Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 05:00 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HR 8 - TUSTUMENA LAKE FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT PROJ CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN announced the first order of business to come before the House Special Committee on Fisheries would be HR 8, "Relating to Cook Inlet fisheries enhancement projects on Tustumena Lake on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge." Number 0064 CHUCK MEACHAM, Fisheries Analyst for the House/Senate Majority, was the first person to testify in Juneau. He said he was testifying on behalf of Representative Gail Phillips and she offers her strong support for the passage of the resolution. He read the following statement into the record: "HR 8 supports Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association's efforts to secure a permit to continue its valuable scientific work directed towards the enhancement of sockeye salmon production for in commercial, recreational and personal use fisheries. Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association has operated its salmon stocking program since 1976. That's 20 years now. The legislature did pass a similar resolution of support during the permitting process back in 1985. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an Environmental Assessment of this project in conjunction with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge permit renewal process. Speaker Phillips respectfully requests that the Fisheries Committee continue to support enhancement efforts on the Tustumena Lake by passing HR 8." Number 0179 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked if he is correct in saying that this a pilot project for 20 years and if the resolution was an encouragement of the project. Number 0209 MR. MEACHAM stated the project had been on going for 20 years. The level of egg take is approximately 13,000,000 from about 9,000 adults. Approximately half or 6,000,000 of the eggs are returned to the Bear Creek area from where the eggs were taken. Number 0285 DENNIS RANDA, President, Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He said the council is the largest cold water conservation organization in the world. Mr. Randa said his organization has had communications with the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game over this and other hatchery implications over the years. They have asked that the department look into the implications of stock and hatchery programs for weakened wild stocks in the area that would effect increased harvest opportunities for commercial fishing. Mr. Randa said they have yet to receive adequate responses from the commissioner. The council's greatest concern is the implications associated with the increased harvest opportunity of sockeye salmon on the wild run of Kasilof River Chinook salmon wild runs. The sport fishery has been curtailed on that fishery and the department is not making an effort to gather information. The council is concerned about the genetic implications of further driving the stocks down and the unknown impact due to commercial fishing. MR. RANDA informed the committee that he attended a genetics conference in Juneau and they are looking at the implications of genetic of these stocks. Mr. said the state's geneticist indicated that if many projects around the state had been under the permit process at this time, as opposed to when they were permitted 20 years ago, they might not have been permitted by the department. Therefore, he would like to see more information before jumping into this wholeheartedly. He said he doesn't believe that it is in the state's best interest to proceed with this project. The Alaska Council Trout Unlimited was opposed to the resolution as worded. He urged the committee members to enhance the department's budget so that some of these questions could be answered. There are too many question marks to continue to follow down these roads. Number 0524 THOMAS WALKER, Special Projects Manager, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He said the project had been on going for 20 years at its current scale since 1988. It benefits a number of different user groups from the Cook Inlet area. The project has been looked at by the states' geneticist who recommended some changes of which the association is prepared to accept. Mr. Walker informed the committee that his association has also consulted with the management biologists in the area and was told the project would not drive the decision of management along the east side beach of Cook Inlet. In short, the association has put a lot of time into the project. It required permits from the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and the Department of Fish and Game to continue. The association feels this is a project with a track record and sufficient scrutiny. He thanked the committee considering HJR and urged passage. Number 0681 DALE BONDURANT was the next person to testify via teleconference from Kenai. He testified in opposition to HR 8. The Tustumena Lake is very turbulent and nutrient poor. Therefore, hatchery fish could add to the competition of the natural stocks - dolly varden, lake trout, white fish, sockeye and coho. The hatchery harvest is of a higher percentage than the native stocks, thus allowing for a smaller percentage to return to the lake. There are less carcasses to help recharge the food chain and nutrients. This could impinge upon the coho. There is also the eventual inbreeding of the genetic pools of the natural stocks, and the tendency of the fish to stray as happened in the Crooked Creek Hatchery. The continued introduction of hatchery stock in the Upper Cook Inlet is highly irresponsible and is not justified. Hatchery stocks are well known for disease potential. Native stocks needed only to be managed on a sustained yield principle for all the different discrete stocks. The Tustumena Hatchery enhancement should not be continued are there are just too many potential problems. Number 0845 ROD BERG was the next person to testify via teleconference from Kenai. He testified in opposition to HR 8. He said he does not believe that the project is legal because it was being conducted on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The cost recovery of harvest opportunities means exclusive use by a special interest group - commercial fishermen. He said he doesn't believe recreational or personal users have ever asked for this project. Mr. Berg said "additional opportunities" provided to these groups is always used to legitimize an enhancement project that is going through the permitting process. He said, "We are providing extra opportunities to the public so it's okay that we commercial users enhance this fishery for our own personal gain." Mr. Berg said it provides an artificial increase in the number of fish going through the sonar counters, but at what cost. He questioned where the funding is coming from for this project and said he objects strongly to recreational users indirectly funding this type of commercial project. Mr. Berg said, "Even more serious ramifications are these: The commercial fisheries south of the Blanchard line are having a huge negative impact on the recreational fisheries north of the Blanchard line because of the emergency commercial openings promulgated by the escapement exceed minimum and optimum numbers of fish on the spawning beds. This artificial commercial enhancement project should be eliminated all together. The only people who seem to think we need more sockeye salmon are commercial gillnetters and the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association." Mr. Berg informed the committee that stock affected negatively by this project are July run Kenai kings, sockeyes, August run silvers on the Kasilof and Kenai River, and all east side streams north of the Blanchard line. The Tustumena project has been conducted for only one user group - commercial fishermen. The time has come to disband and discontinue the project entirely. Number 1036 ROBERT HALL was the next person to testify, via teleconference from Mat-Su, in opposition to HR 8. He said he is not speaking in opposition to commercial fishermen, but in opposition to the interception. Mr. Hall said one of the dangers they have experienced in the Mat-Su Valley and in Cook Inlet is when you artificially inflate a species, the harvest of those salmon, by its nature, increases the intercept of other wild stocks, particularly northern district salmon. He cited 90 percent of the silver salmon intercepted in Cook Inlet are headed for northern district streams, and 80 percent of the harvested silver salmon are also headed up to the Mat-Su Valley. The commercial fishing industry has got to recognize that it is destroying the runs in the Mat-Su. He cited the escapement goals are substantially down on the Cottonwood Creek, Jim Creek and Wasilla Creek. The state has failed to meet the escapement goals on the Susitna River 12 out of the past 16 years. There has been testimony after testimony over the last five to ten years about the diminishing returns in the Mat-Su River, especially the silvers and kings which can be directly attributed to the fact that we have an intercept of stocks in the central district. To increase the intercept is absolutely crazy. "How much do we have to suffer?" he asked. At some point, the responsibility to the resources has to stop this type of crazy fisheries enhancement. He thanked the committee members for their time. Mr. Hall urged the committee to vote against the resolution. Number 1194 BRUCE KNOWLES was the next person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. He spoke in opposition to HR 8. He said they are losing the salmon runs in the Susitna Valley. He informed the committee that he has filed a grievance with the Office of the Ombudsman for the way the salmon are being managed at the mouth of Fish Creek. The Board of Fisheries, in November, elected to allow the fishery to continue when it was targeting hatchery fish to the detriment of native stocks. The Governor and the Lieutenant Governor have both stated that the most important thing is to manage wild stocks. He declared, "Any time we have a hatchery stock that is detriment to native stocks, it's against the law to harvest them." Number 1297 DREW SPARLIN was the next person to testify via teleconference from Kenai. He spoke in support of HR 8. He indicated that since the start of the project, there has been a change in management and the development of a personal use fishery. The 6,000,000 fry released in the area are determined to be fairly insignificant in the sense that it does not alter the management scheme. He said he would like to encourage the committee to support HR 8 as the project is very worthwhile. Number 1415 BRENT JOHNSON, President, Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. He spoke in support of HR 8. The association is a group of over 400 setnetters in the Kenai area. The association has found that the program is very helpful to them because it contributes to part of their catch every year. He said every year more and more information has been gained. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN closed the public hearing on HR 8. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN called Geron Bruce, Department of Fish and Game, to the table. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stated there were concerns raised about the susceptibility of the hatchery fish to disease and the disease spreading to the wild stocks. He asked Mr. Bruce if it was a legitimate concern. Number 1537 MR. BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, replied the Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus or IHN virus is a concern, but there are practices in place to prevent and detect an outbreak. He said he is not aware of it being a major problem on the Tustumena Lake. Number 1577 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce at what point should we say it might not be a good idea to continue producing more fish, especially when there was an over abundance affecting the market and the price. Number 1610 MR. BRUCE replied that was a difficult question to answer. Salmon production is currently worldwide and it is increasing dramatically. For example, he said he recently read that farm salmon production has increased 16 percent in one year. It would be difficult to isolate Alaska's production and predict what impact a change in that production will have on worldwide prices. Mr. Bruce said there are two factors. One is maintaining market share and the other is price - value for what you do have. Number 1670 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained there is a fear in his district. He said, "There is a fear that the more fishery produced, there more pressure there is going to be when there is a large return -- that the fish are predominately managed for the Kenai River and when there is a big return, there is more openings. The more openings there is less fish in my district." He asked Mr. Bruce if that is a valid concern, in his opinion. Representative Ogan said he thinks the Upper Cook Inlet fisheries are managed somewhat by default, driven by the return on the Lower Cook Inlet. Number 1708 MR. BRUCE replied he certainly hears the concerns expressed by the people from the Mat-Su Valley. The department attempts to manage all of the salmon returning to the Cook Inlet basin. It is a difficult and complicated job to manage all of these runs. There is only one index in the Susitna River and the department would like to do more work there. The area is important to the department and they are trying to manage them as well as they can. Number 1774 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce to comment on the impact of the diminishing runs in the Upper Cook Inlet area, especially the concern of them becoming endangered. He asked if there would be a detrimental affect on commercial fishing in Cook Inlet? Number 1810 MR. BRUCE replied it would be a very serious matter if they were determined to be an endangered species. The state does recognize, however, there are stocks that are not producing as well as the department would like, but they are a long way from being endangered. Number 1851 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Bruce what the cost is to the state for this particular salmon enhancement project. Number 1861 MR. BRUCE replied he doesn't believe there is a cost to the state. He said he believes it is a project that is being undertaken by the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. There is an indirect cost to the state in that the state pathology lab looks at the fish to ensure they are disease free. Mr. Bruce said he believes the cost of the actual stocking problem is being borne by Cook Inlet Aquaculture. Number 1904 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bruce how many late run Kasilof kings were left. Number 1916 MR. BRUCE replied he didn't currently know the number, but would get back to him. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he is concerned how an enhanced fishery in Kasilof would impact native late run kings. He would appreciate Mr. Bruce getting back to him. Number 1956 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HR 8 out of committee with individual recommendations and with the attached fiscal notes. Number 1980 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. He and his constituency is concerned that an enhanced fishery could have a negative impact on his district. CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Hodgins, Ivan and Austerman voted in favor of the motion. Representative Ogan voted against the motion. House Resolution 8 was moved from the House Special Committee on Fisheries with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|