfide based copper ore in the Nushagak and Kvichak
drainages will physically destroy thousands of acres
of very high quality spawning and rearing habitat and
over time will almost certainly seriously degrade
fisheries habitat and fisheries production in
downstream portions of these drainages."
When evaluating the risks and rewards associated with
resource development proposals and policy decisions,
it is helpful to consider the economic benefit
resource development provides to all Alaskans and the
risks that development poses. According to an
analysis commissioned by Chair Seaton, in 2005, the
oil and gas industry paid 20 cents for every dollar of
product purchased in Alaska. That same year, the
mining industry paid all Alaskans 0.7 cents for every
dollar of hard rock minerals purchased here in the
state. This failure to pay fair market value for our
resources calls into question the wisdom of risking an
abundant, renewable resource economy for the limited,
short-term benefits of large-scale mining in the
absence of adequate habitat protections. In
conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for
this opportunity to testify and I urge you, on behalf
of my hundreds of members, to move forward with your
efforts to provide adequate protections for clean
water and salmon habitat in Bristol Bay.
10:46:20 AM
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
stated opposition to HB 134, and opined that the restrictions
imposed by this bill could serve to inhibit and deter any mining
company from ever exploring or investing in this area. It would
also block any other kind of commercial development, as
previously testified. He opined, "This bill will guarantee that
the villages that are in the area right now will stay where they
are, or will decrease in viability."
10:47:39 AM
LINDSEY BLOOM stated support for HB 134, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am a Bristol Bay Drift Permit Holder. I am here
today representing the Alaska Independent Fisherman's
Marketing Association; AIFMA and the Bristol Bay
Drift-netters Association; BBDA, whose combined
membership includes several hundred Bristol Bay
Fisherman. We strongly support HB 134. I also work
for Trout Unlimited on a contract basis with
commercial fisheries outreach.
The Bristol Bay watershed is an extraordinary resource
that sustains one of our states greatest runs of wild
salmon. It's hard for me to believe that such an
extraordinary resource lacks any special protections.
In the face of unprecedented industrial development HB
134 provides the critical standards of protection to
safeguard this phenomenal resource. The absence of
such standards permits unacceptable risks to fish and
the waters that sustain the great fisheries of Bristol
Bay.
In passing this bill lawmakers will lay the foundation
for responsible development of the regions other
resources without compromising the fantastic gift of
renewable fisheries that come back year after year.
The alternative: gambling the wild, pristine, and
thriving salmon of Bristol Bay along with local
economy, and a healthy subsistence lifestyle is
completely unacceptable to us.
The Bristol Bay fishery is in immediate need of higher
standards of protection because unlike any other
fishery in the state, it has no special protections
and is threatened by mining development on a scale
larger than has ever before been seen in this state.
10:51:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested copy of the poll.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the salmon of Bristol Bay are considered
to be more important than the runs into the Cordova and Prince
William Sound (PWS) areas. Is there a reason why the criteria
of HB 134 should be enacted for one region and not another, that
also hosts a major fishery.
MS. BLOOM answered that Bristol Bay is overtly important due to
the harvest total production percentage; it represents the
largest piece of the pie for productivity. However, every
fishery is vital to the state's economy.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that her testimony is based on the
importance of the fishery to the economic health of the state,
and not to the economic importance of the individual communities
that rely on the resource.
MS. BLOOM responded that it is crucially important on a state
scale and to the specific areas.
10:53:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reviewing the poll, stated that what the
witness quoted was actually a press release, from the Renewable
Resource Committee. He requested that the actual poll be
provided to the committee.
10:54:17 AM
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), stated opposition to HB 134, explaining that the diverse
membership of the RDC supports the responsible development of
Alaska's resources. He stated that Alaska has a stringent
permit process that will serve to protect this area as the
minerals are developed. Any significant project, proposed in
the Bristol Bay region will be thoroughly scrutinized by
regulators throughout the extensive large project permitting
project, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
[Pebble Mine] may need to seek as many as 50 state and federal
permits prior to startup. The Bristol Bay Area Plan was
recently revised, 2005, with public comment, to recognize the
mineral development potential. Numerous mining claims already
exist in the area, and he opined that the claim holders have
valid rights to pursue those developments. He refuted the
earlier testimony given by the Renewable Resources Coalition
representative. As a fish biologist, and having served on the
Essential Fish Habitat Committee of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC), he claimed that there are clear
protections for salmon habitat.
10:57:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON questioned that, in the face of many local
stakeholders, the members of the RDC are completely confident
with the permitting process that is in place, not just for the
Pebble Mine Project but others, which may develop to threaten
the salmon resource.
MR. BRUNE responded that HB 134 does not add constructive
legislation to the existing process, but rather serves to
"eliminate the potential for economic development in an area
that so desperately needs it."
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON underscored that this testimony represents
a disapproval by the RDC for "additional salmon safeguards, out
in Bristol Bay."
10:59:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that testimony provided
here, is just that, testimony, and he cautioned against
premature interpretation.
[The motion to adopt CSHB 134, Version M, was left pending.]
10:59:23 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:59
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|