Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
04/08/2010 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview from Conoco Philips | |
| HB210 | |
| HJR40 | |
| HJR26 | |
| HCR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 40-COOK INLET/KACHEMAK BELUGA POPULATION
4:33:07 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE brought the meeting back to order and announced
consideration of HJR 40 [CSHJR 40(RES) was before the
committee].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, sponsor of HJR 40, said this resolution
opposes the proposed designation by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) of 3,000 square miles of upper Cook
Inlet as a critical Beluga habitat area. She said the critical
habitat designation is part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
process, and the Belugas were designated as endangered species
in October 2008. The ESA requires consideration of listing
endangered species habitat as critical habitat. The NMFS
designated the whole 3,000 square miles from Upper Cook Inlet
all the way down to Homer as Beluga habitat, and HJR 40 opposes
that as being excessive.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT explained that the ESA allows for
economic consequences in considering the critical habitat
listing and she believes the NMFS grossly underestimated that at
$600,000. Instead she said this critical habitat designation
would encompass everything from the Port of Anchorage to fishing
grounds outside of Homer and Kenai to oil and gas exploration
and any type of construction or resource development that would
take place across the Inlet, which would jeopardize not only Mt.
Spurr, but Chakachamna/Susitna and coal gasification projects.
She learned that the west side of Cook Inlet was listed as
critical habitat and there had been only one sighting of a
Beluga whale there in the last 10 years. Also, she said, NMFS
only counts them once a year by doing an aerial flight, and
juvenile Belugas aren't counted because they are the color of
mud and look like waves.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said this listing would also severely
limit the products that can come into Anchorage as well as oil
and gas exploration in Cook Inlet. All three of Alaska's
delegation oppose this designation and that she entered the
resolution during the NMFS public comment period.
She said back in the 1990s a subsistence hunt took place not
realizing there was a delicate balance between the subsistence
harvest and the Beluga population. In 1998 a harvest management
plan was established and since then the Belugas have shown an
increase in numbers. The NMFS has stated that the reason for the
decline was overharvesting.
4:37:58 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked her what she thinks would be a more
reasonable designation.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said there is no opportunity to have
public comment and she is not a biologist; it is a tool of the
NMFS. She believes the west side of Cook Inlet should not be
included.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if she thinks the west side of the Inlet
should be excluded.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said her preference is no designation.
She believes the Belugas "are coming back" because the
subsistent hunts are done, and it will take them a little while
to rebound. The NMFS has said it will take 10-15 years to have
the population increase. She believed having a harvest
management plan in place with a take of two Belugas a year is
already working well enough.
SENATOR FRENCH said he heard a good presentation by Jason Brune
[executive director, Rural Development Corporation (RDC)] about
this a few years ago, and he wondered what the population was in
the 1980s when the subsistence harvest took place.
4:40:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered that the Beluga population
started out at 1,300 in the 80s, in 1994 it was 653, and in 1998
it was 347, which is when the subsistence harvest took place. In
2004 the population was 366, in 2005 it was 278, and in 2009
they rebounded to 321. There has not been a 2010 count yet. They
have increased by an average of about 4 percent per year since
the subsistence management plan was put in place.
SENATOR FRENCH said it sounds like part of the problem is that
NMFS only does one count a year. He asked if they should be
appropriating more money to count Beluga whales more often.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT replied that she has asked NMFS to
increase its counts and to include juveniles, although she
doubts she has much influence.
SENATOR WAGONER said he fished that Inlet for the better part of
40 years, and some years you would see a lot of Belugas, some
years you wouldn't. The only place you could count them is in
lower Cook Inlet and the only time you could count them is when
the food is in. For the scientists to say this is a sub-species
is something he doesn't believe. As for the numbers, if they
studied the food source, they could get a good idea about how
many Belugas are going to be there.
4:43:27 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE said this is just another way the Endangered
Species Act is being used by the federal government, and she
hoped they would depend on the state in which they are making
the designation for their data.
4:44:20 PM
JASON BRUNE, Executive Director, Rural Development Council
(RDC), said he concurred with Senator Wagoner's and Senator
French's statements and that he supported HJR 40.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE asked him to provide his written comments. She
closed public testimony and set HJR 40 aside.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|