Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/27/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB115 | |
| HJR6 | |
| HJR7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 7-OPPOSE ALEUTIAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
2:11:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the final order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Opposing the proposed designation
of an Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary. [Before the
committee was CSHJR 7(FSH).]
2:11:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt CSHJR 7(FSH) as the working
document. There being no objection, CSHJR 7(FSH) was before the
committee.
2:12:13 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the resolution declares the legislature's
opposition to a nomination made by the Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a group based in
Washington, DC, although the group does have some membership in
Alaska. The nomination was to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the creation of what would
be called the Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Since
introduction of the original resolution PEER has received a
rejection from NOAA. However, because NOAA also invited PEER to
revise and perhaps resubmit its nomination, Representative
Edgmon, in consultation with many of the communities that are
upset about this issue, decided to go forward with the
resolution. He said CSHJR 7(FSH) includes acknowledgment of
this recent development.
MR. CLARK noted that many of the communities located within the
proposed sanctuary boundary are in large part upset that they
were never consulted by any of the groups that brought forth the
nomination to NOAA. The communities are perhaps more upset by
the contents of the nomination itself, which would have put an
area of 554,000 square nautical miles into a sanctuary. That
area is nearly equal to the entire land mass of the state of
Alaska. It would have locked in all current restrictions on
fishing and other commerce in that whole vast area. Also, it
would have sought significant new restrictions that likely would
obstruct present and future economic activity. Those additional
restrictions are enumerated pretty specifically in PEER's
nomination document.
2:15:28 PM
MR. CLARK continued, stating the nomination also disregards an
extraordinary amount of conscientious and effective
environmental stewardship that already exists in the region.
More than 227,000 square nautical miles of the Aleutians are
already designated critical habitat conservation area. The
Aleutians are subject to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council's Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan which brings
heightened scientific scrutiny to assess the health of the
ecosystem to ensure fisheries sustainability and the well-being
of the communities there. Also, the fisheries and ecosystems
are rigorously managed under the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and
Alaska's Board of Fisheries, as well as research and management
through the National Marines Fisheries Service. For shipping
there is an ongoing Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment, which
includes development of the Optimal Response System for towing,
salvage, and [spill] response capabilities. Offshore oil and
gas development risk is very low following President Obama's
December [2014] withdrawal of more than 32 million acres in the
North Aleutian Basin from exploration leasing.
MR. CLARK reiterated that there was almost no local consultation
to Representative Edgmon's knowledge. He said there is no local
support for the proposed marine sanctuary that Representative
Edgmon is aware of from having talked with many people
throughout his district. On the contrary, Representative Edgmon
has received either resolutions or official letters [of
opposition] from the Aleutians East Borough Assembly, the
federally recognized [Agdaagux Tribe] of King Cove, the Akutan
Traditional Council, the City of Sand Point, and the City of
Adak, among others. The City of Unalaska recently voted to
oppose this and any such similar nomination.
2:18:42 PM
MR. CLARK, in response to Co-Chair Talerico, reviewed the
sectional analysis regarding the changes between HJR 7 and CSHJR
7(FSH). He said the substantive revisions include inserting an
additional "whereas" clause on page 3, lines 3-7, which notes
NOAA's response to PEER, as well as addition of the phrase "or
any similar nomination" in the "resolve on page 3, line 10, in
order to address the possibility of the submission of a revised
nomination by PEER or other entities.
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked that basically the legislature is
sending a very strongly worded letter from the State of Alaska
expressing its opinion to decision makers in Washington, DC. He
observed that the distribution list for the resolution includes
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Commerce
for NOAA, along with Alaska's congressional delegation. He
asked whether the sponsor thinks this is a wide enough
distribution.
MR. CLARK replied that the nominating process in the marine
sanctuary program exists in NOAA and the distribution is
addressed specifically to the people overseeing the nominations
program. He said the sponsor would welcome suggestions from the
committee if there are any.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER suggested the sponsor may want to consider
whether the net is cast wide enough.
MR. CLARK thanked Representative Hawker.
2:21:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony on HJR 7 and closed it
after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON brought attention to the map delineating
the boundary of the proposed marine sanctuary. He said it is
incredulous that the group did not consult any local people, the
indigenous people, or the State of Alaska. He noted the
proposed boundary completely surrounds Nunivak Island, Kuskokwim
Bay, and Bristol Bay, and therefore it is not only the Aleutian
Islands. Given that the federal government is to consult with
the State of Alaska and Alaska's indigenous groups in its Arctic
strategies, he commended the U.S. Department of Commerce for
doing this correctly. It is important for the state to always
insist on being consulted when decisions are being made so far
away from Alaska, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he echoes Representative Herron's
comments. Drawing attention to the U.S. Department of
Commerce's letter of January 23, 2015, he noted it came 31 days
after the submittal. In its letter, he observed, the department
highlights the lack of local participation as well as no
clarification of support from the federal and state agencies
listed as potential management partners. He commended the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that management of the [Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge] would overlay into the
proposed sanctuary designation. He said he hasn't heard from
anyone that the refuge designation is problematic in any way and
he thinks there has been broad general support for the refuge.
The visitor center for the refuge is located in Homer and gives
a picture of those kinds of ecosystems. He suggested that the
sponsor may want to include that overlapping responsibility as
the resolution moves along.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO related that he had a discussion with the
sponsor this afternoon and the sponsor is quite passionate about
this. He offered his appreciation to the sponsor for contacting
him to explain this issue.
2:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report CSHJR 7(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying
fiscal zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHJR
7(FSH) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.