Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/30/1995 05:03 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
January 30, 1995
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Department of Fish and Game Overview (including national and
international issues)
WITNESS REGISTER
FRANK RUE, ACTING COMMISSIONER
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) Overview
JEFF KOENIGS, DIRECTOR
Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4210
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
ELLEN FRITTS, ACTING DIRECTOR
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4105
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
ROB BOSWORTH, DIRECTOR
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4147
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
GORDON KRUSE, MARINE FISHERIES SCIENTIST
Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-6106
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
DAVE BENTON, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
DOUGLAS EGGERS, CHIEF FISHERIES SCIENTIST
Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4210
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the ADF&G Overview
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-3, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
He noted for the record that Representatives Ogan, Davis, Elton and
Moses were present and that a quorum was present.
Number 045
FRANK RUE, ACTING COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(ADF&G) began by asking if the committee would like the sport fish
division's presentation on February 22, 1995, as already scheduled
or included this evening.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN suggested that the sport fish division wait.
MR. RUE began saying, "Whenever I come before a legislative
committee, I like to remind people and I like to remind myself,
that Fish and Game is about people and people using resources and
people depending on the resources. Our job is basically to ensure
that we manage, protect, maintain and improve basic resources, fish
and wildlife resources that people depend on in this state. That
is our job. We can't forget the user. What we do is fairly
simple: We count them."
MR. RUE continued, "The subsistence division spends a lot of time
figuring out who is using what, where, when. Once the boards have
set the seasons, bag limits, we then manage the resource, making
sure that we achieve our goals of escapement, for instance. We
follow the management plans that were established and we don't
overharvest the resource." He then added maintaining habitat is
another big part of what the department does.
Number 105
MR. RUE pointed out, "We've gone from nine to six divisions in our
budget discipline attempts here in the last few years. We've been
trying to be more efficient, more streamlined. We are a
decentralized department, we have a lot of area offices. We think
that gives us good access to people, good access to resource
information and leads to better management."
MR. RUE emphasized, "We all take it for granted that we have got
fisheries management going on out there and we've done a good job
when we have a record salmon harvest. Well, it takes people to do
that. It takes an effort to do that and we sometimes forget about
things that are working well. So that's going to be a challenge.
To keep doing things well with a declining budget. Then we've got
some issues that are going make out lives more complex: ESA
(Endangered Species Act) and the problems they're having in the
Northwest with their salmon are going to hit us; the Pacific Salmon
Treaty problems are all going to make our life more difficult. The
other thing is: We've got more and more people coming into the
state and wanting to use the resource in the face, of declining
budgets. The issues aren't getting simpler. Finally, there are
some opportunities. I think Fish and Game provides some great
opportunities for new economic development. Sea urchins is one
example I've used. Some of the rural fisheries opportunities, I
think, we ought to be looking to expand our economic base. Better
information on something like the Bering Sea crab will allow us to
realize a return in that fishery where we've had to shut it down
because of lack of information. So, I think Fish and Game can
provide a lot of benefits to people in this state. Those are the
types of opportunities that I'll be looking for us to capitalize on
in the future."
Number 157
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there is a shortage of research
biologists as he had heard.
MR. FRANK RUE said, "Generally, we have not tried to reduce
research biologists in saving general fund dollars. The main
emphasis has been in switching hatcheries from state operation to
the private sector and letting cost recovery manage that."
JEFF KOENIGS, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT &
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ADF&G, indicated that in the recent merging
of the FRED division with the commercial fisheries division,
research was prioritized and gave examples.
Number 216
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "My understanding is that we have one
research biologist in Kodiak to handle the scallop industry down
there and yet he doesn't have a travel budget to work with. So
it's kind of hard for him to try to figure out what actually is
going on out there."
MR. KOENIGS replied, "The scallop program is a new program and
we've made programmatic changes for this next budget year that
boost the abilities of the research biologists to process
information that comes in from the observer program, and by that
information, help to redesign and help our management program. But
there will be help in the scallop program this next fiscal year to
make sure that data does get compilated, analyzed, synthesized, and
then reported."
Number 244
ELLEN FRITTS, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT AND RESTORATION,
ADF&G, described the goals of the division as "to protect, maintain
and enhance the fish, game and aquatic plant resources of Alaska;
ensure that Alaska's renewable fish and wildlife resources and
their habitats are conserved and managed on the sustained yield
principle; ensure that the use and development of these resources
are in the best interest of the economy and well-being of the
state; and, to assess injuries and to restore, replace, enhance or
acquire the equivalent of the natural resources that were damaged
in the Exxon Valdez spill."
MS. FRITTS continued saying, "On a day to day basis, the division's
primary goal is to work up front with project proponents to find
practical, cost effective and fair solutions: Project and land use
planning solutions," and then described the tasks and duties of the
different sections.
MS. FRITTS added, "The habitat and restoration division serves as
the department's point of contact and coordinating body for land
management and related permitting issues. The division assembles
issues, specific information, and management recommendations from
the other divisions of ADF&G and synthesizes these points into the
department's overall position. Industry, agencies, and the public
are in broad agreement that providing this single point of contact
and a unified voice from ADF&G is a critical role that we perform."
MS. FRITTS pointed out that the Title 16 permit review workload has
increased by 40 percent, with 20 percent cuts in general fund
dollars, since FY 90. She also voiced concern over meeting legal
obligations under the Forest Practices Act as this has increased
the workload from 119 to nearly 4,000 variance requests from 1990
to 1993.
MS. FRITTS then talked about the Kenai River habitat saying,
"Forty-one percent of the land along the river is currently
privately owned and 50 percent has been developed to date. This is
the fastest growing area of the state. Unfortunately, it looks
like the Kenai River is being threatened by land use changes in
that drainage. Studies indicate that as of 1993, twelve percent of
the essential stream bank rearing habitat has been degraded or lost
by shoreline development and bank fishing, primarily for sockeyes.
Water quality studies have shown that aquatic insects, fish food,
have disappeared below storm drain outflows in the Soldotna area.
Extensive logging is proposed on steep slopes in the upper Kenai
River watershed and without land use changes, it looks like
proportionately greater habitat losses and losses in fish
production could occur in the future," and added the Kenai Borough
Assembly is presently working on zoning ordinances for the river,
and the division, also, is taking "steps to reverse this loss".
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Ms. Fritts to elaborate on "state
of the art mitigation technics."
MS. FRITTS said, "One of the successes that the department and the
division is very proud of is the fact that with regard to North
Slope oil development and the gravel mining that occurs there,
we've been able to use funding from industry to study some of the
pits that are created and learn how to best restore them. Now we
have excellent examples, even manuals, that talk about how to do
that."
MR. RUE interjected, "Fort Knox might be another good example where
basically they're going to recreate a whole wetlands complex from
an old placer mine stream which will serve not only as an overflow
safety valve for them, if they have an upset in their process, it
also creates a terrific habitat and will probably end up as a park
when they're done. It benefits the company, it benefits the
habitat and fish and wildlife and people."
Number 455
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about having a quick permitting process
for Title 16 permits.
MS. FRITTS continued, "If it takes a certain amount of days to
crank out a permit right now and we invest a certain amount of time
working with the applicant, looking at what they plan to do, trying
to make it fish and wildlife friendly -- If we keeping losing staff
and the number of permits keeps going up, the amount of time that
we're able to invest per permit will go down and that means that we
aren't going to be able to spend the time with the applicant."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what a Title 16 permit is.
MS. FRITTS replied that Title 16 permits are issued under AS 16.870
for any kind of activity within the "bed or banks of streams used
by anadromous fish."
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said, "As budgets go down, the pinch gets
felt," and suggested that budget cuts may result in delays to
economic development. He voiced surprise in the increase in the
numbers of Forest Practices Act variances.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked about the purpose of federal funds
recently received by the division for the Kenai River habitat.
MS. FRITTS described an outline of a Kenai River workplan.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if NMFS (National Marine Fisheries
Service) would be administering this project.
Number 496
MR. RUE interjected, "Once the Borough and the department have
gotten together a list of projects, that's what will trigger NMFS
handing the money over."
ROB BOSWORTH, DIRECTOR, SUBSISTENCE DIVISION, ADF&G, said, "For the
most part our focus is on research. We try to look at the who,
what, when, where of subsistence - information that is needed in a
variety of forms," and added, "Rural residents of Alaska harvest
about 375 pounds of wild food per person per year on the average.
This amount of course is higher for communities off the road
system." He indicated that 60 percent of this subsistence harvest
is in fish and mostly salmon which statewide totals 26 million
pounds in fish for rural areas and 6 million pounds of fish for
urban residents.
MR. BOSWORTH explained how subsistence research is obtained by the
subsistence division although in some instances data is obtained by
the division of commercial fisheries management and development
division. He said, "Most subsistence fisheries are in-river
fisheries and accurate assessment of subsistence harvest can be
vital for stock assessment. In some cases subsistence information
provides the only reliable stock assessment index."
Number 580
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if subsistence has a higher priority in
allocation of game or fish.
MR. RUE indicated that the Board of Fish and the Board of Game do
the actually allocation, but follow standards set in the statutes.
MR. KOENINGS began his overview saying, "The division is
responsible for the sustained yield management of the state's
commercial, subsistence and personal use fisheries; the development
of new fisheries; and the programmatic support for the state's
private-sector mariculture and salmon ranching industries. The
division also plays a major role in the management of fisheries in
the federal 200-mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), in several
international treaty negotiations; and, more recently, in
addressing concerns over federal legislation affecting Alaska's
fisheries, the ESA." He then gave locations of the four regional
offices and shrinking budget figures.
MR. KOENIGS continued, "The direct and indirect economic benefit of
the commercial fishing industry is of major importance to the
entire state. For example, the seafood industry is the state's
largest private employer both in terms of income and employment
with roughly 33,000 to 36,000 jobs. The seafood harvesters are
small businessmen that account for 8,000 to 12,000 full-time job
equivalents. Seventy-seven percent of these commercial fishing
permit holders are Alaskan residents."
Number 649
MR. KOENIGS spoke on subsistence saying, "The cultural and economic
value of the subsistence fishery is even harder to quantify, in
direct economic terms, than the commercial fishery. To many it is
beyond value, and that is understandable. Recently, subsistence
fishers have repeatedly told me that their subsistence lifestyle,
a combination of fishing, hunting, berry picking, etc., is fueled
to varying degrees, by their incomes from commercial fishing. My
point being that there is absolute value and real benefits in
having strong, well managed runs of fish so that both the
subsistence uses and commercial users are provided for."
MR. KOENIGS continued, "Overall the state's fisheries resources
appear to be vibrant and healthy, although problem areas do exist
especially in Western and Interior Alaska. Last year, the
commercial harvest of 196 million salmon was an all time record.
Yet, because of competition from high quality foreign farmed
salmon, prices are down and the economic value is declining. The
department is responding by managing within biological constraints,
so fishermen and processors can achieve the best product quality
and thus higher economic value. Examples for 1994 include the
harvest management of enhanced and wild pink salmon in Prince
William Sound, chum salmon in the Kuskokwim River, the herring
fishery in the Togiak district, and pink salmon in Norton Sound.
In developing new fisheries, the division has pioneered new
cooperative efforts with private industry to assess the health of
the sea urchin population in the Ketchikan area prior to a
commercial fishery. The project provides for close cooperation
between local divers and processors and is funded entirely by
private dollars and by the sea urchin resource itself, and not by
the general fund. If successful, the fishery could be worth $30
million annually to Southeast fishermen and may become the third
largest fishery in state waters. Reasonable and responsible
development of our renewable fishery resources will lead to
increased number of jobs for Alaskans."
MR. KOENIGS concluded, "Despite the general abundance of salmon,
which are now on the high end of their productive cycle, we do have
localized resource problems. For example, the Chinook salmon in
the Mat-Su valley, the chum salmon in the Mat-Su valley, the chum
salmon in parts of Western and Interior Alaska, Nushagak River coho
salmon in Bristol Bay and perhaps the sockeye salmon of Chilkoot
Lake. Also, the herring populations in Prince William Sound are in
horrible shape and are not fishable. However, the biggest
challenge throughout the state is the management of our shellfish
resources. From Norton Sound in the North to Adak to the south
then east to Bristol Bay, Kodiak, Cook Inlet and Prince William
Sound, the crab populations are failing. Some of the most
important crab fisheries are in the Bering Sea where state
involvement in resource assessment, necessary for proper state
management, is minimal at best. This minimal effort needs to
change."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "It seems to me that the industry doesn't
have a good track record of using the resource wisely: It's almost
a rape and run mentality that we've seen in the Lower 48 and maybe
in some of the fisheries up here." He indicated concern about the
long term condition of the resource.
TAPE 95-3, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. KOENIGS commented, "I would say in general that our resource
assessment programs for our shellfish populations are certainly not
up to the par that they are for the salmon populations. We need to
correct that. So I think that your assessment is correct. We have
at times permitted fishing to go on with limited information.
Perhaps too aggressively, but we're learning from that."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the Bering Sea crab harvest is set at
a sustainable level.
MR. KOENIGS added, "One of the problems we do have in the Bering
Sea is our main resource assessment program is a groundfish trawl
survey...off crab caught as a bycatch."
MR. RUE interjected, "On that very point, we've made a proposal to
the Governor's Office on a budget neutral switch in funding to
allow us, in cooperation with the industry, to do a better
assessment in the Bering Sea. Because it doesn't increase our
general fund budget, I'm hoping it gets a good hearing."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked why the Central Region Office of ADF&G
included Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay.
MR. KOENIGS described the diversity of the Central Region.
GORDON KRUSE, MARINE FISHERIES SCIENTIST, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ADF&G, talked about his duties
and the scope of state research and management. He then presented
the state's management strategies and examples of the techniques
employed. He admitted, "We certainly have some stocks that are in
poor condition. We feel that at least part of those problems are
attributable to another issue, which is limited stock assessments.
Our job is very difficult to provide for sustainable fisheries when
we simply don't know the size of the stocks that we're harvesting
from. So one of the things we want to do is try to expand our
coverage for surveys in the Bering Sea for stocks that are either
not assessed or not assessed well. An example is the Norton Sound
king crab fishery. It's not a particularly large fishery; however,
it's one that is very important to the local community there.
Unfortunately, we have not had stock assessments there now for a
number of years and there are indications that the stock is
declining. It seems to be a very important area for us to consider
some stock assessments. Other places in the Bering Sea for king
crabs include around the Pribilof Islands and St. Mathew Island,
substantial king crab fisheries. Now the National Marine Fisheries
Service does conduct surveys in the Bering Sea, but because of the
nature of their survey, they're not estimating those populations
well at all. So there's a large element of uncertainty as we set
our annual catch quotas for those areas."
MR. KRUSE continued, "Another area which has been a big area in
marine fisheries is bycatch. You can probably expand that to
discards in general. Some of the large groundfish fisheries are
prosecuted by trawl fishing. They catch not only the fish that
they're targeting but a wide range of other species including
smaller fish of the same species that they're trying to catch.
This results in a lot of discard. Some of those discards are
species that the state is extremely concerned about. Species such
as king and chum salmon, herring, and king and tanner crabs for
example. We've been very active as a state with the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council, to put limits, or bycatch caps, for
those species of interest, in the groundfish fisheries, as well as
providing for closures in areas that are particularly vulnerable
because of concentrations of herring or crabs."
MR. KRUSE concluded, "Within the federal management arena. There
are a number of significant changes occurring in fisheries
management. These include things such as moratoria on new
participants in fisheries such as for halibut and sablefish, as
well as things called IFQs (Individual Fishing Quotas). Also
changes in their observer programs. Some of these issues have
implications in that basically the federal actions that are
occurring pertain from fisheries from 3 to 200 miles. They do not
apply to state waters. This poses some difficulty in terms of
managing resources within 0 to 3 miles that our agency is going to
need to be facing, a lot of policy type decisions. Many of the
species that we're managing don't adhere to a three mile boundary,
so they're migrating in between the two and as a result, there's a
number of issues that need to be resolved. Some of these pose
problems in terms of creating management difficulties where we
haven't had a management program and on the other hand some of
these pose opportunities."
Number 375
DAVE BENTON, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ADF&G, testified, "I've
worked at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) now
for any number of years and we've, the department, have focused
there on two major suites of issues. One is resource conservation
issues the other is economic development issues for the state of
Alaska." He then addressed Representative Ogan's concerns about
the track record of fisheries in other areas of this country,
saying, "Probably the area where the greatest level of bycatch and
waste and discards occur is in the groundfish fisheries off of our
coast. The fisheries off of Alaska in the 200 mile zone represent
roughly half of the nation's total fishery resources and harvests
and a little less than half of the value. Out of that, the
offshore fisheries throw away about 750 million pounds a year. At
least in 1993 that's what they threw away of the target species
that they were supposedly harvesting. This isn't species that are
bycatch like halibut, crab, herring and salmon that they're
supposed to throw back as prohibitive species. These are target
species that are harvested and discarded for some reason; economic
reasons, sometimes it's a regulatory reason. But these are fish
that really ought to go into making food products or some product
as a harvested resource. Instead they're discarded. They're not
utilized. This has been a real concern to the state. We're
pushing at the council and back in Washington, D.C. for actions to
require these people, when they harvest those resources to retain
and utilize them. With regard to other bycatches, as Gordon
summarized, the state has been pushing to deal with crab bycatch,
herring bycatch, salmon bycatch, by seeking either closures, caps,
or other kinds of regulatory measures that we can use to protect
those resources."
MR. BENTON described the difficulty in the NPFMC board process and
added, "The council can only recommend measures to conserve
resources or regulate the fisheries and those recommendations then
have to be approved by the secretary and the secretary's
representative has the vote on the council. It makes for a very
interesting dynamic as to whether or not you can effectively first,
transmit a message to the secretary and hopefully that message is
received and acted upon. With the secretary's representative
sitting there, it's sometimes a very interesting proposition
because he controls most of the analysis, most of the data flow,
most of the assessment information, and all of the economic cost
and benefit analysis that all have to go into making a decision.
And when they have that kind of control, it's very difficult for
the state of Alaska or Alaska's representatives on the council to
get those conservation measures passed an unwilling federal
bureaucracy and passed an industry that very often does not want to
address those problems." He then described the development of the
trawler fleet as beginning when the foreign fleet was moved past
the 200 mile zone and the joint ventures were formed often without
Alaskan residents. He pointed out, "As a consequence of that, the
industry offshore is dominated by Seattle interests and interests
from other parts of the country. Now Alaskans want to get into the
ball game. We've tried to make opportunities available in a number
of ways. One is the onshore-offshore allocation scheme." He then
said ADF&G is working towards reauthorizing that allocation which
expires at the end of this year.
Number 470
MR. BENTON stated, "What that allocation is 100 percent of the
pollock and 90 percent of the cod caught in the Gulf of Alaska, has
to be delivered to shore. And in the Bering Sea, I believe it's,
65 percent goes offshore, 35 percent goes onshore. That's still a
very large chunk of fish. Along with the Bering Sea pollock
allocation, is a pollock CDQ (Community Development Quota)
allocation which is providing about $20 million a year currently to
western Alaska communities, little villages all up and down the
coast from Nome and Norton Sound on down and around and out the
Chain. That resource is used by these communities to get into
joint venture operations, very similar to what happened when the
Americanization process with the foreign fleets was going on. It's
resulting in literally thousands of jobs, the start up of many new
fisheries business enterprises in those communities and elsewhere
and really holds the greatest promise of any regional economic
development activity that we've had in a long time. The state is
looking to extend that program beyond 1995 along with the onshore-
offshore allocation that will go through to 1999."
MR. BENTON continued, "We are trying to craft a program that will
do a couple of things. One, add CDQs to the list for the other
species that might be covered by the licenses. Two, make sure
there's opportunity for small boat fleets to operate out of our
local communities all up and down the coast. Three, insure that
whatever kind of program comes about, it protects our onshore-
offshore allocation scheme. So communities like Kodiak, Dutch
Harbor, Sitka, wherever, have access to the resources and those
resources are not transferred away to Seattle-based interests and
migrate away from Alaska."
Number 512
MR. BENTON also said, "The other suite of federal issues that I
participate in is reauthorization of key pieces of federal
legislation. Right now that focuses in on the Magnuson Act, which
is the Act that set up the 200 mile zone, established the council,
that kind of thing. In the Magnuson Act, starting last year
working closely with Senator Steven's Office, we got some very
stringent provisions in the draft to deal with bycatch and
discards. That bill didn't go anywhere. It's back on the table
now and we expect action on it this year. The other one's the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is going to affect any number of
aspects to our lives up here. In fisheries, it's endangered salmon
and the impacts it has on the Pacific Salmon Commission process.
And also how the state manages its resources. The third suite of
things I work on are the international fisheries issues. I just
got back from Vancouver for what to me was probably the worst
international negotiation I've ever been involved in in my life.
I've never been dealt a worse deck of cards. That's the Pacific
Salmon Commission Treaty process and that's a negotiation between
the United States and Canada on salmon management up and down the
coast but really is a three way negotiation between ourselves, the
southern U.S. and Canada. All I'll say about that here today is
that Alaska stands to lose quite a lot in that Pacific Salmon
Commission process right now in terms of having our fisheries
reduced primarily for Chinook Salmon off Southeast, but also for a
number of other fisheries here in Southeast such as sockeye and
pink salmon fisheries down near Ketchikan, primarily. That process
is not going well. A special negotiator's been appointed by the
President. This fellow's name is Jim Pipkin. His job is to solve
the problem. They don't really care very much who gets stomped in
the way of that. Alaska is being painted as the bad guy by our
friends in Washington State and elsewhere. We're not looking at a
very favorable climate right now. That one's colored by the ESA:
determinations on endangered Chinook salmon out of the Snake River.
And National Marine Fisheries Service in the South and the federal
negotiator have all come at us very hard last week telling us we're
going to have to take significant reductions in our Chinook salmon
fishery off Southeast Alaska. Probably 30 to 50 percent."
Number 560
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there were any problems associated with
the reauthorization of the onshore-offshore allocation and the CDQ
program.
MR. BENTON replied, "If we can maintain the level of presence that
the state has had at the council, and that means we have to put in
a lot of staff time here in the next several months, I think that
onshore-offshore is going to go. I think we'll get an extension.
Along with that will be the pollock CDQ provisions. The opposition
there, of course, is our friends the factory trawlers from
Washington State," and added, "We've got to build the record, which
has been the toughest part of this thing, to justify an extension
because inshore-offshore was supposed to be an interim measure."
MR. BENTON specified, "We're going to need a lot of help from the
communities. We need all the communities up and down the Chain to
be in there at the public hearings providing economic and social
information that supports the need to continue that allocation,
talking about what would happen if that allocation was not there
for those communities. That kind of information is going to be
critical when it gets down to the secretary making a decision and
justifying that decision. For example, we'd like to see
resolutions out of councils and boroughs of Kodiak, Dutch Harbor,
etc. We need some detailed economic analysis or at least data -
what's the importance to the community, what would happen if it
weren't there, what kind of social consequences might occur, that
kind of thing."
MR. RUE interjected that ADF&G will be working directly the
community representatives.
MR. BENTON proceeded, "On the pollock CDQs, I think it's going to
go right along with it. No changes, no increases of allocation or
anything. It's just steady as you go, status quo kind of thing."
He further commented, "If we do the license program and that is up
for a decision in April, but more likely to occur in June, we will
be adding some species under the license program to the suite of
CDQ species. We're going to have to do a little work on
justifying that as well."
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for translation of several of the
acronyms used by Mr. Benton.
MR. BENTON gave a brief explanation of CDQs and IFQs.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if community input is truly effective in
promoting the reestablishment of the onshore-offshore allocations,
in light of the fact that there were so many unheeded resolutions
against IFQs.
MR. BENTON said, "You're trying to build a record that says, `The
social cost and benefits, the economic cost and benefits are very
important and could be crucial to some communities in Alaska. You
build that kind of record, it's very helpful in terms of the state
trying to get the action through and then defending it once it goes
to the secretary. On the IFQs, the situation there was a little
different. The federal government really wanted IFQs on halibut,
on sablefish. They wanted IFQs on everything. Just to give you
some numbers, excluding halibut and sablefish, looking at all the
other groundfish species - I don't think that included crab, it
might have included crab - anyway, about 83 percent of the IFQs
would have gone to non-Alaskans. The value of those IFQs was worth
about $4 billion. That's not happening right now, we're not on that
track. Going back to halibut and sablefish, which is the IFQ
program that was approved, the previous administration was very
supportive of that. At least initially. I think the devil was in
the details and a lot of people figured out the details of that
program. There's some real problems with it. But nevertheless,
it's there, it has been approved. The secretary wanted that
program and in a lot of ways, as long as the secretary had the
votes and got it out of council, the record didn't matter in this
regard. Now there are some jurisdictional issues that you've
probably heard about. Frankly, I think that those have been
relatively well dealt with by the state. Although the recent court
opinion, I want to hear what our lawyers have to say about it, on
the IFQ lawsuit but the issue of whether or not IFQs affect state
management and how is very critical. With regard to halibut -
halibut are regulated under an international treaty so there is not
much we can do about that. The federal government can preempt us
and that's that. With regard to black cod, sablefish, the state
does regulate sablefish and when the IFQ program was going through
the council process, we looked at how much sablefish comes out of
state waters and made a determination of which geographical areas
were a concern to us and then decided that because very little
sablefish came out of state waters except for these areas, that it
really wasn't a preemption issue for our management program. If
there were problems in terms of stock conservation, we could always
shut the fishery down in state waters to address that. We manage
sablefish in a few areas. Those areas are exempt from the IFQ
program under the NPFMC. So, in that instance, the jurisdictional
issues are contained, I think, unless the court decision has set an
unacceptable precedent that we can't live with. If we move into a
different kind of limited access system for the rest of groundfish
and crab. IFQs or licenses. Licenses are the ones that are right
now on the table. Then that jurisdiction question becomes much
more important to us because there are a lot of groundfish
fisheries resources inside state waters that are very important to
Alaska residents and it could definitely affect our management
program and we, under no circumstances, want to let that kind of
preemption occur. We want to craft something that preserves our
ability to manage those resources inside our waters to the extent
that we possibly can."
Number 701
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that the economic data from the
communities could be used in court if the secretary rejected the
extension of the onshore-offshore allocation and stressed the
importance of this to the state.
TAPE 95-4, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES pointed out that it appears that ADF&G
uses opposite reasoning in arguments regarding the Pacific Salmon
Treaty negotiations and the Yukon River crisis.
MR. RUE said, "You've got to remember, down south one of the big
concerns we've had is that 95 percent of the problem is caused by
dams and hydro, and they're asking the fishermen to bear a hugely
disproportionate and unfair burden. That is a very different
situation than what we see in western Alaska."
MR. BENTON talked about the Pacific Salmon Commission negotiations
and that ADF&G is attempting to change how the commission valuates
"equity." He said, "It's a balancing of interceptions, and we've
tried to bring that around to an abundance base approach of
management where stocks are managed based on their abundance...
You set some rules and guidelines and that's how you deal with it.
In part, we're looking at the same kind of concept around Alaska,
too. At least in terms of some of the fisheries that have been
pretty contentious with regards to distant interceptions."
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that there are many small
communities in Southeast Alaska concerned about "the Chinook
problem" and asked if other state personnel can be applied to that
problem.
MR. BENTON said, "We have some excellent people in there (Pacific
Salmon Commission negotiations) working to the max and I'm
concerned about that because this is going to be a grueling
process. We have some resources available. This committee worked
with the department over the past couple of years to get some
resources there but that's not just Pacific Salmon Commission, it's
Pacific Salmon Commission, federal legislative reauthorization, ESA
litigation, ESA administrative process. It's a whole lot of work
and not a lot of real resources there. We can always use a little
extra help. If you guys have any ideas on where we can find some."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Alaska's congressional delegation is
helping with these issues.
Number 159
MR. BENTON said, "The delegation on PSC (Pacific Salmon Commission)
has been working very well to put pressure on the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the State Department to do the right thing.
On the issues before the NPFMC, they have been excellent. They are
really helping us on the inshore-offshore and on the bycatch issues
and the CDQs issues."
DOUGLAS EGGERS, CHIEF FISHERIES SCIENTIST, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ADF&G, gave a
detailed overview of ADF&G's salmon fisheries management program,
including presentation of a handout describing "an example of the
stock assessment system that has evolved for western Alaska sockeye
and chum salmon which include all stocks north of Unimak Island."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if allocation decisions are made for
biological or political reasons.
MR. EGGERS said, "Our role in these decisions is to provide the
best available scientific information on what the magnitude and
origin of the catches are to the Board of Fisheries so they can
make decisions with respect to allocation."
Number 329
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about genetic stock identification for
assessments.
MR. EGGERS indicated the prevalence and methods of genetic stock
identification assessments and cautioned, "These methods don't work
very well for coho and pink salmon."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if these assessments had already been done
on Kodiak Island differentiating the stocks between the individual
stream systems.
MR. EGGERS indicated that study was done on one of the Olga Moser
Bay area with a procedure called "Scale Pattern Analysis", not
genetic stock identification.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked his guests and adjourned the meeting at
6:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|