04/15/2009 05:18 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s)|| Alaska Board of Fisheries | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2009
5:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Fisheries
Brent G. Johnson - Clam Gulch
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program; and
establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy Board."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOULE, EDGMON, BUCH
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) CRA, RES, FIN
02/10/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/10/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/24/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/03/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/03/09 (H) Moved CSHB 74(CRA) Out of Committee
03/03/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/05/09 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 4NR
03/05/09 (H) NR: KELLER, CISSNA, HERRON, MUNOZ
04/15/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BRENT G. JOHNSON, Appointee
to the Board of Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Clam Gulch, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
RICHARD THOMPSON
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
PAUL SHADURA II
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association (KPFA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
CHRISTINE BRANDT
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
MONTE ROBERTS, President
Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
GARY HOLLIER
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
TED CROOKSTON
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
JOHN BLAIR, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
DON JOHNSON
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
DAVID GOGGIA
Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that KRPGA does not feel Mr. Brent
Johnson, appointee to the Board of Fisheries, can be objective.
STEVE MCCLURE
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
RON RAINEY
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
RUSSELL THOMAS
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
RICHARD ERKENEFF
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist
for United Fishermen of Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
RON SOMERVILLE
Territorial Sportsmen
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
LARRY EDFELT
Auke Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
BOB THORSTENSON, Lobbyist
for Southeast Alaska Seiners Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the appointment of Mr. Brent
Johnson to the Board of Fisheries.
CRAIG FLEENER, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the confirmation
hearing of Mr. Brent Johnson, appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 74.
TOM LOHMAN
Department of Wildlife Management
North Slope Borough
(no address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 74.
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director
Planning and Community Services
North Slope Borough
(no address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 74.
GORDON BROWER, Land Manager
Planning and Community Services
North Slope Borough
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 74.
GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal District Coordinator
Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal District
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of the provisions in HB 74.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 74, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:18:50 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 5:18 p.m. Representatives Wilson,
Olson, Guttenberg, Johnson, and Neuman were present at the call
to order. Representatives Kawasaki, Tuck, and Seaton arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representative Millett was also
present.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Alaska Board of Fisheries
5:19:42 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business is
the confirmation hearing for Brent G. Johnson, appointee to the
Board of Fisheries.
BRENT G. JOHNSON, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, said he has
extensive commercial fishing experience and good people skills
that allow him to listen to all sides and digest the
information. He is familiar with habitat issues from his time
serving on the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission and
he appreciates the importance of habitat to fisheries issues.
Since he comes from an area that has a tremendous amount of
personal use and sport fishing, he recognizes the importance of
fish to both the economy and the food people eat. The
professions of his relatives as bed and breakfast owners and
guides give him a well-rounded appreciation of the value of fish
to people other than just commercial fishermen.
5:22:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how Mr. Johnson evaluated the
various individual proposals for commercial, personal use,
sport, set net, and subsistence that came before him while on
the Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee without
undue influence from his own involvement in the set net fishery.
MR. JOHNSON responded that while on the advisory committee he
was an active member of a set net organization which brought a
certain view to the table that would be quite different than
sitting on the Board of Fisheries where he would be representing
all the people of Alaska. He maintained that the organization
he was with never once submitted a proposal that took fish away
from other groups. During discussions on individual proposals
it was always a matter of looking at the resource and the
history of who was taking fish from whom.
5:24:52 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether Mr. Johnson has ever made any
claims or had discussions in regard to possible dipnetting
closures and the allocation of resources.
MR. JOHNSON stated he has absolutely never made a claim that he
is out to close down dipnetters. A group is suing in regard to
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
there is a tie to dipnetting in that lawsuit. There may be an
assumption that he is tied to the lawsuit because he is a
commercial fisherman, which is not the case. In further
response, Mr. Johnson said he is unaware of having said or
written anything [in regard to dipnetting]. He acknowledged
writing many letters to the editor on a number of different
issues and that it is possible he mentioned something in some
fashion, but does not remember doing so.
5:27:05 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN noted there are two federal lawsuits currently
in the courts that would do away with dipnetting. He asked for
Mr. Johnson's views in regard to more federal control over the
salmon fisheries in the state.
MR. JOHNSON replied he thinks it is a very bad idea to have the
federal government managing fisheries, citing the federal
government's management of banking as an example for why not.
5:28:07 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether Mr. Johnson would consider any
limits on dipnetting or subsistence fisheries.
MR. JOHNSON answered that he thinks there is already a bag limit
on the dipnet fishery, although he is unsure what it is. He
said he does not think any fishery should be a free-for-all and
he therefore stands for whatever the regulations may be. He
would not intend to increase the regulations or lower the bag
limit unless there is a conservation concern.
5:28:56 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked what suggestions Mr. Johnson has for
ensuring the escapement of more fish into northern Cook Inlet
tributaries.
MR. JOHNSON responded that he thinks science must provide the
answer to the problem of why fish are not there. The studies
currently being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G) are extremely valuable for finding out the cause.
He understood the drift fleet believes ADF&G took drastic
actions; however, caution must be used and escapement must be
ensured so it does not become a situation like on the Columbia
River or Atlantic coast. It is a real problem that needs to be
worked on with a great deal of intensity.
5:30:58 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested Mr. Johnson to explain the drastic
measures taken against the drift fleet.
MR. JOHNSON said the drift fleet has historically fished in the
center of Cook Inlet, but last year the fleet was taken out of
the center for several periods. A corridor was developed for
the drift fleet and the fleet was moved into this corridor more
and more. He understood the outlook for the next number of
years is for the drift fleet to fish predominantly in this
corridor with little time in the center of the inlet. While he
does not think there is another thing that can be done at the
moment, that is not to say solutions cannot eventually be found
to the problems and the stocks rebuilt in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley and the Susitna River so that the fleet can one day move
back to the center.
5:32:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether Mr. Johnson considers the moving
of the drift fleet from one place to another as drastic.
MR. JOHNSON replied that the drift fleet feels it is drastic.
In further response, he said he, too, thinks this is drastic.
He related that one of the solutions for set netters in the
northern district was a reduction in the number of nets that can
be fished from three to one during July. Perhaps there are
other things that can be done, but he would view all of those
things as drastic.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON commented that not being allowed to fish in the
upper Cook Inlet is what he would consider drastic, not moving
the nets from one place to another.
5:34:07 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN expressed his concern that because Mr. Johnson
would have to excuse himself from discussions on Cook Inlet,
three of the members of the Board of Fisheries would be unable
to vote on Cook Inlet discussions. He said keeping this from
happening is why he thinks regional representation is important.
He inquired how Mr. Johnson would address this.
MR. JOHNSON answered that there are some proposals on which he
would not be conflicted out, such as sport fish proposals that
do not affect set netting. He said the only other way he can
address it is to say he has the demonstrated experience and
integrity from his service on various boards and commissions.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
5:36:20 PM
RICHARD THOMPSON strongly supported Mr. Johnson for the Board of
Fisheries based on Mr. Johnson's past dedication to fishery
management and choice to use the best available science. Mr.
Johnson's objectivity will allow him to represent all user
groups throughout the state and in Cook Inlet.
5:37:24 PM
PAUL SHADURA II, Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, cited
the state statute which says the governor shall appoint each
member on the basis of interest in public affairs, good
judgment, knowledge, and the ability in the field of action of
the board, and with the view of providing diversity of interest
and points of view in the membership. Appointed members shall
be residents of the state and shall be appointed without regard
to a political affiliation or geographical residence. He also
cited statute relating to allocation decisions. Politics should
not be part of managing the sustainability of the state's
natural resources, he stressed. He said he has seen and heard a
tremendous amount of misinformation and misrepresentation about
Mr. Johnson. In response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Shadura said
he supports Brent Johnson.
5:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, in regard to the diversity portion of
the statute, asked how Mr. Johnson would add to the board's
diversity.
MR. SHADURA responded that the state is huge, but the board has
only seven members. Therefore, the diversity comes over time as
people with different interests come forward to sit on the board
to do the people's work. He said that diversity is well founded
with Brent Johnson because Mr. Johnson does not align himself
with one or the other, which is why he is accepted by most of
the fishing groups in the Kenai Peninsula region as someone who
can remain objective.
5:43:54 PM
CHRISTINE BRANDT supported Mr. Johnson for the Board of
Fisheries. She said he is honest and respectful and his
experience with issues on land development, Southcentral
fisheries enhancement and rehabilitation projects, conservation,
and the personal use of fish and game is monumental. Mr.
Johnson will have a fresh perspective for Interior issues; she
pointed out that this issue was not brought up during the recent
confirmation of Mr. Karl Johnstone. She said she reviewed
proposals for the upper Cook Inlet for the years 1999, 2002,
2005, and 2008 and did not find one proposal put forward for
reduction or closure of subsistence, personal use, or sport
fishing by Brent Johnson or the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's
Association; therefore, the allegation that either of them is
trying to shut down subsistence and personal-use fishing is
unfounded. Mr. Johnson will be a true advocate for all users
while protecting Alaska's resource for future generations.
5:45:51 PM
MONTE ROBERTS, President, Kenai River Professional Guide
Association (KRPGA), opposed Mr. Johnson's appointment. While
respecting Mr. Johnson's ability to fight for his cause, he said
the KRPGA believes Interior, personal use, and subsistence
fishermen will suffer as a result of Mr. Johnson's appointment.
While the KRPGA and commercial fishermen understand the process
and fight for their rights, no one fights for personal or
subsistence users; therefore, personal and subsistence users
need a seat on the board so they have a chance. This should not
have to be legislated, it should be common sense.
5:46:54 PM
GARY HOLLIER supported the appointment of Mr. Brent Johnson. In
all his years of involvement with the Kenai/Soldotna Fish and
Game Advisory Committee and the Board of Fisheries, he said he
has never seen such a large personal attack on an individual as
there has been against the confirmation of Mr. Johnson. Except
for committee members, the people who have been in the room for
these confirmation hearings are the same ones at Board of
Fisheries meetings. The Kenai River [Sportfishing] Association
and the Kenai River Professional Guide Association continually
put in proposals to try to restrict a commercial fishery in Cook
Inlet and they have been successful because he could only fish
five days last year. He charged that since 1975 there have been
four representatives on the Board of Fisheries from Fairbanks,
no commercial fisherman has been appointed since then, and under
the Knowles Administration the board had four Cook Inlet sport
advocates.
5:50:12 PM
TED CROOKSTON supported Mr. Brent Johnson's appointment to the
Board of Fisheries. A few individuals have mounted this great
effort to protest the confirmation of Mr. Johnson. He hopes
members recognize the hallmarks of this opposition which are
characterized by exaggerated and fatalistic speech and unfairly
and inaccurately attributing an issue to Mr. Johnson as if it is
his fault the issue exists. Mr. Johnson is a man of talent,
integrity, wisdom, capacity, and responsibility.
5:52:51 PM
JOHN BLAIR, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), opposed Mr. Brent Johnson's appointment to
the Board of Fisheries, but said he does not oppose Mr. Johnson
as an individual. This nomination is a missed opportunity for
Interior and upriver representation and Mr. Johnson's background
duplicates qualifications of the people already on the board.
He disagreed that there are no commercial fishermen on the
board, saying the board's chair is currently a commercial
fisherman. There are no representations from the sport fishing
guide business and SEAGO believes the Board of Fisheries works
best when there is broad representation from diverse areas and
diverse user groups. The confirmation of Mr. Johnson would put
an inordinate imbalance on the board.
5:54:34 PM
DON JOHNSON argued that what is being heard is a money issue:
the commercial fishing industry looks at the fishery resource as
dollar bills, but personal use and subsistence users look at the
fish as dinner on the table. He said he does not think Mr.
Johnson fits the role of representing Interior Alaska and
subsistence and personal use because for 30 years he has fought
Mr. Johnson's proposals which always favored commercial
fishermen. The Board of Fisheries had a diversity of interest
when there was at least one person that had the Interior and
subsistence and personal use aspect, but this person is being
removed and replaced by a person with commercial perspective
which will give a majority to the commercial fishing side. He
said HJR 32 supports his argument because it points out that
commercial fishermen are suing everybody to ensure that a person
cannot put a fish on his or her dinner plate. He urged Mr.
Johnson not be confirmed.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that it is unfair to say all
commercial fishermen are suing because the plaintiff is a small,
distinct group.
5:59:47 PM
DAVID GOGGIA, Kenai River Professional Guide Association
(KRPGA), stated that KRPGA has attended the past several Board
of Fisheries meetings and has found that all of Mr. Johnson's
issues deal with commercial fishing. Therefore, KRPGA does not
feel Mr. Johnson can be objective.
STEVE MCCLURE said he has been involved with Board of Fisheries
issues on the Kenai River for the last 15 years and this is the
first time he has opposed a board nominee. He offered his
belief that Mr. Johnson would not be a fair representative for
all sides and would vote only one way every time.
6:01:31 PM
RON RAINEY testified that over the past 15-20 years of listening
to Brent Johnson at Board of Fisheries and local advisory
committee meetings, Mr. Johnson has been a very strong advocate
for the commercial fishing group. As a sport fisherman himself
he must advocate for sport fishing, so he therefore cannot blame
Mr. Johnson. He contended that Mr. Johnson's appointment to the
board would give a four member advantage to commercial fish, and
the Board of Fisheries is all about allocation. Additionally,
the Interior area would be left out of the board and an Interior
person with Native background would be of benefit. He
recommended Mr. Johnson not be confirmed.
6:03:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked how Mr. Rainey would restructure the
Board of Fisheries if he could.
MR. RAINEY reiterated that the Board of Fisheries is an
allocation process and if the board is loaded with commercial
fishermen the decisions will favor commercial fish. Thus, the
board must be balanced and the way to do this is to require in
statute that there be three commercial seats, three sport seats,
and one subsistence or personal use seat. He added that he
wishes the legislature would work toward this.
6:03:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Mr. Rainey thinks Mr.
Johnson could weigh and balance the state's multitude of other
fishery issues, excluding the Cook Inlet salmon issue which is
only a small part of what the board would be dealing with.
MR. RAINEY maintained that Cook Inlet sport fishing is no small
part of the state's sport fishery because it is 60 percent of
the state's sport fishery. Having that slighted in any way is a
serious problem, and having the board stacked for commercial
fishing for Cook Inlet decisions far outweighs someone's lack of
experience on other issues in other parts of the state. A
person does not have to be from an area to make decisions on
that area as the person can rely on other board members with
that expertise. In further response, Mr. Rainey said Mr.
Johnson could make very good decisions on everything except
allocation issues involving sport and commercial fishing. Mr.
Johnson is absolutely a proponent of commercial fishing and
would come down on that side every time, he contended.
6:07:27 PM
RUSSELL THOMAS, Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO),
said decisions made by the Board of Fisheries have an impact on
fishing regimes and individual areas throughout the state for a
minimum of three years. Poor decisions have at times set a
precedence that has lasted far longer than the board cycle. To
help ensure a fair and equitable result for all user groups,
past governors have nominated members that represent a wide
variety of fishing interests and geographic areas. Boards over
recent years have been balanced with three members with
commercial fishing backgrounds, three with sport backgrounds,
and one with subsistence/personal use background. In most
cases, this has led to better decision making and a more fair
and equitable result for all user groups. The very experience
that qualifies Mr. Johnson for the board is the very reason he
should not be confirmed, as his appointment would tip the board
to commercial fishing interests. He urged members to vote no on
Mr. Johnson's appointment.
6:09:46 PM
RICHARD ERKENEFF stated he has a lodge and a small fish camp and
RV park on the river and the success of his business is related
to fish. The most important thing in leadership is picking the
right people for the job, he said. The board makeup needs to be
diverse and all the user groups need to be considered when board
appointments are being contemplated. The nomination of Mr.
Johnson sways the balance of the board. Additionally, there
needs to be a good knowledge base of all the fisheries and three
of the board's current members already provide a good knowledge
base for commercial fisheries. He therefore opposed Mr.
Johnson's nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how many fishing lodges there are
across the state.
MR. ERKENEFF answered he does not know, but guesses it is
thousands. In further response, he said a lodge needs to have
the income that is related to fishing in order to survive.
6:14:45 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, Lobbyist, United Fishermen of Alaska, testified he
is unaware of any commercial fishing group that is opposed to
the confirmation of Mr. Johnson, which is very unusual. He said
he has known Mr. Johnson for 15 years and thinks he will be fair
and balanced. Every person on the board has to learn about the
different areas of fisheries around the state. Some members
have represented the whole state very well and some have
advocated only for their group. Mr. Johnson is well rounded and
will be fair to all users across the state.
6:16:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Mr. McCune thinks the drift
and set net commercial fishing industries have any impact on
sport fishing in upper Cook Inlet.
MR. MCCUNE replied it is a balancing act whether it is the
Copper River or Cook Inlet. The best way to obtain balance is
that the managers must assess the run and decide whether there
needs to be any restrictions. The first people ratcheted down
should be the commercial fishermen. For example, he said he
fished three periods last year on the Copper River before being
closed down and this was rightly so as it gave other users the
opportunity to get some fish. Restrictions must allow for all
the different users to benefit; however, the number one thing is
making the escapement goal.
6:17:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON repeated his question.
MR. MCCUNE responded it is a tough question to say yes or no,
because it depends on the particular year, how the fishery is
run, and how many fish are coming back. If the commercial
fishermen are left to fish too long, yes that could affect what
is in the river. If the escapement is lower than it should be,
then users should be restricted as one goes along, and the first
to be restricted would be the commercial fishermen so that sport
and personal use fisheries can get some opportunity.
6:18:58 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, Territorial Sportsmen, testified that after some
deliberation his organization decided to oppose Mr. Johnson's
confirmation. He emphasized it has nothing to do with Mr.
Johnson personally; rather, the entire reason is because of the
balance in the board. Based on his own experience working for
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and serving on various
boards, he said he thinks a person's prejudices are there and
very few people can overcome them. Even if Mr. Johnson tries
his best, not having anyone on the board representing the
interests of people in the Yukon-Kuskokwim system is difficult
because there needs to be personal knowledge of an area for
other board members to rely on. Balance on the board is
crucial, he said, and if Mr. Johnson was replacing one of the
commercial fishing members he would not be opposed.
6:23:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what happened with the person on the
board [who Mr. Johnson is replacing].
MR. SOMERVILLE answered that Bonnie Williams from Fairbanks was
on the Board of Fisheries and her position was generally
regarded as a sport fish position, although Ms. Williams voted a
lot with the commercial fishermen. She was not re-appointed and
Mr. Johnson was nominated, but he said he does not know the
reason for this. In further response, Mr. Somerville said
people in Fairbanks were assuming another person from Fairbanks
would be nominated to replace Ms. Williams. Had people known
earlier that she would be replaced with a commercial fisherman,
there would have been more of a firestorm. He added that it is
hard to oppose a commercial fisherman because his organization
is not opposed to commercial fishermen.
6:24:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his opinion that what he is
hearing is that people have problems with Governor Palin and the
class of people she nominated, not the individual person or his
actions in the past.
MR. SOMERVILLE agreed. If Mr. Johnson was replacing one of the
so-called commercial fisheries seats on the board, the
Territorial Sportsmen would probably not have objected. It is
purely a balance issue on the board.
6:27:00 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), stated that the Board of Fisheries is a
really important board and in his mind the prime edict for the
board is that fish come first. When the fish do not come first,
then there is a political occurrence of interest. He cited
several examples of where he thinks a commitment to the resource
did not occur in the upper Cook Inlet. He disagreed with Mr.
Johnson's position that moving the drift fleet in Cook Inlet was
a drastic measure, saying he does not consider measures taken to
ensure escapement as drastic. He mentioned some of KRSA's
disagreements with Mr. Johnson and said his organization opposes
Mr. Johnson's nomination.
6:31:46 PM
LARRY EDFELT noted he went to his first Board of Fisheries
meeting in 1966 and did not miss one for the next 20 years. In
the 20 years after that he has been associated with the board in
many ways and appointed to it three times. The board works best
when there is the broadest geographic diversity possible, as
well as the broadest diversity of user groups. When there is a
concentration from one area, like what is happening now in Cook
Inlet, it takes representation away from other fisheries.
MR. EDFELT said he opposes Mr. Johnson's confirmation not
because of Mr. Johnson's character, but because of concern about
the process. Alaskans are served best when the Board of
Fisheries is balanced and it really works best when there is
three commercial, three sport, and one from the Interior or
other user group. He said if he was a Cook Inlet commercial
fisherman he would not want one of his fishermen on the board
because that person could not vote on Cook Inlet commercial
fishing issues. If Mr. Johnson is appointed, two of the board's
seven members will be unable to vote on Cook Inlet commercial
fishing issues. It would therefore require 4 out of the
remaining 5 members to change any regulation in the commercial
fisheries of Cook Inlet because it takes a majority of the board
to adopt a regulation.
6:34:57 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
explained that most of the AOC's members depend on the harvest
of wild fish and game, and in that regard AOC depends on the
Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game for allocation of wild
food. Having confidence in the branch of government that
allocates fish is the issue to AOC. The qualifications for the
service on the board are set to allow most Alaskans to serve,
and AOC is confident that Mr. Johnson is qualified. However, it
is what a person with Mr. Johnson's background would do on the
board that concerns AOC. Three members currently sitting on the
board have a direct financial interest in commercial fishing and
Mr. Johnson would bring this to four. A person harvesting fish
for personal use would have no confidence in the makeup of the
board. He urged members to vote no on Mr. Johnson's
confirmation so the legislature can consider another name.
Having no Interior representation and no subsistence or personal
use representative does not legitimize the process, he said.
6:38:06 PM
BOB THORSTENSON, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska
Seiners Association, addressed the issue of balance on the Board
of Fisheries by noting that a non-commercial fisherman, Karl
Johnstone, recently replaced Jeremiah Campbell, a member with
commercial fishing interests. Now, a commercial fisherman,
Brent Johnson, is being proposed to purportedly replace Bonnie
Williams, a member with no commercial fishing. Therefore, this
whole idea of balance is a bit of a red herring, he charged.
Perhaps Bonnie Williams should be brought back along with
someone from Bethel or Nome and then the sport fishing groups
could be pleased to not have so much Cook Inlet representation.
He said the governor did a good job picking Mr. Johnson as well
as Mr. Johnstone and his group heartily supports both nominees.
6:41:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Mr. Craig Fleener to address the
federal requirements for the makeup of [federal] boards.
CRAIG FLEENER, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, explained that the federal
requirements for board makeup were promulgated several years ago
in response to the state's demand to the Federal Subsistence
Board to make a requirement that the regional advisory
committees have representation of more than just subsistence
users. Thus, a requirement was made that there be a commercial
user seat, a sport user seat, a subsistence user seat, as well
as seats for other users, and the makeup is no longer just
subsistence folks.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN remarked that the state requested the federal
government to require representation from different user groups,
yet the state does not practice this itself.
6:43:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Mr. Fleener thinks drift and
set net commercial fishing has an impact on subsistence fishing
in the rivers where there is that compatibility or equal access.
MR. FLEENER responded he would have to say yes because anything
that removes a fish from the river has an impact, whether it is
commercial, personal use, subsistence, or any other fishery.
Since commercial fishing is the largest user in Alaska it has
the largest impact; therefore, the answer has to be yes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked the same question of Mr. Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON said yes, taking fish out of the water any place
will have an effect on where those fish were going.
6:45:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked how to fix the situation in upper Cook
Inlet.
MR. JOHNSON answered he would fix it by using science to find
out why the fish are not there. A number of people are saying
that the drift fleet in particular, and the set net fleet
somewhat, are intercepting their fish. He wants science to find
out whether this is true because drift fishing has gone on since
1949 when his father was a Cook Inlet drift fisherman, so why
now is there a downturn in the runs? He is not opposed to
taking whatever regulatory or management action is needed to
build the fish back up, but he wants to know why and that answer
will be based on science.
6:46:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is tired of hearing about the need for
good science, but asked what specific science Mr. Johnson would
need to make a decision.
MR. JOHNSON said the science he would need includes:
determining whether the pike have expanded and are the problem,
determining whether there is a problem with the bugs that
sockeye smolt eat which in turn might indicate there is a
problem with the plankton; determining whether the water has
become clouded up from glacial melt which impedes light
penetration, which in turn impedes growth of the plankton which
reduces the number of bugs available to the sockeye to eat.
There is a lot of science, he continued, some that he knows
about and much that he does not and he wants to find out.
6:47:27 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what Mr. Johnson would tell ADF&G when
the department spends the money allocated for pike research in
Southeast Alaska instead.
MR. JOHNSON responded he would tell ADF&G to spend the money
where the problem is. Sometimes it is an ocean survival problem
and sometimes it is a fresh water survival problem, so a lot of
science is involved. Human medical problems have been solved by
science, he continued, and science can solve this problem too.
6:49:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he has heard nothing but great things
about Mr. Johnson both personally and professionally. His
decision, however, will probably be based on the board's balance
and that Mr. Johnson is a victim of circumstance because he
would make a great member.
MR. JOHNSON expressed his appreciation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that no one has said Mr. Johnson is
not qualified or has personal attributes that make him
unqualified. He pointed out that proposals are brought forward
by the public, not the Board of Fisheries, and it is the
legislature's responsibility to supervise how ADF&G spends the
money that is allocated to it.
6:52:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his appreciation to Mr. Johnson
for coming before the "firing squad". He noted that board
members only receive per diem and payment for the days the board
is actually in session, so board members only receive about
$12,000 a year for their work; thus, it is commendable that
anyone would come forward to do this. As someone from the
Interior, he said he does not oppose Mr. Johnson as a person,
but thinks the board would be better served with a
representative of different expertise.
6:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired how Mr. Johnson will deal with
sport fishing concerns when they come before him.
MR. JOHNSON said he demonstrated how he would do this with his
earlier testimony. He makes his living as a set netter and set
netters hate drifters. While he could have buried drifters in
response to Co-Chair Johnson's questions tonight, he did not
because he cares about people and that is the same way he will
treat sport, personal use, and subsistence fishermen. He
pointed out that he has brought together various gear groups
before and he can also do this with personal use, subsistence,
and sport fishing.
6:56:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether Mr. Johnson thinks he really
can set aside his personal interests and be fair to all sides.
MR. JOHNSON replied that Bonnie Williams demonstrated it can be
done. When Ms. Williams came down to Cook Inlet she
demonstrated that a person can set aside all the personal use
stuff and deal very fairly with commercial fisheries. He had
assumed that Ms. Williams would vote against everything the
commercial fishermen wanted to do, but she did not. He
explained that he had applied for Jeremiah Campbell's seat, so
when he was appointed to Ms. Williams' seat he called her to ask
what was going on. Ms. Williams told him she had put her name
forward and was not re-appointed. When she advised him to go
forward he asked for her advice on the Yukon River and will
continue to ask her advice.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that having the governor appoint
a different person does not mean that person would be better.
6:58:38 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Mr. Johnson would support
legislation that requires a balanced board.
MR. JOHNSON answered he is in favor of a balanced board and
thinks a legislatively balanced board is a good idea.
6:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said he has known Mr. Johnson for a number
of years and the people opposing his appointment have not
opposed him as a person. While Mr. Johnson will probably be
seated, most people in the area are looking at this as a matter
of balance.
MR. JOHNSON said he is honored to have come through.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to forward the name of Brent Johnson
to the joint session of the House and Senate for confirmation.
There being no objection, the confirmation of Brent Johnson to
the Board of Fisheries was advanced from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 74-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
7:02:26 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act relating to the Alaska coastal
management program; and establishing the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board." [Before the committee was CSHB 74(CRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, Alaska State Legislature, co-prime
sponsor of HB 74, introduced the bill as follows:
This allows areas of the state impacted by development
to have input early in the process. It creates a
network of local, state, and federal oversight so that
all aspects of the project are considered during a
single review. It gives the local coastal districts a
seat at the table. Some of you may remember ... in
2003 when House Bill 191 ... changed what had been in
place since 1977 and took those ... seats at the
table. ... This would allow that those areas become
part of the process again. Who better to know the
needs of the area and what is important than members
of those districts. This recognizes the diversity of
the state and that one size does not fit all. And it
still leaves the ultimate authority with DNR
[Department of Natural Resources], since consistency
review in this legislation would stay with them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that there has been rapid development
in his district over the past 30-plus years, and that this area
will continue being a large contributor to the economic health
of the state, whether it is oil, gas, or mineral development.
People need to work together to end up with a good product and
local people, who are mostly pro-development, need to be
included in the permitting process.
7:05:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE listed a number of projects that have come
on board since adoption of the coastal zone management system in
1977: Green[s] Creek Mine; Red Dog Mine; the outer continental
shelf (OCS) and gas leases; all National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPR-A) leases; the Alpine, Liberty, North Star, Badami,
Prudhoe Bay, and Kuparuk development projects; Rock Creek Mine;
cruise ship docks in Juneau; and the Auke Bay ferry terminal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that Alaska's coastal zone
includes more than 44,000 miles of coastline and can extend
inland along river drainages for as far as 250 miles. Thus,
almost all districts are impacted by a coastline, making HB 74
possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation that
should be looked at as the state tries to develop partnerships
in the areas where development is going to occur.
7:07:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE, to provide a backdrop for why he thinks HB
74 is necessary, quoted a statement made by Mr. Randy Bates,
Director of DNR's Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
(DCOM), at a January 29, 2008, meeting regarding a bill
Representative Joule had introduced prior:
The ACMP [Alaska Coastal Management Program]
regulations ended up more stringent than what was
intended under House Bill 191. Coastal districts were
limited in their ability to craft enforceable policies
that address coastal uses and resources that were
important to the local residents. This limitation
manifested itself into severely strained relationships
between the Office of Project Management & Permitting,
DCOM, and many districts.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE charged that this is a clear admission
[DNR] overstepped its bounds. He said there have been countless
meetings with the department where people were told that either
legislation was going to be introduced or regulation changes
were going to be made, but neither has been forthcoming which is
why HB 74 is before the committee.
7:09:03 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
TOM LOHMAN, Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope
Borough, stated that the borough's district plan was approved in
1988. He explained that the ACMP is not like other regulatory
schemes - it was crafted by the legislature to be a step-down
program with a significant role vested in the local districts.
He continued:
DNR should stop trying to make the ACMP a one-size-
fits-all statewide program like most other statutory
and regulatory programs. DNR has been wrong when it
has testified that the districts are seeking local
control that would usurp state powers. It is
important to distinguish between the ability of
districts to adopt local policies and have those
policies approved at the state level and the
districts' role in project reviews. DNR testimony has
mixed the two, as it has done with the question about
traditional and contemporary local knowledge. At the
district plan approval level, districts ought to be
able to bring any relevant information in support of a
proposed policy to the attention of the board,
including any information understood by local people
that may not yet have been formalized in a Western
scientific report. Sometimes this can be traditional
knowledge passed down through generations.
Increasingly, it is critical information about local
environmental conditions and trends in the ecosystem.
The board members will not be sheep. They should, and
will, critically probe the credibility of all
information presented in favor and against a proposed
policy and will render their judgment accordingly.
This kind of thing occurs all the time in the context
of game board decisions, for example, where differing
local conditions require differing management
prescriptions. ... We are talking about the ability of
districts to apply useful, local information to
proposed development under the specific local
environmental and other conditions of their areas. In
most cases, this would improve the design of projects
and reduce conflicts earlier in planning processes.
7:13:04 PM
MR. LOHMAN stressed that districts are not anti-development and
are not trying to obtain more influence than they had for most
of the pre-2003 history of the ACMP. He contended that DNR has
so far failed to provide specific examples, as requested by
districts and the legislature, of districts using their pre-2003
policies to significantly delay or halt problem-free projects
that were not also being delayed or halted by some other agency
under some other regulatory scheme, and of policies proposed by
districts that DNR sees as being impediments to development in
the state. He charged that DNR has offered misleading testimony
regarding districts' implementation of their plans during
individual project reviews should HB 74 pass. He refuted DNR's
allegation that industry will lack the certainty it needs to
operate if different rules apply in different areas, pointing
out that this is already the case for the oil industry which
operates on both state and federal lands and waters.
7:14:14 PM
MR. LOHMAN noted that the proposed Coastal Policy Board will
play no role in individual project reviews. He said nothing
currently in HB 74 reverses previous actions taken by the
legislature to solve earlier problems solved by the legislature.
The bill corrects some of the damage done to the program when
House Bill 191 passed in 2003. He expressed frustration at no
action being taken by DNR or the current administration to fix
the problems, even though DNR has admitted in testimony that
problems do exist. Districts participated in DNR's re-
evaluation process in which the goal was for DNR to file a bill
at the start of the 2009 session, but that did not happen.
MR. LOHMAN said it is baffling why, after so much effort by the
districts, that DNR cannot clearly explain its intentions with
respect to the ACMP. Additionally, in vague explanations of its
opposition to HB 74, DNR has argued that there is some
mysterious legal constraint on the executive branch's ability,
either through the agency itself or the newly created Coastal
Policy Board, to approve district policies that are more
specific than laws passed by the legislature. Despite requests
to see specific legal interpretation of the position, districts
have received nothing. He commended Representative Joule and
the other co-sponsors of HB 74 and urged its passage from
committee.
7:16:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether DNR is still requiring there
be specific scientific knowledge on each particular cove or
place, rather than a coastal policy based on habitat types.
MR. LOHMAN responded yes. He added that the North Slope Borough
does not currently have an approved coastal district plan. The
borough entered mediation after the required revision process of
its local plan and agreement could not reached. Tremendous
hurdles in the current state law preclude districts from passing
really meaningful local policies on issues that for years before
2003 brought developers and local communities and other
stakeholders together to solve problems. The current process
does not work and DNR has acknowledged that.
7:18:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the North Slope Borough
has embodied its local policies as borough code.
MR. LOHMAN replied the borough has done some of them, but some
of the borough's greatest concerns on the North Slope are
subsistence and issues dealing with the outer continental shelf
(OCS). There is a question about how extensively the borough
can impose its local land management regulations on federal
lands within the NPR-A and the borough cannot craft policies
dealing with the OCS under the current state program.
7:19:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether borough land use policy has
been incorporated on non-federal lands so development must
comply with permits by local ordinance.
MR. LOHMAN answered that to some extent this is correct. The
borough has attempted to use its land management regulations to
govern development on state lands, but there are some issues as
to whether the borough can impose its land management
regulations fully on federal land.
7:20:25 PM
JOHNNY AIKEN, Director, Planning and Community Services, North
Slope Borough, related that HB 74 is important to the many
coastal districts dissatisfied with the way things have been
going over the past 4-5 years regarding their district plans.
He said he is from the North Slope Borough Coastal District
which does not yet have an approved plan and will likely not
unless HB 74 is passed. The most important part of HB 74 is the
placement of a Coastal Policy Board comprised of agency
representatives and coastal district representatives who would
review and approve or disapprove the coastal district plans.
For the past few years, DNR has been the only reviewer and
approver of district plans. Many districts have not agreed with
how DNR has evaluated these plans, as well as contributing their
own rules and regulations. The district has been very
frustrated with how things have been handled to date.
7:22:46 PM
MR. AIKEN pointed out that lease sales have been occurring for
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, the seas closest to the North
Slope Borough; yet, there is no approved district plan. Why is
that, he asked. The North Slope Borough has not been
unreasonable and has tried hard to work with DNR in good faith
to come up with a plan. There needs to be a process in place
for the borough to participate in a meaningful way, especially
before development occurs in the Arctic Ocean. The Northwest
Arctic Borough, the next closed district, also does not have an
approved plan, he related.
MR. AIKEN said HB 74 would provide the borough meaningful
participation and an avenue to take part in the state's
decision-making process through a seat at the table. The
process is broken and it is up to legislators to fix the
problems because DNR has not done so and did not introduce a
bill as promised. He stated that the borough has not stopped
any projects previously and does not intend to; it is only
asking that development be done in an environmentally safe
manner. This bill would ensure the borough has a voice. He
noted that residents depend on the revenue development brings to
the North Slope Borough, but that revenue has been declining for
the past decade.
7:25:33 PM
GORDON BROWER, Land Manager, Planning and Community Services,
North Slope Borough, agreed with all of the previous statements
in support of HB 74. He said he has worked on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program for many years for the North Slope
Borough and he participated in DNR's re-evaluation process, but
DNR did not come up with a legislative fix. Local districts
have not had meaningful roles in project reviews over the past
several years and HB 74 would provide that avenue.
7:27:53 PM
MR. BROWER said he is especially concerned by OCS activities
where he believes state's rights have been cut off by DNR in
regard to the "carve-out" and policies concerning oil spill
matters. He is also concerned about open water seismic activity
because both science and traditional knowledge indicate that
whales migrating along the near shore are pregnant or have
newborn calves and this is a very delicate period for the
whales. Satellite tagging over the last four years shows major
deflections of hundreds of miles for these migrating whales when
seismic activity is going on. Mr. Brower concluded by offering
his support for HB 74.
7:29:52 PM
GARY WILLIAMS, Coastal District Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula
Borough Coastal District, Kenai Peninsula Borough, spoke in
favor of the provisions in HB 74:
Reinstitution of a Coastal Policy Board as provided in
Section 1 as a means to offer a modest level of
oversight to the [Alaska] Coastal Management Program
is a positive step. The legislation adopted in 2003
placed the program in DNR and provided too little
flexibility in the law to accommodate the differing
needs of our various coastal areas. Without an
oversight board there is no opportunity for coastal
districts to appeal agency decisions when there are
disagreements over the interpretation of statutes and
DNR regulations. This was a problem that was common
to all districts during the re-write of coast district
plans as required by [House Bill] 191.
Second, the proposed language on page 7, lines 14-23,
provides valuable guidance regarding the development
of coastal plan enforceable policies. This language
is important if coastal districts are to have a
meaningful role in the effective implementation of the
ACMP. At present, DNR disallows coastal district
policies that touch upon any activity that is
regulated by federal or state agencies, whether or not
that agency effectively monitors or enforces that
regulated activity. State agencies apparently fear
that by giving up coastal district enforceable
policies in areas the state has regulatory authority
that they will be giving up their authority or giving
it away. Well, this is not what coastal districts
seek in this proposed change. We only seek to
implement the objectives of the ACMP which are to
balance the development of our resources with care for
our land and air and water.
Third, the proposed ... language on page 13, lines 9-
11, [is] extremely important in the implementation of
a resource management program. This language calls
for consideration of the impacts of activities that
would cause direct and significant impact to coastal
uses or to resources. Under current law, a coastal
district cannot consider the cumulative impact of
activities that would cause damage to a resource if
the activity occurs outside the boundaries of coastal
resources. The effect is that, for example, an
activity in an upland that has the clear potential to
damage a nearby wetland may not be considered in a
district consistency review. The proposed language in
this section must be part of any rational management
program.
MR. WILLIAMS said he has forwarded to the committee the Kenai
Peninsula Borough Assembly Resolution 2009-30, supporting these
and other comments that HB 74 addresses.
7:33:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that in a conversation today, Mr.
Bates told him DNR has surveyed the coastal districts to
identify the highest issues in order to determine common
identifiers that would provide a starting place to start focus
on. He offered to get the results to committee members once the
department has finished compiling the surveys.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the timing would be because he
thought this had been done a year and a half ago.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed it could have been that long ago, but
that Mr. Bates told him DNR is in the process of compiling the
information. He asked whether Representative Joule knew the
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE responded he is unsure, but it makes him
wonder what DNR has been doing if it has had the information for
a year and a half.
7:35:28 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management,
Department of Natural Resources, stated that in their
discussion, Co-Chair Neuman requested a letter be drafted to the
districts to identify the top ten items of interest from the
districts' perspective. He said he responded he would be happy
to do so, but that DNR has conducted the re-evaluation and
probably has the districts' top 10 issues captured within the
comments that were submitted and therefore he could put those
together in a summary to share with the committee.
MR. BATES, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
DNR conducted two rounds of comment solicitation, one in July
2008 and one in October or November 2008. Thus, there are two
sets of different comments based on a general discussion of what
could be done with the coastal program and then a more specific
focused effort on some of the language as draft that was shared
with folks. These two sets of comments could be shared with the
committee immediately, he said. It is also DNR's intent to
compile a response to comments, compile the issues, and share
that with committee members as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would appreciate receiving this
information.
7:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN closed public testimony on HB 74 and held
over the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|