Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
04/07/2015 05:00 PM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB110 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HB119 | |
| HB179 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 7, 2015
5:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act providing priority to personal use fisheries when
fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a management
goal."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Supporting the Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Industry
Advisory Committee and further efforts to carry out the Alaska
Maritime Workforce Development Plan.
- MOVED CSHCR 10(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 119 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to donations of fish and game to food service
programs."
- MOVED CSHB 179(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
02/18/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/15 (H) FSH, RES
04/07/15 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: MARITIME WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
03/18/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/15 (H) FSH
04/07/15 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 119
SHORT TITLE: LEG. APPROVAL OF BRISTOL BAY SULFIDE MINE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
02/20/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/15 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
04/02/15 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/02/15 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/07/15 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: FOOD PROGRAM DONATIONS; FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
04/01/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/15 (H) FSH, RES
04/06/15 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/06/15 (H) <Pending Referral>
04/07/15 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 110, on behalf of
Representative Neuman, prime sponsor.
ANITA SHOLL, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes to CSHCR 10, Version H,
on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor.
GREG PAVELLAS, Co-Chair
Industry Advisory Committee (IAC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHCR 10.
STEVEN ANGASAN
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHCR 10.
ANNA LATHUM, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHCR 10, answered
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 119, as prime sponsor.
DAVID HARSILA, President
Alaska Independent Fisherman's Marketing Association (AIFMA)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 119, testified in
support of HB 119.
REID MAGDANZ, Staff
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 179, offered
testimony regarding changes to Version E.
MAX WORHATCH
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 179, testified
in opposition.
SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney
Natural Resources Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 179, answered
questions.
JERRY McCUNE
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 179, offered
testimony.
LORINDA LHOTKA
Food Safety & Sanitation Program
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 179, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:01:27 PM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. Representatives Herron,
Ortiz, Johnson, Millett, and Stutes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Foster and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 110-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
5:03:01 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act providing priority to personal use
fisheries when fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a
management goal."
5:03:16 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 110, and said that subsistence is the
highest priority fishery in the State of Alaska, and that a
priority must be adopted for Alaska's resident personal use
fishing. The intent is that the Board of [Fisheries], when
making decisions, will first consider subsistence, and second,
consider personal use fisheries, and all other fisheries after
that. He stressed that personal use and subsistence are the
only two Alaska resident only fisheries, and all other fisheries
allow anyone from any location to fish. He stated that these
two fisheries are geared for people to feed their families, and
explained that all the fish caught for these purposes must be
consumed by those catching the fish. Commercial fisheries is a
vital part of Alaska's economy and the sponsor does not object
to any commercial fishing, he related, and sports and
recreational fisheries provide great economic benefits to the
communities with thriving fisheries throughout the state. He
said subsistence and personal use people are also vital parts of
the fisheries and recognize the importance they have in the
state as well, and for the board to consider personal use before
making any decisions for closures or reduction in catch limits
to achieve a management or escapement goal. With regard to
management when fish stock and return is not significant enough
to support the fisheries, he said, the number one goal is to
continue to maintain a thriving fisheries, which sometimes means
a fishery must be closed down. Recently the fisheries have been
in a time of abundance, and even when there have been downturns
in some fisheries there has always been fish in the rivers which
must be preserved, including crab fisheries, clams, and other
shellfish viable in Southeast fisheries, he said.
5:06:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ commented that clearly through the years of
management of fish and game the common thread has been that the
State of Alaska does the best job of managing the fisheries with
preservation and conservation of the resources at the forefront
of its decisions. He opined this is accomplished with a variety
of interest groups interests in mind and should the bill pass,
it would change the way management is looked at as [the board]
would have to prioritize personal use first. He questioned why
management should be changed in that fish is considered to be
one of the best managed resources around the world.
5:08:13 PM
MR. BREESE clarified that subsistence is statutorily the first
priority, and HB 110 adds personal use as the second priority
when making management decisions. He said the constitution
reads that resources are available for the people, and the
intent of the bill is to ensure that the people of Alaska, in a
time of a crunch and the fishery is in a bad shape, can still
fish to feed their families, whether through subsistence or
personal use. He pointed out that in Alaska, the fisheries are
managed so well that fish are available for commercial
fishermen, sports fishermen, recreational fishermen, and
personal use fishermen. Requiring implementation of this bill,
should it pass, would not be ideal but the future is unknown and
there may be a time that a fishery must be closed to rebuild the
stock, he stated. Therefore, he conveyed, it may be important
to allow personal use fishing and limit sport fishing and
commercial fishing areas impacting that salmon stream, or
fishery, and noted that closing some fisheries could put
pressure on healthier run areas. He explained that when a
fishery is struggling and the Board of Fisheries must make a
decision, that its second priority be for personal use. The
commercial, sports and recreational fisheries may require
restricting, but these fisheries are not dependent on use as
their sole source to feed their families, as with subsistence,
he opined. He said the bill will provide a tool for use at the
appropriate time.
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 110 is held in committee.
HCR 10-MARITIME WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
5:14:01 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10 Supporting the Alaska
Maritime Workforce Development Industry Advisory Committee and
further efforts to carry out the Alaska Maritime Workforce
Development Plan.
5:14:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt CSHCR 10, labeled 29-
LS0709\H, Wayne, 4/2/15, as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
5:14:49 PM
ANITA SHOLL, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, said that Version H makes a title change to reflect
the addition of the Alaska Workforce Investment Board and the
Alaska Vocational Technical Education Center in Seward. She
pointed out that the change includes the supporting language for
the Alaska Workforce Investment Board and the Alaska Vocational
Technical Education Center in Seward which has been added to the
body of the resolution.
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection, and without further
objection, Version H was before the committee.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
5:15:55 PM
GREG PAVELLAS, Co-Chair, Industry Advisory Committee (IAC), said
he in representing the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) and the
Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Plan, and paraphrased the
following statement:
This is the first comprehensive effort to understand
and address the workforce development needs in
Alaska's maritime industry. As defined in the plan,
the maritime industry includes seafood harvesters,
seafood processers, fisheries research, enhancement in
management, marine transportation, ship building and
repair, and marine support services. Collectively,
this sector in Alaska is the largest private employer
with more than 500 firms statewide in a workforce of
over 68,000 people. Until now these occupations have
not been formally characterized as a unique and
related workforce. The plan is a guide and call to
action for the private sector, government, education,
and workforce development entities to forge a
partnership dedicated to building a globally
competitive maritime workforce in Alaska.
5:17:21 PM
MR. PAVELLAS continued:
The goals of the Alaska Maritime Workforce Development
Plan are to help sustain and enhance the economy of
Alaska and its communities by: (1) developing a
responsive workforce that enables the maritime
industry to endure as a substantial contributor to the
state; (2) guiding Alaska's workforce to discover and
prepare for the wide range of employment opportunities
in the maritime industry; and (3) increasing the
number of Alaskans working in skilled maritime
occupations and earning a family wage. Employers
surveyed during the development of the plan noted that
the number of Alaskans with the necessary skills to
fill the available maritime positions is too low to
meet the demand. The plan offers a pathway to
increase the number of Alaskans working in the high
demand, high wage occupations that exist in Alaska's
maritime industry. To ensure successful
implementation of the plan, a collaboration is being
formed between business, industry, local, state and
federal governments, and philanthropic foundations, as
the collaboration is being modeled on successful
economic and workforce development best practices.
Through HCR 10 the legislator is encouraging
persistence and stating to Alaskans that by working
smarter with existing training and educational
resources that greater benefits can accrue to the
citizens of the maritime industries of our state. The
legislature concurs with the goal to drive outcomes
that improve maritime related job opportunities for
Alaskans while strengthening the economic [benefits]
of Alaska's maritime industry.
5:19:42 PM
STEVEN ANGASAN, Commercial Fisherman, stated support for HCR 10
and said it is important to encourage and increase the amount of
local workers entering the Bristol Bay fishing industry. He
expressed there is an alarming statistic within seafood
processing that there are 2,289 seafood processing jobs in the
Bristol Bay Borough, of which 209 are held by locals, and 2,080
are held by non-locals. He said, "We are part of the original,
they used to call it MSIT movement in the beginning," and
appreciates that the original training centers will be part of
this movement (indisc.) is fisheries jobs training. He thanked
the committee for making fisheries a priority in the state.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
5:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted the bill requires a report to the
legislature and asked whether it will require a fiscal note.
MS. SHOLL responded that the bill carries a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there is a report this can
tag onto, because if a report must be generated there will be a
cost.
MS. SHOLL said she does not have the answer but will get back to
the committee.
5:23:44 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
5:23:58 PM
ANNA LATHUM, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, said the department
submitted a zero fiscal note as minimal resources will be
required to submit the report.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON encouraged the department, in the future,
when minimal work is required to provide a zero fiscal note.
5:24:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report CSHCR 10, labeled 29-
LS0709\H, Wayne, 4/2/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHCR 10(FSH) moved from the House Special
Committee on Fisheries.
5:25:29 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:25 a.m. to 5:26 a.m.
HB 119-LEG. APPROVAL OF BRISTOL BAY SULFIDE MINE
5:26:52 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the next order of business would be,
HOUSE BILL NO. 119 "An Act relating to the Bristol Bay Fisheries
Reserve; and providing for an effective date."
5:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 119 as prime sponsor, and reminded the committee
that in November 2014, Alaskans voted overwhelmingly to pass
Ballot Measure 4, requiring legislative approval of any large
scale mine within the Bristol Bay Watershed. Throughout the
campaign, this issue was mining versus fish, and Alaskans
declared that in this location, with this mine, they are not
willing to jeopardize the fishery. He explained that HB 119
calls for a comprehensive review by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and requires
each commissioner to find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any
proposed metallic sulfide mining not presently permitted, larger
than 640 acres in size, poses no threat to the fishery. He
advised that the concept is based upon the Bristol Bay Forever
Initiative, which was based upon the language of the 1972 Jay
Hammond, Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve law, and noted that the
1972 law included a requirement that any oil and gas
developments in the Bristol Bay region receive legislative
approval, and this legislation extends this requirement to mines
in the same area. The bill also clarifies what is meant by
fisheries in a far more comprehensive manner than the 1972 law
or the initiative, he explained. He said that given this bill
impacts the citizens' initiative, he touched on the
constitutional aspects in that the case law in amending an
initiative primarily is the Warren I, and Warren II decisions
concerning potential rollbacks of initiative language.
Obviously this bill does not rollback the language of the
initiative, but gives it more teeth, he offered.
5:29:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON provided a section analysis,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Requires development of regulations
concerning legislative approval. Defines the meaning
of "fisheries" and "permits and authorization".
Section 2: New subsection requires the commissioners
of the Department of Fish and Game, Department of
Environmental Conservation, and Department of Natural
Resources to make independent determinations that any
large-scale metallic sulfide mining will pose no
danger to the fisheries.
Section 3: Adds immediate effective date.
5:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that Section 1 broadly defines a
variety fisheries, and the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve
includes subsistence, commercial, personal use, and a great deal
of sport fishing, and it also creates the definition for permits
and authorizations. He then referred to Section 2, and advised
this section reads "prior to legislative authorization, which is
a current requirement for a large-scale metallic mine, and
commissioners must make an independent finding that beyond a
reasonable doubt any proposed mine constitutes no danger to the
fisheries." Following that [finding], is a judicial review of
the permits and authorizations and, he explained, the matter
would then move to the legislature as called for in the
initiative. He pointed out that the bill calls for a
reconsideration of the legislative approval if there has been
significant, but not minor, changes to the permits and
authorizations previously granted which would entail each of the
three commissioners making a revised, independent determination
that an applicant has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a
large-scale mine will not constitute a danger to the fisheries.
He noted the burden remains on the mining operation and not on
the State of Alaska. He remarked that this section also calls
for an inter-agency process wherein each department engages in
information sharing while conducting their own separate and
independent analysis of the efficacy of the mine relative to
impacts on fisheries. Additionally, he said, a peer review
process will be conducted in order that the findings of each
department can be scientifically proven as reliable and
verifiable.
5:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued by discussing the standard of
review suggested by the legislation, in that currently in Alaska
law, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard can be seen in many
civil context, as it is not just a criminal standard, including
Child in Need of Aid cases, Indian Child Welfare Act cases, and
many cases involving hospitalization commitment. He referred to
two personal injury actions where the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard was used: one involving DNA testing wherein involving
sexual abuse by members of the clergy; and an Alaska Supreme
Court case involving wage and hour employment classification.
He explained it fits into the natural resources context because
beyond a reasonable doubt standard was used in forestry laws in
Washington State, and there is a Pennsylvania mining law
implementing beyond a reasonable doubt. In Pennsylvania law, §
86.102. "Areas where mining is prohibited or limited," there is
a prohibition on surface mining operations within 100 feet of
the bank of a perineal or intermittent stream, which read:
(12) ... The Department may grant a variance from
this distance requirement if the operator demonstrates
beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no
adverse hydrologic impacts, water quality impacts or
other environmental resources impacts as a result of
the variance...
5:32:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered that within Title 5 AAC, the
Board of Fisheries has created a series of regulations using the
"precautionary approach" for management of Alaska's fisheries
which is part of a comprehensive policy for the regulation and
management of sustainable salmon fisheries. He quoted, "It is
the goal of the policy ... in Title 5, ... under this section to
ensure conservation of salmon and salmon's required marine and
aquatic habitats protection of customary and traditional
subsistence uses and other uses." The Chairman of the Board of
Fisheries, he said, took an express position in a letter to the
legislature on January 10, 2010, which read, "The legislature
should enact any additional safe guards which are considered
prudent to provide strict protections to the fish and game
habitat of the drainages ... again, this is about Bristol Bay
drainages ... to prevent any chance of environmental damage."
He referred to the $10,000 fiscal note and explained that the
others get more substantial, but not extremely substantial and
offered that the $10,000 is currently in DNR, and the others
refer to the out years of 2019 having a fiscal impact. He
submitted that if the mines are postponed there would be no
impact until further down the road.
5:34:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that some have said this bill
will help insulate and protect the state from litigation and
liability in the event a mine, of the size in question, is
permitted and developed and problems arise from that mine
impacting any fishery. The argument there is, "We had this
incredibly strict standard, don't pick on us if it goes badly."
In summary, he related, without this bill commissioners would be
free to use a much lower standard as they review permits and
commissioners would more easily define the fishery as being
commercial fishery, and not other fisheries. He pointed out
that the 1972 law does not define subsistence fishery as
something the legislature should consider. He remarked that
without the bill: only DNR would prepare a report to the
legislature as called for under the initiative whereas this bill
requires that DEC and ADF&G commissioners are involved;
regulations could be adopted allowing the state to take the
burden on its shoulders rather than keeping the burden with the
producers; the legislature would get one bite at the apple even
though a mine could expand, evolve, and change as they so often
do; and the express right to judicial review would be absent.
He opined that the permitting process is intended to strike a
balance between common values, such as economic development and
conservation, but the process sometimes favors the better
financed interests of industry as evidenced by the very small
number of permits denied to projects over the last ten years.
For example, he said, within a research report spanning the last
ten years prepared by the Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
108 out of 7,971 permits were denied, but acknowledged that some
are denied due to withdrawal, but that actual denials are
"extremely" uncommon. He noted that these measures are intended
to reduce the risk of development to a tolerable level; however,
in this case the bill reads that the risk must be even lower.
He stated that, "For this particular fishery in this particular
place we must exercise an overabundance of caution," and offered
that members may disagree with this measure, but it is within
the scope of this committee as it relates to the preservation
and protection of one of Alaska's most prized resources. He
stressed that HB 119 is not an anti-mining bill but rather about
protecting these fish in this particularly sensitive and special
area. The legislature needs the best scientific product before
it comes up on the legislature's floors for final approval of a
large-scale mine in Bristol Bay, he opined.
5:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that Representative Josephson
clearly articulated that this legislation is needed because
there could be a DNR commissioner and a legislature not paying
attention, and there could be vote of legislative approval, and
asked whether that would be by simple majority.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that it is by simple majority
under the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that Representative Josephson could
have the bill require two-thirds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded, tongue in cheek, that he
views that suggestion as a friendly amendment. He described
this is a good, necessary, and ambitious bill, and such an
amendment would make it even more ambitious. He opined that if
there is a meritorious project, these three commissioners will
make that determination in peer review. He noted that the
potential mines at issue are any within the Jay Hammond Reserve,
and the mine that "everyone has heard about" has said fish
first, which he agrees with.
5:39:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to Section 2, noting it does not
explain whether a minority of those commissioners can [negate]
it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON explained that should DNR and DEC,
subsequent to a peer review, determine there is beyond a
reasonable doubt no chance of damage to a fishery of any sort,
and ADF&G determines it is a threat, that determination would
deny the project and; therefore, it would not come before the
legislature.
5:40:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether Representative Josephson is
uncomfortable with Alaska's current permitting process for
large-scale mines, or has there been a problem with DNR, DEC, or
ADF&G in their recent findings with permitting mines.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed he is uncomfortable with the
current process, and advised that in 2013 Legislative Legal and
Research Services prepared a document offering an overview of
changes in the last 13 years in the regulatory process. He
cited a number of projects and how they were handled, which
included: the Coastal Zone Management Repeal, new mixing zones
allowing for toxins in an anadromous streams which were not
allowed prior to House Bill 160 (2003) making changes to Title
18 AAC, and House Bill 129 which read, "We're only going to
review oil and gas leases at the outset for 10 years, no public
comment during that period." He advised there have been a
series of decisions from the Supreme Court, and legislation that
has gone in the opposite direction, and he has concerns.
5:42:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Representative Josephson to point
to a permitted large-scale mine in the last ten years wherein he
believes fish required protection.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON listed concerns with the Illinois Creek
Mine [located in the Kaiyuh Mountains, west-central Alaska], and
the Rock Creek Mine located on the Seward Peninsula, as both
mines never came to fruition yet dirt was turned and $20 million
of remediation is necessary on the Seward Peninsula. He
questioned whether Alaska has enough boots on the ground to
monitor, and referred to the Pebble Mine that self-reported 44
water violations and expressed concern because Pebble Mine self-
reported the violations and Alaska was not aware of the
problems. The trans-boundary issue is a real concern for
Southeast Alaska, and he opined that the administration is
concerned.
5:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired why Representative Josephson
would not put a bill forward changing the permitting process
rather than presenting HB 119 with a large fiscal note. She
opined that if there was another large mine that went to
permitting it would raise the state's cost incredibly. She
stressed that the legislature is cutting education, yet he wants
to add mine permitting to the pile of money Alaska does not have
just in case someone comes forward to permit a large mine
because he is uncomfortable with the manner Alaska permits
mines. She suggested moving toward permitting changes rather
than another study and layer of government that is scaring
industry away from the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that new permits would also
be another layer of regulations with costs, and he does not know
whether that remedy would change much of the result. Statistics
show permits are generally granted, although with tough
conditions, he acquiesced. He reiterated that given Alaska has
the best wild salmon fishery on the planet, it is smart thinking
when three commissioners review preliminary permits and the
"whole thing" in total, and make an independent finding with a
peer-reviewable inter-agency review.
5:45:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked what amount of time this would add
to a large mine project in realistic terms. Bristol Bay Pebble
Mine had multiple studies which was not enough so where do the
studies stop - until there is a piece of data that can stop a
complete mine, she questioned.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded the answer to Representative
Millett's second question would be after HB 119 is passed is
where to stop. With respect to her first question, he could
only surmise that is could be six months, but stressed that
people and legislators are entitled to confidence in the
process.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
5:46:30 PM
DAVID HARSILA, President, Alaska Independent Fisherman's
Marketing Association (AIFMA), testified in support of HB 119,
and said the Alaska Independent Fisherman's Marketing
Association (AIFMA) board met with mining officials from a
prominent company approximately 10 years ago and advised its
permitting process research in Alaska indicated the State of
Alaska would never deny permits, which referred to large-scale
open-pit mines that would be developed in Bristol Bay Watershed.
Its explanation and confidence about Pebble Mine convinced the
AIFMA board, at that time, that this was a significant and a
real issue, he conveyed. Since that time AIFMA has been
searching to provide a higher standard when applications for
large-scale open-pit mines are considered and the opportunity to
address this issue is now, before a permit application is
received, and before a mine is developed as opposed to after the
fact. He pointed out that the largest natural run of Sockeye
Salmon in the entire world resides in the Bristol Bay
Watersheds, and it is at stake. He urged the committee to
protect the Bristol Bay Watershed from large-scale open-pit
mining and the damages it could incur.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
5:49:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 119, labeled
29-LS0424\H out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT objected.
5:49:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Foster, Ortiz,
Kreiss-Tomkins, and Stutes voted in favor of HB 119.
Representatives Johnson and Millett voted against it.
Therefore, HB 119 passed and was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries by a vote of 4-2.
5:50:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:50 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.
HB 179-FOOD PROGRAM DONATIONS; FISH AND GAME
5:52:45 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would
be, HOUSE BILL NO. 179 "An Act relating to donations of fish and
game to food service programs."
5:53:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt CSHB 179, labeled 29-
LS076\E as the working document.
CHAIR STUTES objected for discussion.
5:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS presented the CS for HB 179,
Version E, and said the bill allows people to donate sport or
subsistence harvested food to non-profit meal programs, such as
senior centers, pre-schools, or schools. He paraphrased the
following summary of changes, [original punctuation provided],
as follows:
Defines and uses "covered organization" to mean the
list of organizations in section 3(4) of the prior
version (version A) that are allowed to accept
donations of wild food for their meal service
programs. Expands the list of covered organizations
listed in the prior version to add private schools;
public, nonprofit, and private child care facilities,
including preschools and head start programs; licensed
residential psychiatric treatment centers; a wider
variety of senior center facilities; and senior meal
programs.
Defines and uses "covered food item" to mean the food
allowed to be donated to a covered organization under
section 1 of version A, now section 1(b) of version E.
Moves definition sections from Title 17 to Title 16.
Defines additional terms.
Removes personal use fish from the list of covered
food items that can be donated. This means the status
quo rules remain in place for personal use caught
fish.
Makes clear that all game, marine or aquatic plants,
and nests or eggs of fish and game, not just those
harvested for subsistence or sport, can be donated
under the bill.
Explicitly allows a covered organization to accept
state funding, federal funding, and fees from staff
and users for meals containing covered food items.
Explicitly bars a covered organization from accepting
payment for meals provided to people who are not staff
or users, including the general public. Users are
individuals a covered organization serves.
Removes the specific language on food safety in
Section 4(a) of version A. Discussions with DEC led to
the conclusion that this language was better left to
regulation.
Standardizes language between the sections of the bill
in Title 16 and Title 17, so that all sections refer
to covered organizations and covered food items.
Moves language on indemnification from liability for
covered organizations to the existing section
providing indemnification to food banks, rather than
creating a separate section.
5:54:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that a large change in
Version E removes any mention of personal use in the bill.
Other changes, he said, clarify the eligibility of
organizations. He explained that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) currently has regulations as to
how people can donate sport or subsistence food to, for example
food banks, and advised the bill allows DEC to continue that
flexibility through regulations.
5:55:05 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, said that word choices and definitions
are different in Version E than within Version A, due to a
change in drafting attorneys. He explained the following
changes: the term "covered organization" was added to define
which organizations are eligible to receive these donations;
"covered food item" refers to eligible foods to donate; more of
the language was pulled into Title 16 - wherein Version A had a
significant amount of language pulled from Title 17, which puts
everything in one place and standardizes the definitions across
those titles; and clarification language was included to
ascertain the bill fully reflects the intent and sponsor
statement.
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
5:56:57 PM
MAX WORHATCH, testified in opposition for HB 179, and advised he
is a sports, subsistence, and personal use fisherman and a
hunter. He stated he is not opposed to benefiting non-profits,
but the bill creates a whole new user group for Alaska's
resources. He opined that in speaking with Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins determined the bill is more for villages and
outlying areas; therefore, the problem is that it is a state law
and Petersburg's fish and game resources are being used to their
full capabilities. He expressed that any sport fish donated or
served to schools should come from the highly regulated
commercial industry where the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) food approved processing capabilities are
required and adhered to. He referred to game and said he is
opposed, although it would be nice for Alaska's children to eat
deer chops at lunch the problem is that the chain of custody and
care of the meat is too vague for him. When it comes to
management of the resources involved, he said, it would lead to
an increase in harvests which complicates management and may
preclude people from harvesting meat for the needs of their
family.
5:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that this bill does not
increase the amount of bag limits or fish to be taken, in that a
person must stay within the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
rules and regulations. For example, she remarked, she can only
take her eligible two King Salmon but can donate one of the
salmon to a non-profit.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated her comment is accurate in
that the bill does not touch on allocations.
MR. WORHATCH argued that there is no annual limit for sport
fish, not King Salmon, but for other species an individual is
allowed six salmon per day, every day of the year. In that
regard, he related, fishermen could fish their daily limit and
donate the catch, which could cause an increase in demand around
larger communities, such as Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, or
Ketchikan where local users do not have go out far in the ocean
to fulfill their needs. He opined that as more fish are taken
out of that area, there will be less for everyone.
6:00:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that currently people could
fish their six salmon every day and ship it to their family in
the lower-48 if they wanted to, it does not change any
allocation.
MR. WORHATCH responded that he does not know how that works, and
opined that even though personal use is not being addressed, a
sport fishing Alaskan resident falls under personal use
regulations. He said he is unclear as to whether an Alaskan is
allowed to send a huge amount of fish out of the state.
6:01:51 PM
SETH BEAUSANG, Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Department
of Law (DOL), responded there is no clear answer to the question
of whether an individual can send their daily catch to the
lower-48, in that sport fishing is defined in state statute as
taking or attempting to take for personal use, and not for sale
or barter. He remarked that in the past, the Department of Law
(DOL) has advised that in taking sport caught fish for personal
use there is limited amount of sharing allowed. He said whether
it would be permissible to share on the above-mentioned scale,
there is no clear answer in the law.
6:03:23 PM
JERRY McCUNE, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), offered
that there are a couple salmon donations provided by CDFU, such
as a senior salmon day, and donating fish to the school. He
mentioned that they have the processors process the fish because
the school uses the fish throughout the year; therefore, it
can't be home vacuumed packed and must be commercially
processed. He opined that while he understand the intent is to
allow people to donate game, but on the fish side he is nervous
about someone "willy nilly" taking fish out of their freezer at
the end of the year and dumping it somewhere. He offered that
for any public event wherein CDFU is serving salmon, it has been
run through the DEC processor. He said the bill's intent is for
a good cause, but he is cautious when it comes to fish.
6:04:48 PM
LORINDA LHOTKA, Food Safety & Sanitation Program, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), answered that (indisc.) currently, and they've (indisc.)
for many years that a school could receive (indisc.) involving
seafood and plants and that would include fish. She said they
could receive the fish whole (indisc.) and then process them in
a facility (indisc.) permanent space allows them to do that.
They could also get fish donated from a commercial processor,
she explained.
CHAIR STUTES said she heard that one way to donate is through a
commercial processor, but could not hear the first way to donate
in that the telephone line is muffled.
MS. LHOTKA said (indisc.) allow a school food service or a non-
profit program to receive the fish whole, gutted, or gilled, and
the school could process (indisc.) store at the school, food
service, head-start, or a long-term care facility. She added
that the regulations allow the school or food establishment to
[process] it, or it can come from a commercial food processor.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
6:06:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked what prompted the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that there is increased
public interest in eating good local foods in Alaska with
nutritious foods for schools programs. He said his second
motivation is that in some communities, variations of "what is
described in this bill may, or may not, already be happening,"
which speaks to an existing reality in a significant number of
Alaskan communities.
6:08:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that the witness from DEC said
there are regulations where certain facilities can receive these
donated goods, and asked what the bill is trying to expand.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that a line in statute
is changed by this bill, as currently if an individual wants to
donate salmon to a food bank, for instance, it is allowed
through DEC regulations. He said the food bank will give the
food away without any monetary transactions, but there is an
issue with a senior center where people may pay a nominal amount
of money for their lunch which disallows that facility to engage
in donated fish and game. The bill changes that and, he noted,
DEC regulations are not being substantively altered.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said with regard to the senior center
example, if a normal meal is $5.00 and on that particular day
are eating donated food, couldn't the value of the meal be
reduced related to the donated food.
6:10:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that institutions could
create an internal policy allowing free meals when serving
donated foods. He suggested clear segregated systems offering
days of donated foods, and not donated foods.
CHAIR STUTES pointed out that fish and game donated meals
include other side dishes in the meal wherein costs would be
incurred through a senior center, and said she could see the
point of this bill.
6:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether the term game includes
marine mammals.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to attorney Seth
Beausang.
MR. BEAUSANG responded that the definition of game in Title 16
does include marine mammals; however, the taking of marine
mammals is highly regulated and generally prohibited by the
federal Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which would come
into play.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony after ascertaining that no
one further wished to testify.
CHAIR STUTES removed her objection and Version E was before the
committee.
6:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report CSHB 179, labeled 29-
LS076\E out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
179(FSH) passed from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
6:13:48 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:13
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 119 Supporting Document - BBFR Map.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 2.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 1.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 3.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Talking Points.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 3.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - BBFR Map.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Talking Points.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 1.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 119 Supporting Document - Pebble 2.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 119 |
| HB 110 Oppose CDFU.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose UFA.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose Martin.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose SEAFA.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose AK Salmon Alliance.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose UCIDA.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HCR 10 Support DOL.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HB179 Explanation of Changes ver A to ver E.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB179 ver E.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB179 Sectional ver E.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HB 179 Support Tlingit and Haida.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 179 |
| HCR 10 Support BBB Chamber of Commerce.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HB 110 Oppose SEAS.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose ASA.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose Lee.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Oppose Evans.pdf |
HFSH 4/7/2015 5:00:00 PM |
HB 110 |