HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 22, 1999 1:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair Representative Carl Morgan Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative John Harris Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Mary Kapsner COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15 Relating to support for an "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act" in the United States Congress. - MOVED CSHJR 15(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2 Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. - MOVED HCS SCR 2(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE * HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28 Requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale population has recovered. - MOVED CSHJR 28(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 15 SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/17/99 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/17/99 236 (H) WTR, RESOURCES 3/04/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 3/04/99 (H) MOVED CSHJR 15(WTR) OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/4/99 (H) MINUTE(WTR) 3/05/99 363 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) NT 5DP 3/05/99 363 (H) DP: MASEK, PHILLIPS, GREEN, COWDERY, 3/05/99 363 (H) BARNES 3/05/99 363 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (WTR/ALL DEPT'S) 3/05/99 364 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: SCR 2 SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/22/99 64 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/22/99 65 (S) RES 2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/03/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD 2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES) 2/08/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/08/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RES) 2/10/99 199 (S) RES RPT 3DP 3NR 2/10/99 199 (S) DP: HALFORD, GREEN, PETE KELLY; 2/10/99 199 (S) NR: MACKIE, PARNELL, LINCOLN 2/10/99 199 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES) 2/11/99 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 2/16/99 257 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1OR 2/17/99 2/17/99 272 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 2/17/99 272 (S) PASSED Y15 N5 2/17/99 276 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 2/19/99 247 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/19/99 247 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES 3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 3/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT 1DP 3NR 3/10/99 409 (H) DP: WHITAKER; NR: KAPSNER, MORGAN, 3/10/99 409 (H) HUDSON 3/10/99 409 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES) 2/10/99 3/10/99 409 (H) REFERRED TO RES 3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HJR 28 SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PHILLIPS, Ogan Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/10/99 410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 3/10/99 410 (H) RESOURCES 3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 15. MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Jeannette James Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-5038 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 15 on behalf of sponsor. DENNY K. WEATHERS P.O. Box 1791 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907)424-3745 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15 and asked questions. STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 451-2775 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15. ELZIE ISLEY 2533 3rd Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-4881 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15. DEAN CURRAN P.O. Box 42 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-5604 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15. ERIC MUENCH 228 Martin Street Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-5372 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15. ERIC WEATHERS P.O. Box 1791 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907)424-3745 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15. DONALD WESTLUND P.O. Box 831 Ward Cove, Alaska 99928 Telephone: (907) 225-9319 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15. LAIFE WEATHERS P.O. Box 1791 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-3745 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15. EDWARD FURMAN (No address or telephone number available) Cordova, Alaska 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15. MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3717 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SCR 2 on behalf of sponsor. DALE BONDURANT 31864 Moonshine Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-0818 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 2 and HJR 28. DREW SPARLIN 37101 Cannery Road Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-4095 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 2 and HJR 28. GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison Office of the Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Telephone: (907) 465-6143 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SCR 2 and previous year's legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 411 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2689 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HJR 28. ROSETTA ALCANTRA United Cook Inlet Drift Association P.O. Box 589 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-4095 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 28. DAN ALEX, Project Coordinator Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council P.O. Box 101846 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 688-6020 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28. DAVID VOLUCK, Attorney at Law Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf 701 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 276-5152 POSITION STATEMENT: As legal counsel for Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, testified on HJR 28. RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant to the House and Senate Leadership Alaska State Legislature 4506 Robbie Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered technical questions on HJR 28. MARGARET ROBERTS, Chair Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission 505 West Northern Lights Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 274-9799 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28; supports CIMMC and NMFS in their cooperative management agreement, but not HJR 28. DOLLY GARZA, Chair Indigenous People's Commission on Marine Mammals P.O. Box 200908 Anchorage, Alaska 99520 Telephone: (907) 279-2511 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28; proposed amendments. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-16, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR JERRY SANDERS called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Sanders, Ogan, Morgan, Barnes and Joule. Representatives Masek, Harris, Whitaker and Kapsner were excused. HJR 15 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the first item of business would be House Joint Resolution No. 15, relating to support for an "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act" in the United States Congress. Committee packets contained a sponsor statement; CSHJR 15(WTR); and a compilation of faxed documents and Internet print-outs including a copy of H.R. 883 and fact sheets about Biosphere Reserves. Number 0110 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, came forward, introducing staff member Myrna McGhie, who has worked for three years on this issue. MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Jeannette James, told members this is the second time they have put this legislation through, which is to support Congressman Don Young's effort in Washington, D.C., on his "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." That federal legislation had gone through the House, but not the Senate, in the 105th Congress. Ms. McGhie said HJR 15 reaffirms support for Alaska State Legislative Resolve 31, sent to Congress in March 1997. Now, Congressman Young has a new bill, H.R. 883. MS. McGHIE advised members that because of a technical error, she proposes amending page 3, lines 12 and 14, to change the number "833" to "883". Number 0288 CO-CHAIR OGAN made a motion to adopt that as an amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0330 MS. McGHIE explained that World Heritage Sites are being designated in the United States without congressional oversight or approval, and with little public notice; HJR 15 aims to ensure that Congress has authority to designate lands in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if Congress has taken any action on these World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Number 0412 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she suspects that the Biosphere Reserves are the more serious of the two, as those stem from the "Man and the Biosphere Convention." Those designations have been accepted by the President but not approved by the U.S. Senate, although international conventions or agreements are supposed to be approved by the Senate. Congressman Young's resolution is intended to not allow any of that to happen without congressional approval. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated: I think that we've all thought of the United Nations as something of some kind of a benefit to all of us, and that there shouldn't be anything bad about the United Nations. And, of course, the thing about these World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves that are identified as special places, and have a UN committee to oversee them and be sure that they're protected, and so forth, doesn't sound bad. In fact, it's in the writing, in the United Nations compact, it says that the sovereignty of the United States, or the several states, will not be affected. But you can't say that the sovereignty is not affected when you have these voices that come and interfere with what you're trying to do in your own state, or in your own nation. An example is in Yellowstone National Park; when they wanted to do some mining outside of the park area, the international committee came in and set the stage for a hearing, and it was determined that the mine should not go forward because it just might interfere with the Biosphere Reserve, the World Heritage Site that Yellowstone National Park was. ... It sounds innocent, but it isn't." Number 0588 CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11 of CSHJR 15(WTR). He asked what the buffer zones entail and how far they extend. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that a Biosphere Reserve consists of a core area, in which it is intended that there is no interference by man at all. Around that is another area, the buffer zone, in which there is limited activity by man. Beyond that, they want to measure all of the normal activity of man. The problem is that the buffer zones extend far beyond the area of the park. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "They haven't been implementing this very much, which is one of the reasons why that it is slipping in under the rug, I believe, and part of the reason is because they haven't been funded. But if they were ever to get funding, it would be horrible, because a lot of the things that you're now doing in and around parks would be prohibited because of their scientific study of how the man and the biosphere affect one another." MS. McGHIE noted that packets contain information on that [see fact sheets]. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked how far those areas extend. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it can go as far as 250 miles, but each is drawn independently, based on the core area and other information. The proposed mine near Yellowstone National Park was three miles outside of the park, in an area considered to be a buffer zone. CO-CHAIR OGAN declared that he intends to co-sponsor this legislation, as one of the largest veiled threats to state and national sovereignty is to allow a foreign entity to have this kind of say. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated Northwest Alaska residents have been fighting the designation of Cape Krusenstern National Monument, as well as the Beringian Heritage International Park, which would include portions of both the Seward Peninsula and Russia, across the Bering Strait. There is also talk of making the Bering Sea a "Marine Biosphere Reserve," although Representative James said nobody can explain to her what that means. Number 0902 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Cape Krusenstern and said the road from the Red Dog Mine to the port site goes through there; he wondered whether such a designation could stop that activity. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her belief that it could. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE mentioned the potential for stopping any development, specifically with regard to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) land throughout the state. Number 0991 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES restated that the United Nations documents seem benign, and the program doesn't appear to threaten sovereignty. However, when they start to implement it, man is in the way. She expressed concern about restrictions to snow machine use on the sides of the highway in Denali National Park and Preserve, then stated, "If we want to be controlling our own lands, then we have to able to have the congressional process to determine whether or not any of these ideas are good ideas, and that they're best interests of us here in the United States." Number 1093 CO-CHAIR OGAN acknowledged that the language states that nothing will undo existing sovereignty. However, ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] says the same thing, yet the state is now looking at amending its constitution. He suggested the need to be consistent whenever the state's sovereignty is challenged to manage its resources. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that public opinion is the strongest political power there is, and anything that persuades public opinion is very likely to interfere with sovereignty. Number 1238 DENNY K. WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, reading as follows: "Once again, Representative James is trying to improve the lives and opportunities for Alaskans, and at the same time trying to protect Alaska from foreign invasion by the United Nations and regain our sovereignty. I commend her for this, but I do not believe supporting Congressman Don Young or his resolution is constitutional or right. If Congressman Young were truly concerned about Alaska's sovereignty, he would propose a constitutional amendment to remove a particular power from the President, such as executive orders and proclamations." MS. WEATHERS read from Article I of the federal constitution, then asked members two questions. First, did the federal government or the United Nations purchase any lands in Alaska with the consent of the Alaska State Legislature? And second, did the state of Alaska, with consent of the legislature, cede any lands to the federal government or United Nations? MS. WEATHERS asked legislators to make no bargains with the federal government, saying, "We, the sovereigns, have other options if the federal government and United Nations do not withdraw their illegal invasion from the lands and waterways of Alaska." She suggested supporting HB 109 and HCR 2, and, if that doesn't work, seceding from the Union. She said if she could get answers to her questions, she would really appreciate it. CO-CHAIR SANDERS requested that Ms. Weathers fax her testimony, offering to do research on her questions and get back to her. Number 1484 CO-CHAIR OGAN concurred with Ms. Weathers about executive orders that undermine state sovereignty; he cited the recent national monument designation in Utah as an example. Number 1605 STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that the commission had voted unanimously to support HJR 14, a resolution similar to HJR 15, in the previous legislature. He told members he would discuss how management of some areas designated in Alaska as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites has played out. Mr. Leaphart then named the Biosphere Reserves in Alaska. [Documents provided by the sponsor's staff, obtained from the Internet at www.mabnet.org/brprogram/usbrl.html, list current and proposed sites as follows: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve; Glacier Bay-Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve/Admiralty Island National Monument (2 units); Denali National Park and Biosphere Reserve; Noatak National Preserve (2 units); Gates of the Arctic National Park; and the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge.] MR. LEAPHART next listed the eight World Heritage Sites in Alaska, two of which are "inscribed" and six of which have been nominated: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Denali National Park and Preserve; Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; Katmai National Park; Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve [inscribed 1979]; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve [inscribed 1992]; Cape Krusenstern Archaeological District, which is a major portion of the Cape Krusenstern National Monument; and the Aleutian Island Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Leaphart said he has discovered over the years that there is little difference between nominating a site and actually inscribing it. MR. LEAPHART emphasized that a number of areas have dual designations, and the extra layer of recognition comes to play in management decisions by the various federal agencies. For example, when the Department of the Interior nominated Glacier Bay as a World Heritage Site in 1991, the submittal letter noted "environmental threats to the area proposed by the patented mineral claims on the Brady Icefield, ten Native allotments within the park, and the existence of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay." Mr. Leaphart said that in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and in virtually every meeting of the state-sponsored working group, the issue of Glacier Bay's status as a Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site was brought up. MR. LEAPHART told members there are no clear-cut regulatory guidelines that the NPS, Department of the Interior, or other managing agencies have for Biosphere Reserves. He stated, "They will tell you that that designation does not supersede any of their authorities under federal statute or federal regulation. However, there is virtually no decision made, with respect to management of any of these areas that are so-designated, where the issue of that designation doesn't become a factor." MR. LEAPHART referred to the closing of the bulk of the old Mount McKinley Park to snow machine use, saying the status of Denali National Park and Preserve as a Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site had been cited extensively in those findings. Number 1882 MR. LEAPHART next advised members that a bill before Congress, H.J.R. 482, would regulate aircraft overflights or "flightseeing" over Haleakala National Park and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; in it, the statement of purpose and findings prominently mention that both areas are Biosphere Reserves. That legislation is being watched closely by CACFA, although currently Alaska is exempt from its effects. Mr. Leaphart noted that flightseeing over national parks is a major industry in the Lower 48, and one that is growing in Alaska. There is effort by the NPS, Department of the Interior, to regulate such activity. MR. LEAPHART stated his belief that Congressman Young's bill is aimed at giving Congress a say in such designations, which affect both sovereignty and private property rights of individuals. He added, "I don't think anyone has to be opposed to the idea of the notion of Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites as recognition for critical habitat areas, or some very special sites around the world." Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Leaphart whether, when ANILCA was considered, the environmental community had pushed hard to limit aircraft flights over national parks and monuments. She stated her belief that that had been rejected, and she requested confirmation. MR. LEAPHART said he believes that is correct, adding, "That was one of the major compromises that our delegation hammered out, as part of that bill. Not only are the aircraft overflights not regulated, but we also have guaranteed access rights ... in ANILCA, which allows aircraft landings. So, as I said, the several bills that are in Congress right now that address this issue of aircraft overflights do contain specific exemptions for ... aircraft activities in Alaska." Number 2090 ELZIE ISLEY testified briefly via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying, "I'm a citizen of the state of Alaska. I am against any other country or organization telling us what we can do in our own country, so I fully support this resolution." Number 2137 DEAN CURRAN testified via teleconference from Cordova on his own behalf, as follows: I am glad to see the state taking a stand to get its rights back. The federal government has been overstepping its boundaries for a long time. The constitution is very explicit about keeping foreign powers out of the United States. The President has no power to cut deals with the UN and give them the use of any land in the United States, and especially land in the state of Alaska. I want this misuse of designating lands stopped immediately. Not only that, all lands that have been designated to the UN previously must be revoked, as well. You cannot allow a foreign entity to have power in this state of Alaska or any part of the 50 states. If you do, you are setting up the demise of this great nation. It will eventually be taken over by the UN if we don't get them out now. Number 2206 ERIC MUENCH testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying he supports HJR 15 and hopes it is the strongest action the legislature can take in this regard. Any government organization in which the citizens of the United States are not represented, any non-government organization, and any international organization including the United Nations should have absolutely no say in the United States or Alaska. He concluded by saying the representatives of the United Nations don't represent United States citizens, and he completely supports HJR 15. Number 2279 ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, saying he is a "sovereign from the republic of Alaska." He referred to Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the federal constitution and stated: Alaska cannot be owned or suppressed by the federal government or the United Nations. The government did not buy Alaska; the people of the United States of America paid the money, and the U.S. government did not and has not paid them back. The state of Alaska is, and should be, sovereign to themselves as one of these states of the United States of America. One of the first acts of war is to take land that no one has direct interest in. The UN is a foreign power by definition, and it is a foreign enemy by its actions. ... In the United States, persons who promote the United Nations, and organizations that advance it, are domestic enemies and traitors. Executive orders designating land to the United Nations or any foreign or special entities is treason. Congress can and must stop these unconstitutional executive orders and proclamations. It is their constitutional duty. If the federal government and the United Nations refuse to withdraw from the sovereign state of Alaska, then they must be forcefully removed. Number 2409 DONALD WESTLUND testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan, stating, "I want to commend you on this line of sight. I support this resolution, and I tend to agree with the last person that spoke, and also the lady that spoke earlier: If you can't get 'em out, then we'll secede." CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that Alaska wouldn't have the fortitude to secede "because we have to follow the money, and too much money comes from the federal government." Number 2467 LAIFE WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HJR 15. A commercial fisherman, he said it is no coincidence that "unconstitutional" starts with "UN," and the United Nations needs to be kicked out of Alaska and the United States. He added, "I believe in 'constitution or revolution,' no compromise." Number 2513 EDWARD FURMAN testified next via teleconference from Cordova, saying he is retired from the military after 20 years of service. He expressed concern about Alaska, cautioning that someone who lies where a dog has been will have fleas. He said he loves his country. He offered to send a fax to the committee about executive orders, written by an unspecified well-known writer, then discussed Executive Order "1383" (1998), signed by President Clinton [much of that brief discussion was indiscernible due to poor sound quality]. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that if Alaska were to secede, it could probably receive foreign aid, with fewer strings attached. CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether anyone in Juneau wished to testify; there was no response. Number 2628 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 15(WTR), as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHJR 15(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee. CO-CHAIR SANDERS turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Ogan. SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the next item of business would be Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. Number 2673 MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. She noted that SCR 2 is very similar to the resolution of the same number passed by this legislature last year, then stated: The resolution is intended to send a strong message to the Governor, the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game that you, the legislature, want the wildlife and fish resources of our state to be aggressively biologically managed on a sustained yield basis for abundance. Mr. Chairman, over the last few years we've seen a decline in several of our wildlife and fish stocks in certain areas. This decline has continued to the point where serious shortages currently exist and are continuing unabated. Last year, before this very committee, you heard testimony about moose shortages in the Aniak area, and moose and caribou shortages in the Dot Lake area. There are ongoing shortages in fish stocks in several areas, as well. Bristol Bay has been considered a disaster area for the last two years. In 1997, the Kenai River had very few coho salmon, and just this past year the Kenai was closed down June 5th, very early, to catch-and-release for the first run of Chinook salmon. The Mat-Su streams, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, have had ongoing shortages in coho, sockeye, chum and Chinook stocks. Cook Inlet commercial fishing was closed down early just this past year because of a low sockeye run there. Management of these resources, Mr. Chairman, was delegated by the legislature to the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game, and, therefore, it is incumbent upon you, the legislature, to tell the agencies the management philosophy that you want followed. This resolution will send that message - and it is a crystal clear message - that the legislature wants these resources biologically managed on a sustained yield basis for abundance. MS. KROGSENG read from page 2451 of the original Alaska Constitutional Convention proceedings [copy provided in committee packets]: "... we have in mind no narrow definition of sustained yield as is used, for example, in forestry, but the broad premise that insofar as possible a principle of sustained yield shall be used with respect to administration of those resources which are susceptible of sustained yield, and where it is desirable. For example, predators would not be maintained on a sustained yield basis." She suggested that having an abundance of wildlife and fish resources in our state would go a long way towards resolving the ongoing subsistence issue, as there would be enough of these resources for all user groups: personal use, commercial and sport. Number 2815 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the legislature delegates authority to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game, not the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and members of the department work for those boards. She added, "We are the only ones that can appropriate money, so they do work for us, but we do not delegate our powers to them, but to the board of fish and game, because we, under the constitution, are charged with ... the management of all of Alaska's resources." Number 2864 CO-CHAIR OGAN said he supports this resolution but has a reservation about the same-day airborne hunting of brown bears. He stated, "A good example is some action that the board took here recently, that they rescinded their action and held it over to, I think, January of next year, and that was same-day airborne brown bear hunting in Unit 13; and I think there's a cost-benefit analysis we have to look at when we do those kind of things." He noted that he has lived in this state since 1975, during which time he doesn't believe that there has been same-day airborne hunting for bears. CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that there had been same-day airborne hunting for wolves, deer and caribou, however. He then stated, "I'm a little concerned, at a time when we're talking about some constitutional amendments to limit or prohibit the public's involvement in fish and game matters, or resource matters, this ... literally interpreted would almost instruct them to do whatever they can. I'm just concerned about the same-day airborne [hunting] of bears. ... While it might be sound biological management, it would certainly be a fund raiser for 'Friends of the Animals' and 'Sierra Clubbers' and those kind of things, ... which could end up countering what we're trying to do with some of the initiatives." Number 2955 MS. KROGSENG responded that there are many ways that the department could manage predators, including brown bears. They could increase bag limits, or annual harvests, for example. She said although she wasn't aware of it at the time, she understands that in the Forty Mile area there was a special program under which trappers in the area took, she believes, 80-some wolves, then tanned the hides and sold them at auction. It didn't cost the state any money; it accomplished the project at hand, which was to lower the wolf population in the area; and it made money for the trappers. TAPE 99-16, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. KROGSENG said she knows the sponsor wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize any of the other resolutions. What they are trying to do with this resolution, as they tried last year, is to tell the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the department that they need to manage the resources in conformity with the constitutional mandate of sustained yield. She concluded by saying she had read the quotation from the constitutional convention proceedings to point out that when the constitution talks about sustained yield, it is not necessarily talking about wolves, bears and other predators. Number 2925 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled that the legislature had passed some legislation the previous year about managing for abundance. He asked how HJR 15 works with that. Number 2906 MS. KROGSENG responded that a similar resolution on abundance had been passed last year. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that this year, the resolution includes fish, whereas last year it just pertained to wildlife. In addition, this one talks about passive management. He said he recalled a bill, however, having to do with managing for abundance, which he believed to be SB 250, by Senator Sharp. He indicated he would ask an ADF&G representative about it. Number 2850 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to page 2, line 4, of SCR 2, which read, "wildlife and fish resources on a biological basis for abundance". She asked whether, to alleviate Co-Chair Ogan's concerns, it would be appropriate to add wording along the lines of, "with the exception of predators that the board of fish and game have determined to be a detriment to the other wildlife population". MS. KROGSENG responded that she believes Senator Taylor would support that proposed amendment. She stated, "It is not his intent to have this resolution imply, in any way, shape, size or form, that we should be managing wolves and bears on a basis for abundance - or other predators, for that matter." CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested saying something about human consumption. MS. KROGSENG mentioned the ungulate population, then said she would work on the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES offered Ms. Krogseng the language she herself had written down. Number 2709 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated support for SCR 2 and agreed with Representative Barnes that the legislature is the trustee of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources, with responsibility to manage those resources for abundance, for the sole benefit of the users - the public. Number 2650 DREW SPARLIN testified via teleconference from Kenai. A commercial fisherman for 35 year in Cook Inlet who resides in Kenai, he told members he supports SCR 2. He has great hopes that it will go towards eliminating politics from the decisions being made, because of the need to make decisions through biological data. Mr. Sparlin expressed belief that if everyone made the best decisions, based on the best biological information available to them, the resource would be the benefactor. Number 2564 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Geron Bruce of the ADF&G whether the bill passed last year and SCR 2 were connected in any way, in terms of intensive management and managing for abundance. GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), answered that he doesn't recall a piece of law on this subject that passed last year. Although a number of bills addressed this general topic, the only bill that he remembered passing was SB 250, which was significantly amended as it went through the process. In its final version, he doesn't believe it addressed abundance; rather, it addressed how to account for and track federal aid money, where it was going to be appropriated. Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in managing for abundance, especially for salmon stocks, there may be conflict between some of the user groups, such as commercial and sport interests. MR. BRUCE first offered some background, saying it is hard to talk about fish and wildlife in Alaska in general, because this is such a huge state, and there is so much difference in the species, the productivity in different regions, the patterns of use, and so forth. While some populations are low or declining, overall both our fish and our wildlife populations are quite strong. MR. BRUCE next said he would discuss an area that embodies the kind of problems that Representative Joule is talking about. He stated: I think for the managers - for the people on the Board of Fisheries, Board of Game, and the department staff that has to implement the management plans that they pass, and carry out the statutes that you folk pass - it balances. You know, "balance" is a key word, trying to balance abundance of different species that may be running at the same time, and may be subject to harvest at the same time. And I think probably there's no better example of this in the state than Cook Inlet, where you have a very large sockeye producer in the Kenai River. You have a number of other small-to-medium-size producers of sockeye, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon and pink salmon scattered through the drainage. These fish generally enter Cook Inlet together, and when you say "manage for abundance," ... you have to decide what that means in terms of a management program. Does it mean maximizing the production of the strongest stock and maximizing the harvest of that? Because that's where you might actually produce the maximum numbers of fish, and harvest the maximum numbers of fish. But what that is going to mean is that for some other stocks, they are going to be less abundant than they could be ... if they weren't mixed with this stronger stock and subject to incidental harvest during the prosecution of the fishery for the stronger stock. So, that's why the board tries to balance between ... the abundant resources, the smaller resources that may never have the potential to be as abundant as some of the larger ones, and then the various users. It's a very complicated ... process; it's one that you never get 100 percent right. But I think the key term there is "balance," and trying to balance all these different production goals, capabilities, the environmental factors are certainly one, and then the preferences ... that people have for the different uses of these resources. Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the zero fiscal note. He asked whether, if the ADF&G managed for abundance, there would be a fiscal impact, using salmon as an example. MR. BRUCE replied that human resources - staff - are a constraint in terms of trying to maximize production for the whole range of resources. He pointed out all of the information they would have to gather from all the systems in Cook Inlet, for example, to be applied, in season, to management of the fisheries, to try to separate the systems in order to get maximum production from each individual unit. It would be costly. It would also be very difficult to accomplish, given the overlap, even with unlimited funds; but certainly funds and manpower are factors in determining how much information they can gather, and how many stocks they can manage with that level of precision. Number 2226 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11, which read, "WHEREAS the passive monitoring of declining wildlife and fish populations is no longer acceptable". He asked whether Mr. Bruce would say that passive management is the ADF&G's current type of management. MR. BRUCE replied, "I guess we read the resolution as implying that that is passive and somehow not good or not what we should be doing." He told members he would echo the testimony of Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADF&G, in the earlier hearing on SCR 2 in the House Special Committee on Fisheries. Mr. Regelin had strongly stated that basic data collection - including data on harvests, resource inventory and productivity - is the heart of any successful fish and wildlife management program. They have to have it. Without it, they would be shooting blind, with no idea what they were doing. MR. BRUCE emphasized that Alaska has a reputation as a leader in fish and wildlife management, primarily because of the data collection and analysis carried out on a systematic and regular basis; that is also the reason why there are fish and wildlife resources here in this state. Number 2145 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Mr. Bruce, you would, then, concede that because we have this ongoing research all the time, in our fish and wildlife population, that it would be hard to determine if you needed additional funds for the research activity, since it is an ongoing process, and that that would not, in any way, take from the zero fiscal note that was attached to this bill?" MR. BRUCE replied that he doesn't believe this resolution requires a positive fiscal note from the ADF&G; it is an expression of the legislature's will and desires. Number 2093 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved to adopt the previously discussed conceptual amendment, which had been typed up as follows: On page 2, line 4, insert: "with the exception of predators that the Board of Fish[eries] and the Board of Game have determined to be a detriment to the resources used for human consumption." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. [Further clarification of this amendment by Representative Barnes is found at Number 1079 during the hearing on HJR 28.] Number 2025 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move SCR 2, as amended, from committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note and individual recommendations; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, HCS SCR 2(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee. CO-CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 2:20 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 2:21 p.m. HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION Number 1980 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the next item of business would be House Joint Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale population has recovered. In packets was a proposed committee substitute, version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle, 3/19/99. Co-Chair Ogan noted that he is a co-sponsor of the resolution. Number 1973 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, advised members that the language in this revised resolution has been agreed-upon and supported by the parties involved in this issue. She noted that Ron Somerville, Resource Consultant to the House Majority, was present to answer any technical question. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that Cook Inlet beluga whales are currently managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Under provisions of that Act, Alaska Native harvest of marine mammals cannot be regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) until a specie has been declared "depleted." The number of Cook Inlet beluga whales has drastically declined in the past five years. According to NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the annual harvest needs to be reduced from about 75 to less than 7, to allow for recovery. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS told members that since 1974, organizations with a strong interest in the Cook Inlet beluga whales have been working to promote conservation of those whales. The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), whose members include Native tribes and groups, and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recognize the need for a joint effort with NMFS to maintain a sustainable harvest for local traditional subsistence use. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that recently, environmental and animal rights groups petitioned NMFS to undertake the emergency listing of this stock under the Endangered Species Act. However, such a listing would erode the ability of the local Native community to participate in the management of these resources. It could mean that subsistence harvesting would not be allowed, for example, and it could cause irreparable harm to all of the major industries of Cook Inlet, including commercial and sport fishing, oil and gas, shipping and tourism. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS advised members that the CIMMC and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee believe that such a listing would be counterproductive at this time, because they are working together diligently to finalize an interim agreement for managing this stock. This resolution calls for NMFS and Congress to address this issue before it is determined that an endangered specie listing is warranted. The resolution recommends that NMFS begin a specie status review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that Congress amend that Act to give the agency authority to control the harvest, at least for a specific period of time. It also calls for Congress to fund adequate research and management programs for NMFS, to address the data deficiencies and to provide adequate funds for the management needs. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that nothing in HJR 28 precludes continuing efforts by NMFS and local beluga whale hunters to work cooperatively. She concluded, "The time for action is now. This is an urgent issue for Alaska Native populations and the major economies invested in the Cook Inlet region. Continued delays and agency foot-dragging will lead to severe personal and economic consequences. Many organizations and Cook Inlet users support the language in this resolution, and I ask for your support today." Number 1752 CO-CHAIR OGAN advised listeners that the proposed committee substitute (CS) wasn't yet before the committee because they had temporarily lost a quorum. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS confirmed that her testimony had been based on that proposed CS, a copy of which had been sent to the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs). Number 1675 ROSETTA ALCANTRA, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference from Kenai, noting that UCIDA represents the 585 salmon drift permit holders in the Upper Cook Inlet, 350 of whom are current members. In addition, UCIDA is active at the federal and state levels as a member of the executive committee of the United Fishermen of Alaska. MS. ALCANTRA said UCIDA would like to go on record as supporting HJR 28. While they are concerned about the decline of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, in light of the inconclusive data available they feel it would be detrimental to both Cook Inlet and the state to list the beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until further studies can determine accurate numbers and the reasons for decline. In fact, this summer the Cook Inlet drift fleet is scheduled to participate in the NMFS observer program, and UCIDA has committed to assist NMFS in its efforts to gain additional information regarding the beluga whales. In addition, they have indicated to NMFS that they would participate in other studies, if deemed necessary. MS. ALCANTRA said she believes that conclusive numbers can be established regarding Cook Inlet's beluga whales. Although UCIDA does not support listing of the specie as threatened or endangered, UCIDA does support a request to have NMFS manage the harvest of beluga whales until the population has recovered. Furthermore, UCIDA believes that it is imperative to have financial security for the necessary research to establish concrete numbers of beluga whales. Number 1558 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there is ever any bycatch of beluga whales in driftnets for salmon. He noted that sometimes Steller sea lions are caught in trawls, for example. MS. ALCANTRA replied that to her knowledge, there has been no interaction between beluga whales and the drift fleet. Number 1501 DAN ALEX, Project Coordinator, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage, specifying that the CIMMC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation chartered under the laws of the state of Alaska. He told members that the CIMMC and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee had asked United States Senator Stevens for an emergency amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has been accomplished. They had also asked for funding for co-management. Mr. Alex said that the CIMMC is not new to co-management proposals to NMFS; the first time that was done was in 1994. MR. ALEX told members that the CIMMC, along with RurAL CAP [Rural Alaska Community Action Program] and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, recently co-sponsored a symposium forum, where there was a consensus on some key points on a draft interim co-management agreement. They have had one session already, and they expect to have one or more negotiating sessions this week, with expected conclusion of an interim co-management agreement to be in place by April 1. Mr. Alex mentioned the perception of overharvesting, then concluded by saying the CIMMC plans to do accurate harvest and population counts, as well as additional scientific studies upon which meaningful and valid decisions can be made. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex whether he is a whale hunter. MR. ALEX said he is not, although he is the project coordinator for CIMMC, which represents beluga whale hunters in the Cook Inlet area. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex to describe how beluga whales are hunted. Number 1324 MR. ALEX replied, "It's actually not very difficult. You take an open-top dory and a spear, you know, a harpoon, and harpoon the whale with a float on it. And once the whale comes back up, you kill it and then take it to shore and cut it up." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that in Cook Inlet that is quite a challenge because of the murky waters there. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned the huge tides, as well. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE observed that harpooning the whale before shooting it takes quite a bit of skill. Furthermore, by harpooning it first, it ensures that the hunter will catch that whale because of the attached float, and it is really quite a conservation measure. In contrast, if a person shot a whale first, wounding it, the chances of harvesting that particular animal would be greatly diminished. Number 1216 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether any current regulation requires that the whale be harpooned first. MR. ALEX answered, "We are proposing a set of rules that the hunters have proposed, that would require that." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked for confirmation that now a hunter could shoot first, then harpoon later. MR. ALEX affirmed that. Number 1170 CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that he supports that type of rule, which he believes would ensure that any whales that are struck would most likely be taken. He asked whether non-Natives can participate in hunt like that, as observers. MR. ALEX specified that non-Natives can be observers, but the only people allowed to harvest the whales are Natives. CO-CHAIR OGAN commented, "Well, if anybody wants to take me whale hunting, I'm game." He noted that there was now a quorum. Number 1079 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt the proposed CS, version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle, 3/19/99, as a work draft; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, that proposed CS was before the committee. [HJR 28 continues after short discussion of SCR 2.] SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE Number 1079 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources, was brought up again briefly. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Conceptual Amendment 1, adopted earlier that meeting. She pointed out that the boards don't meet jointly. Therefore, the amendment needs to say, "the Board of Fish[eries] or the Board of Game". She suggested that because it is a conceptual amendment, hurriedly drafted, there is no problem with making that change, as the drafters could have changed it themselves. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone objected to that change to Conceptual Amendment 1; no objection was heard. [End of this section.] HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION CO-CHAIR OGAN returned the committee's attention to House Joint Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale population has recovered. Number 0958 DAVID VOLUCK, Attorney at Law, Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that his law firm provides legal counsel to the CIMMC. He told members, "We're encouraged by the state's support of co-management agreements with Alaska Native organizations. My only issue with the resolution, as drafted, is that it refers to local Native subsistence hunters or users, which is basically incorrect. It should refer to the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, as they are the only body with the authority of the tribes in the Cook Inlet region to manage the beluga whales in Cook Inlet." He said the first reference to Alaska Native organizations begins at line 13; it mentions local Native subsistence users at page 2, lines 21 and 26, and in both places it should refer to the CIMMC. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that she believes that Mr. Voluck is probably quite correct. She asked whether she could move that as an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS requested that Ron Somerville speak to that, because it had been a consideration. Number 0832 RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant to the House and Senate Leadership, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. He reminded members that a similar resolution would be up in the Senate that afternoon, then said these amendments that were provided by the council were discussed among some of the leadership; the only reason that was dropped was because there are people other than from Cook Inlet who come to Cook Inlet to harvest belugas. He stated, "And so, the council itself is not totally able to control the harvest, if you will, so just referencing the council does not cover all of the Native people who, in fact, could legally participate in the harvesting. It doesn't preclude the co-management agreements. It doesn't preclude the council's being the lead agency in the co-management. It just was dropped as a specific reference here in the resolution." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would remove her reference to an amendment. Number 0742 MR. VOLUCK responded, "While it is true that there are other Natives from the various areas of the state that can hunt in Cook Inlet, the only body that has the authority of the tribes which control the geographical area is the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, that I'm aware of. And so, by just referencing local Native subsistence users, you are denigrating the efforts and the authority of the council to manage that beluga whale take. The result of the symposium that was held - I guess about a week and a half ago; [it] was from the hunters and all the various users that showed up in Anchorage to deal with this issue - was to support the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council as the managing body for this area." Number 646 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred back to her opening remarks, emphasizing that nothing in this resolution precludes continuing efforts by NMFS and the local beluga whale hunters to work cooperatively. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the CIMMC is a tribe. MR. VOLUCK indicated CIMMC is a nonprofit organization that has been chartered by the Cook Inlet treaty tribes: Tyonek, Eklutna, Chickaloon, Seldovia and Ninilchik, that he is aware of. He added, "[U.S. Senator] Stevens refers to it in his legislative amendment, so it's not without precedent." Number 0544 CO-CHAIR OGAN emphasized that they are dealing with a nonprofit corporation here, not a tribe. Number 0492 DALE BONDURANT testified again via teleconference from Kenai, stating, "I truly believe that we need something like this, especially when we're talking about a depletion of a resource in Cook Inlet." He said it would be much better to work this out among ourselves and show a responsible plan for all users, rather than having it be forced under application of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Bondurant said he was glad they had cleared up the status of the CIMMC as a nonprofit organization, as he doesn't believe this should talk about dealing with a certain tribal entity. He supports this effort and believes that it is the right way to go. Number 0357 DREW SPARLIN testified again via teleconference from Kenai, noting that he is a Cook Inlet drift fisherman who resides in Kenai. He expressed appreciation to the sponsor for her work on HJR 28, which he supports. A member of UCIDA, he feels very comfortable with their representing him and his fellow fishermen on this issue. He expressed great hopes that they will be able to accomplish what they've set out to do, which is to determine the cause of the decline of the beluga whale population in Cook Inlet. He concluded by emphasizing that never, in 35 years of fishing, had a beluga whale hit his net, let alone be entangled. Number 0216 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Sparlin had ever had beluga whales around the area where he was fishing. He noted that driftnetters fish in the tide rips in the inlet, and when he himself dipnets for salmon on Fish Creek, beluga whales sometimes show up at the mouth of the creek and the fishermen then catch no fish. Co-Chair Ogan commented that he assumes those whales have a healthy appetite for salmon. He asked whether the belugas are smart enough and have good enough sonar that they can avoid the nets, or whether Mr. Sparlin had just not encountered them. MR. SPARLIN replied, "Yes, in fact, I would say that they are intelligent enough, or have the sonar equipment necessary, to avoid the nets." He pointed out that in days past, when there were more belugas, they certainly had the opportunity to have nets set whenever the belugas arrived. He stated, "The old fishermen, the first thing they would put on the radio for information would be the fact that 'you now have belugas around you, and you'd better get your gear up and get out.' What it does is it sounds the salmon. So, consequently, ... there has been interaction, but I don't think that it has ever caused any kind of a problem and concern of damage to the beluga, and, quite honestly, we are going to have a tendency to try to avoid a pod of beluga while they're feeding." TAPE 99-17, SIDE A Number 0001 MARGARET ROBERTS, Chair, Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She told members, "Our commission is a statewide tribal consortium. Our board represents six coastal regions, from Southeast, Chugach, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Bristol Bay and the Aleutians. We have been very active in cooperative management for the last three years, with regional and local management plans for sea otters, and we've done a lot of research with the federal agencies. We support the efforts of the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign a co-management agreement for the conservation of beluga in the Cook Inlet region." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. Roberts supports HJR 28. MS. ROBERTS specified that she was speaking only in favor of supporting CIMMC and NMFS in their cooperative management agreement, not in support of the resolution. Number 0250 DOLLY GARZA, Chair, Indigenous People's Commission on Marine Mammals (IPCOMM), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Formed in the mid-1980s, their membership includes the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Sea Lion Commission, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), the Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Commission, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the North Slope Borough, the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, the Pribilof Aleut Fur Seal Commission, the Southeast Native Subsistence Commission, Maniilaq Association, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, and the Sitka Marine Mammal Commission. MS. GARZA told members that she was there to testify in favor of HJR 28, provided that there are two changes, as noted in the commission's letter of March 19. She acknowledged that she has a copy of the proposed CS, also dated 3/19/99, which incorporates some of their requested changes. She said, "We speak in favor of what Dan [Alex] and David [Voluck] had spoken to earlier, that on page 2, line 13, line 20 and line 26, that it does need to specifically state, 'Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission.' That commission has worked very hard with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and with the local hunters, to establish the protocol and process to regulate the hunt." MS. GARZA continued, "In addition, Senator Stevens' rider specifically states the marine mammal council - and we believe that also, the second amendment, on the second page, starting with line 18, the 'FURTHER RESOLVED' that the Alaska State Legislature respectfully support Senator Stevens' rider to regulate the harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales ... with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council - if that amendment is not incorporated, then, as it reads, amending MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act] would not happen until this fall or winter, or till next year, and that would have no impact on this year's hunt of marine mammals." Ms. Garza said that Senator Stevens' rider would allow CIMMC and NMFS to come up with that management for this year. She added, "We've already heard testimony that April 1, or by April 15th, that that management would be in place. Mr. Chairman, we do support the resolution, but we are hoping for those amendments." Number 0461 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in the three areas of HJR 28 (page 2, lines 12, 21 and 26) referenced by the groups involved with the beluga commission or CIMMC, it would be appropriate to accommodate language that specifically cites CIMMC and others. He suggested that would garner a whole lot of support. Number 0580 MS. GARZA responded, "I guess the concern we have is that by adding other Alaska Native organizations, it will actually make it much more difficult to set up regulations and enforcement. Cook Inlet Marine Mammal [Council], in itself, has become the leadership, and that is the group that National Marine Fisheries Service is working with. If National Marine Fisheries Service is then required to work with any other Alaska Native organization, then it could make it much more difficult to come up with a harvest level and regulation plan. So, by leaving it as one, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, it will be more likely that those regulations will be established and implemented for this year." Number 0668 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that the wording of HJR 28 was very, very carefully crafted to allow the organizations that need to put the co-management agreements together to do that. Nothing in the resolution prohibits - in any way, shape or form - any of those groups getting together for co-management, and nothing in it will affect any co-management agreement or any decisions that any of those groups want to put together. "We did not want the legislature to be involved in that co-management decision," she added, saying that is between the Native populations that take the belugas and NMFS. She asked Mr. Somerville to expound on that. MR. SOMERVILLE said in talking to some of the people concerned, it is very understandable that they would like to push the co-management agreements. However, the resolution was purposefully designed so that there isn't a big floor debate about the definition of "co-management." He stated: Even as successful as the co-management agreements have been on bowhead whales or, in some cases, with walrus and other species, as pointed out, it is not clear in some cases to what extent the National Marine Fisheries Service ... delegates its authority to the tribes. What they've been able to do is work out some sort of agreement as to issuance of permits ... and the development of cooperative regulations in this sort of thing. But the extent of the enforcement in this sort of thing is really still kind of up in the air. And so, if we get into a big debate about what you're endorsing or not endorsing on the House and Senate floors, you know, that's a decision you have to make. But the point was we were ... requested to try and avoid that, and still allowing for these cooperative agreements to be developed and go forward without having a debate as to what they entail. Number 0832 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Somerville concurs with the sponsor's assessment that being silent on it basically leaves it up to those that will enter into these agreements. MR. SOMERVILLE replied, "Mr. Chairman, I'm silent in the respect that the people that I've been told to work with, and helping craft some of this language, it was the best way of avoiding it. It's not my decision to make; that's your decision as to whether we'd want to do that." CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then closed public testimony. Number 0903 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked for confirmation that Senator Stevens' amendment specifically talks to the NMFS and the CIMMC. MR. SOMERVILLE nodded in assent. Number 0950 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 28 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHJR 28(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 0970 There being no further business before the committee, the House Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.