Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/02/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB187 | |
| HB64 | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to regional fishery development
associations; and relating to developing fishery
management assessments."
2:05:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated there were several people
available online for questions.
2:06:42 PM
FATE PUTMAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, provided the
committee with an overview of the bill. He explained that
HB 64 established regional fisheries development
associations to support commercial fishing management
assessments in order to facilitate new or developing
fisheries within a geographic region. The developing
fisheries were perspective fisheries that were not
currently regulated or controlled by the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). The definition of a
developing fishery was designated as an area where the
optimum yield of the resource had not been reached or the
sustained yield has not been estimated, and annual stock
assessments were not conducted. He furthered that declining
state funding hindered the Department of Fish and Games
(DFG) ability to manage and establish new and developing
fisheries. He delineated that DFG managed state fisheries
by performing annual surveys and assessments of fisheries
resources in order to identify the biomass and the
sustainable yield of seafood as required by the states
Constitution Article 8, Section 4 called the Sustained
Yield Principle. In the case of new and developing
fisheries the funding to perform assessment surveys and
studies was lacking and prohibited the fisheries from
opening. He shared that the Speaker's office had been
contacted by a constituent in Prince Willian Sound that
wanted to fish for Tanner Crab, which remained closed for
30 years due to lack of funding for current assessments. He
indicated that annual surveys were currently being
conducted and the stocks were adequate for a commercial
fishery. The fishery was recently opened and anyone that
wanted to fish could obtain an interim use permit from
CFEC. He elucidated that HB 64 was designed to let
developing fisheries open by providing a source of funding
for the annual biomass survey. Currently, the constituent
could fish for Tanner Crab in Prince William Sound,
however; legislation was necessary for other developing or
new fisheries. The bill created a fund that allowed for
management of new and developing fisheries and allowed the
creation of regional fisheries development associations,
which were non-profit organizations representing the
stakeholders. He conveyed that the associations may elect
to levy an assessment that would fund the DFG studies. The
fees called management assessments were collected at the
time of sale so that the buyer would submit the assessments
on a quarterly basis to the Department of Revenue (DOR) who
would remit the funds back to the Regional Fishery
Development Associations (RFDA). The RFDA would develop an
annual operating plan in tandem with DFG in order to
conduct the surveys. He noted a similar association with
the dive fisheries in the state; the Southeast Alaska
Regional Dive Fishery Association developed by statute had
used the model since 1998 to manage geoduck, sea urchin,
and sea cucumber fisheries. The bill was developed using
the dive fisheries statute that granted the developing
fisheries the mechanism to fund themselves in order to
become an established fishery. He listed the benefits of
commercial fisheries in the state and noted the job
creation and revenue potential.
Co-Chair Foster indicated there were no questions on the
sectional analysis.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Johnson.
Representative Edgmon asked for an explanation of the
difference between a regional seafood association and a
regional fishery association. Mr. Putman deferred the
answer.
2:14:01 PM
FOREST BOWERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FIAHERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), asked
that the representative restate his question.
Representative Edgmon complied. Mr. Bowers answered that
the Regional Seafood Development Association (RSDA) was
developed via statute through the legislature. He explained
that the RSDA was developed to enhance the value of
fisheries via the marketing aspect of commercial fishing
and was housed in the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). The current bill was focused
on stock assessment and biology and was more appropriately
related to DFG. Representative Edgmon appreciated Mr.
Bowers' response, but he was not convinced why two
different entities were necessary. He wondered why it was
not housed in the same shop.
Mr. Putman was not familiar with the marketing portion of
the industry.
2:16:23 PM
JERRY MCCUNE, REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION AND PRESIDENT, CORDOVA DISTRICT FISHERMEN
UNITED, explained that the marketing association required
members to be a permit holder of a specific gear type and
operate a boat and pay fees to the association. The
association had control over the assessments. He agreed
with the previous testifier that the marketing associations
operated differently than the regional associations would.
He restated that the proposed association was concerned
with stock assessment and biology. He furthered that the
marketing association bylaws were limited and did not
address the needs of the proposed RFDAs; they did not mesh.
Representative Edgmon wanted to learn the distinction
between the two associations. He guessed that they may have
similar duties and suggested the state was in an era of
consolidation and creating efficiencies.
Representative Josephson wondered whether new fisheries
alluded to a situation like Tanner Crab reopening after
many years or if they were creating fisheries for new
species that never had a commercial fishery. Mr. McCune
replied that there were two developing fisheries that had
never been open before in Prince William Sound: sea
cucumbers and octopus. They were looking for species to
keep the fisheries open in the winter. He noted that the
bill encompassed the entire state and was not exclusively
for Prince William Sound. Representative Josephson asked if
there was a point in time in the process where a non-
commercial user could speak against the development of a
new fishery.
Mr. Putman responded that the appropriate venue to address
the issue would be during a Board of Fish hearing.
Representative Carpenter cited the regional dive fishery
association. He inquired whether General Funds (GF) were
ever necessary to support the dive fisheries and if he
expected that the RDFAs would need state support at some
point. He expressed concerns regarding whether GF would be
necessary. He hoped the program was an economic stimulus
and created opportunity. Mr. Putnam responded that the
general idea of a RFDA was to use the funds associated with
the collection of fees from the fishermen to pay for
assessments to keep the fishery open in the future.
2:21:28 PM
PHIL DOHERTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL
DIVE ASSOCIATION (SARDA)(via teleconference), he shared
that prior to his directorship he was an area management
biologist for commercial fisheries in the Ketchikan area.
He addressed Representative Carpenters question and
answered in the negative. He explained that the dive
association continued to tax themselves; three different
species were taxed at different rates: sea urchins, geoduck
clams, and sea cucumbers. The tax was paid at the time of
delivery and was added to the fishers fish ticket and sent
to DOR who remitted it back to the association. The
association met every year with DFG and submitted an
operating plan and transferred funding for stock
assessments and fishery management. He maintained that GF
was never used in the process.
2:23:30 PM
Representative Edgmon favored the bill and thought it was
necessary. He understood that developing fisheries had to
have commercial value and in order to be commercialized to
the point of paying an assessment fees other things had to
happen to form the association. He commented on the zero
fiscal impact note. He wondered whether he was missing
something. Mr. Putman replied that the concept was to
allow the fisheries to initially operate under a
commissioners permit, which allowed a new or developing
fishery to occur. At that point, it was not an open fishery
yet, it was a test fishery. The fish were brought to a
buyer and a fee was assessed, eventually the fees would
build up enough to develop into a full fishery. Once
developed into a full fishery the fishers operated under
an Interim Use Permit (IUP), the fees were collected, and
the stock assessments would happen on an annual basis to
keep the fishery open.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke in support of the bill. He noted the
benefits of the development associations such as creating
economic opportunity and more jobs. He remarked that the
resource was renewable, if managed correctly.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Putman and moved to invited
testimony.
2:26:47 PM
MAKENA O'TOOLE, SHELLFISH DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE, CORDOVA
DISTRICT FISHERMEN UNITED, spoke in favor of the bill. He
shared that he had spent many years trying to revive
defunct and underutilized fisheries. He used the
commissioners license process for sea cucumbers, squid,
green sea urchin, skates, etc. He elucidated that DFG was
unable to engage with the fishers due to budgetary
constraints and lack of a funding mechanism. A few years
ago, some local fishers formed a fisheries development
committee and ascertained that they could contribute funds
for the stock assessments for fisheries they believed were
viable. They discovered that a legal avenue was necessary,
and SARDA was a model. He elaborated that he had
participated in the Southeast Alaska dive fisheries for
over a decade. He characterized the relationship between
industry and management through SARDA as very functional.
He thanked Speaker Stutes for assisting with the bill. He
addressed questions from the hearing discussions. He
highlighted defunct versus new fisheries and elaborated
that there were many defunct fisheries that would benefit
from the passage of the bill because DFG simply did not
have the funding to perform assessments. Some of the
defunct species included herring ,Tanner crab, Dungeness
crab, Red, Blue, and Brown King crab, and razor clams. The
legislation also covered new fisheries such as Norton Sound
salmon fisheries, hooligan, California Market squid, green
sea urchins, octopus, skates, dog sharks, black rock fish,
etc. There were many underutilized resources in the state.
He opined that while the state was investing in
mariculture, the state also needed to discover what it
already had for development.
Representative Edgmon thanked the testifier and believed
that he outlined the distinction between RSDAs and RSFAs.
2:31:01 PM
RONALD BLAKE, SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL DIVE ASSOCIATION,
CORDOVA (via teleconference), related that he participated
in the Southeast dive fisheries since 1990. He echoed Mr.
O'Toole's testimony regarding the relationship between
SARDA and DFG. He offered that while working with the
department on developing a sea cucumber fishery [in Prince
William Sound] it asked the fishers to establish a dive
association and they discovered it could not legally be
done. House Bill 64 became the mechanism that allowed the
fishers to comply with the DFGs request.
2:32:33 PM
MIKE MICKELSON, PRESIDENT, CORDOVA FISHERMEN'S UNITED (via
teleconference), supported the legislation. He remarked
that he did not have anything to add to the prior
testimony. He had worked with the biologists and discovered
that there was enough biomass to support some of the
fisheries, which he felt was the key factor. The fish were
available, and the bill facilitated the start of new
fisheries.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Bowers to review the fiscal notes
from DFG.
Mr. Bowers explained that the published fiscal note from
DFG for Commercial Fisheries (FN4 (DFG))had zero fiscal
impact involving very little staff time. He conveyed that
the department's overall role in the creation and
management of these associations would be minimal. The
associations would qualify under the provisions of the bill
and would engage with the Commercial Fisheries Division to
formulate a cooperative agreement which described how any
revenue generated from the tax would be used for stock
assessment. The revenue was indeterminate due to the
inability to predict the amount of revenue the bill would
generate.
Co-Chair Foster moved to the next fiscal note.
Mr. Haghayeghi spoke to the published DFG zero fiscal note
for the CFEC (FN3 (DFG)). The commission did not anticipate
any additional fiscal impact from passage of the
legislation.
2:36:41 PM
NICOLE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE (via teleconference), relayed that the published
DOR fiscal note (FN5 (REV)) was indeterminate in terms of
the revenue impact. The revenue impact of this bill was not
able to be determined at this time. The department would
absorb the costs of the small additional administrative
burden to implement the program with existing resources.
Representative Carpenter asked if any personal use
fisheries would be impacted if a new commercial fishery was
developed. He deduced that his question may be premature.
Mr. Putman responded that there was often little relation
between personal use and commercial fishing because the
Board of Fish allocated the resources. He noted that all
salmon fisheries were limited and that did impact personal
use. He did not know if he could directly answer without
knowing the specific fishery. He thought the decision would
be up to the department to decide if a new fishery would
impact personal use. Representative Carpenter remarked that
his question was premature but important. He felt assured
knowing that there was a process for making the
determination at a later stage.
2:39:52 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked that with the establishment of an
association who decided on the membership. He wondered if
there would eventually be too much membership demand to
sustain the fishery. Mr. Putman indicate that Vice-Chair
Ortiz's question was a good one. He clarified the question
was how to sustain the fishery if there was too much
fishing pressure. He replied that one of the functions of
the limited entry commission was to determine where the
pressure was applied and whether there was enough resource
for both commercial and personal use. They were difficult
questions to answer. He deferred to DFG who might have a
better answer. Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified his question. He
inquired if all of the fishers who formed an association
would be able to participate in the fishery. Mr. Putman
replied that anyone was able to be part of the association
and they would vote on how to assess the fishery; not all
members were commercial fishers. He noted that formation of
the association was loosely defined in the bill. There were
outstanding issues with the workings of the committee that
needed to be addressed, but the sponsor wanted to keep it
flexible so that anyone who wanted to be a part of the
association could participate and vote on how to move
forward.
2:43:19 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how SARDFA worked. He asked if the
membership was open and how it was controlled.
Mr. Doherty answered that if someone was a permit holder
through CFEC, whether interim use or permanent, they were a
part of the association. The dive association membership
did not include any non-permit holders. The membership duty
was to pay the landing tax. He restated that as soon as
someone purchased the limited entry permit, they
automatically became part of the association and paid the
tax.
Representative Wool referenced the associations assessment
fee. He asked how the assessment rate was determined. Mr.
Putman replied that the bill specified the amounts of
assessments the associations members could vote for. He
pointed out that it began at 2.5 percent up to 30 percent
of the value of the fish. He reiterated that the money was
housed in DOR and given to DFG for stock biomass
assessments to determine if the fishery was viable.
Representative Wool wondered what happened if the amount
voted on was insufficient to perform the biomass studies.
He asked how the department handled the situation. Mr.
Putman responded that if funds were insufficient there
would be no fishery and it incentivized choosing a higher
tax rate. The commissioner had to approve the ballot and if
the commissioner decided the amount was not enough to
perform the assessment the vote could be rejected.
2:47:46 PM
Representative Wool provided a scenario and asked how the
commissioner ascertained how much was necessary to perform
the study or what happened if the funding proved to be
insufficient to complete the assessment. Mr. Putman
answered that DFG had a good handle on the cost of
assessments. He deemed that if the association was small
and the tax amount was too low, the commissioner would
likely reject the vote and ask for a higher fee. The
process would make certain the amount was functional and
could move forward with an assessment. Representative Wool
inquired whether an association could keep repeating the
experimental opening process if it lacked enough money for
an assessment. He deduced that it was not possible to
establish a new fishery without an adequate assessment. Mr.
Putman answered in the affirmative. He restated that
lacking a sustainable yield would violate the constitution.
He relayed that DFG was vigilant regarding not allowing
commercial fishing without a biomass study.
2:49:51 PM
Mr. Putman provided closing remarks. He referenced the
aging of the commercial fishing fleet and believed that the
bill presented an effort to open new fisheries and younger
fishers could start without purchasing a limited entry
permit.
HB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.