Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/17/2009 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division | |
| Overview(s): Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 17, 2009
10:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, SUBSISTENCE
DIVISION
- HEARD
OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, HABITAT DIVISION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
CRAIG FLEENER, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Division of Subsistence
overview for the department.
JENNIFER YUHAS, Director
Public Communications; Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a recent publication by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
KERRY HOWARD, Director
Division of Habitat
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Division of Habitat overview
for the department.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:16:29 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:16 a.m. Representatives Munoz,
Kawasaki, Buch, Keller, Millett, and Edgmon were present at the
call to order. Representative Johnson was excused.
10:17:17 AM
^OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, SUBSISTENCE
DIVISION
10:17:52 AM
CRAIG FLEENER, Director, Subsistence Division, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G), informed the committee that as a recent
appointee to the department, he holds the staff at the ADF&G in
high esteem. Mr. Fleener began the Division of Subsistence
overview with a brief history of the division and said that it
was created in 1978 by the enactment of AS 16.05.090. This
legislation recognized it was in the public interest to clearly
establish subsistence use as a priority use of Alaska's fish and
game resources, and recognized the needs, customs, and
traditions of Alaska's residents. The department was slightly
different than the U. S. Department of the Interior, Department
of Fish and Wildlife Service, in that the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires a rural
priority for subsistence uses on federal land. Under ANILCA, a
system must be in place to provide scientific support data to
management and advisory bodies as the Division of Subsistence
provides to the Alaska Board of Fish (BOF) and the Alaska Board
of Game (BOG). Primary duties of the Division of Subsistence
are: compile subsistence user data; quantify subsistence
hunting and fishing amounts; make information available to the
public; assist in determining customary and traditional uses;
evaluate the impact of laws on subsistence hunting and fishing;
make recommendations regarding subsistence regulation; and
participate in management planning to incorporate subsistence
needs. Under AS 16.05.258, which passed in 1986, board
responsibilities are: identify stocks customarily and
traditionally taken or used for subsistence; identify amounts
reasonably necessary for subsistence; and jointly determine
whether or not there will be nonsubsistence areas.
10:21:53 AM
MR. FLEENER pointed out the Alaskan subsistence way of life is
truly unique in the U.S. More than 100,000 Alaskans live in
small communities in which dependence upon subsistence is the
principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of
life. He explained the mixed cash subsistence economic system
sustains thousands of Alaska families by high levels of wild
food production, small scale efficient harvesting, cash from
part-time or summer jobs to pay for subsistence technologies,
and extensive sharing of harvested food.
10:23:42 AM
MR. FLEENER stated the Division Mission: To scientifically
quantify, evaluate, and report information about customary and
traditional (C&T) uses of Alaska's fish and wildlife. This was
accomplished by conducting human dimensions research using
systematic methods, analysis, and reporting; and by employing
high ethical standards including adherence to tribal
consultation policies, extensive community involvement, and
confidentiality. Mr. Fleener stressed the importance of
confidentiality when agencies are surveying households. In
addition, he explained that the Division of Subsistence gathers
research, but does not manage resources. One definition
important in understanding the duties of the division was that
"subsistence fishing" means the taking of, fishing for, or
possession of fish, shellfish, or other fisheries resources for
uses with gill net, seine, fish wheel, long line, or other means
defined by the BOF.
10:26:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether "rural area" was defined
in the subsistence statute.
10:27:03 AM
MR. FLEENER said yes, and clarified that within AS 16.05.940(31)
the original definition exists; however, it was no longer
effective. In further response, he opined the courts had ruled
against the clause "by a resident domiciled in a rural area of
the state," thus he would provide the committee with a specific
definition of "rural" after researching the question.
10:27:49 AM
MR. FLEENER stated the definition of "subsistence hunting" was
the taking of, or hunting for, or possession of game for
subsistence uses by means defined by the BOG. The definition of
"subsistence uses" was the noncommercial, customary and
traditional uses of wild, renewable, resources for direct
personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing,
tools, or transportation, for handicraft articles, and for the
customary trade, barter, or sharing for personal or family
consumption. Slide 9 provided a map of the routes of exchange
of subsistence foods in Northwest Alaska. The Division of
Subsistence provides two core services that are: to provide
research on C&T uses to the public; and to provide
scientifically-based information for fisheries and wildlife
management programs to the BOF and the BOG for their use in
evaluating reasonable opportunities for C&T uses.
10:30:08 AM
MR. FLEENER informed the committee that the "heart" of the
duties of the Division of Subsistence was the fulfillment of its
"measure" responsibilities. The first measure was to compile
and analyze existing data, and to conduct research on
subsistence hunting and fishing with a target of conducting a
minimum of five studies in at least three of the six regions of
the state. The division conducts field studies and gathers
harvest survey information from communities using special
project funding that was obtained through a competitive proposal
process. The division strives to obtain balanced information
and to represent each region annually; however, an important
concern in one part of the state may cause the division to focus
on one region over another. The division's second measure was
to publish current subsistence use information with a target of
producing scientific reports, related updates, and materials for
the general public. In fiscal year 2008 (FY 08), the division
completed and released twenty-two new technical reports and
related updates; this total exceeded the 1997 to 2007 average of
seven and the 2003 to 2007 average of eleven. As a matter of
fact, the division's technical paper series was the cornerstone
of technical detailed scientific reporting of harvest and C&T
uses information to the public, and to the boards of fish and
game. There are more than 300 technical reports in the series,
many of which have been published on an average of fifteen per
year for the past three years. The third measure was to publish
current subsistence use with a target to update and maintain the
online Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS) database.
For an example of the information provided on the CSIS website,
Mr. Fleener displayed slide 13 that illustrated a pie chart of
the 2003 subsistence harvest in Cordova.
MR. FLEENER said the division's fourth measure was to [research]
current C&T information, with a target to evaluate all proposed
regulatory actions regarding reasonable opportunity for C&T
uses. This is the division's highest priority; in fact, in the
past 5-year period, 118 to 235 proposals were annually reviewed.
In addition, the division reviews proposals that are not
directly related to C&T regulations. All BOF and BOG proposals
that impacted C&T uses and subsistence were reviewed before
action was taken by the boards.
10:36:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked Mr. Fleener to comment on the
pending [Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund and Chitina
Dipnetters Association Inc., v State of Alaska, Alaska Board of
Fisheries, and Alaska Department of Fish & Game] lawsuit.
MR. FLEENER said he was present at the board meeting when the
decision was made to not make a change to the Chitina status at
this time.
10:37:26 AM
MR. FLEENER continued to explain that the division's fifth
measure was to assist boards, other than the BOF and the BOG,
during the evaluation of C&T uses and subsistence with a target
to review regulatory proposals and to provide information.
Other boards and organizations assisted include the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), and the federal subsistence
boards. Measure six was to assist managers to incorporate C&T
uses into management plans with a target to incorporate C&T uses
and harvest information into fish and wildlife management plans.
He pointed out that in FY 09 the division produced eight special
publications and staff presentations that addressed board
proposals. Detailed analysis provided by the division was used
by wildlife managers and the BOG to provide hunting
opportunities for Alaskans consistent with the sustained yield
principles. Furthermore, detailed analysis on at least 200
subsistence proposals was provided on an annual basis.
10:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the Division of Subsistence
participated in extending the hunting season in Emmonak and
Kotlik.
MR. FLEENER explained the division does not make management
decisions; however, all proposals are evaluated by the division
to determine whether there would be negative impacts on
subsistence or C&T uses. In further response to Representative
Millett, he said that all of the information after a hunting
season was available. Moreover, if harvest tickets come in
outside of the normal season, they would be readily accessible.
10:41:11 AM
MR. FLEENER continued his presentation and addressed the final
measure, which was research on customary and traditional uses
with a target to conduct face-to-face surveys in communities on
a five-year average. Between 2004 and 2008, an annual average
of 30.4 community surveys was conducted; however, during FY 08
only 21 surveys were completed. The division conducts studies
on C&T harvest and the use of Alaska's fish and wildlife,
analyzes data, and reports results. This information was used
to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for Alaskans by
fish and wildlife managers and the boards of fish and game. The
target objective was to collect and report this scientific
information on C&T uses. Beginning in the mid 1990s, the
division focused on resource-specific questions related to
fisheries and wildlife management concerns regarding sustained
yield and the allocation of resources. Increasing operational
costs have led to the reduction in the frequency of studies;
however, Alaska's changing demography demands frequent updates
within communities and regions.
10:43:37 AM
MR. FLEENER turned to the subject of the division's budget.
Slides 18 and 19 indicated the FY 09 and FY 10 budget amounts
are very close at $5,229.5 million, and $5,218.2 million,
respectively. Funding streams include large contributions from
the general fund (GF) and federal receipts, followed by
interagency and statutory contributions.
10:44:21 AM
CHAIR EDGMON asked whether program receipts for surveys through
private sector partnerships are included in the funding sources.
10:44:48 AM
MR. FLEENER said he was unsure of all of the previous funding
sources; however, the division would continue to partner with
other entities.
10:45:32 AM
CHAIR EDGMON surmised private partnerships would be entered into
on a year-to-year project basis, and would not add up to a large
part of the overall funding package.
MR. FLEENER concurred. He then presented slide 20 that
displayed the division's office locations and staffing.
10:46:35 AM
MR. FLEENER identified five challenges for the division: salmon
harvest database accessibility and integrated web-interface for
the public, managers, boards, and law; monitoring and reporting
of Alaska subsistence salmon fisheries; assessment and
evaluation of fish harvests and trends; technical and scientific
reporting and database integration; and maintaining the
capacities for staffing and information management, and for
joint state and federal fisheries management.
10:48:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the division works with other
agencies regarding research.
10:48:56 AM
MR. FLEENER answered that an effort was being made to
consolidate information into one accessible and searchable
database. The internet technology section of each department
was working together to post new and archived data.
Additionally, presentation styles are being coordinated in order
to be more user-friendly.
10:50:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the division works closely
with the federal subsistence management board.
10:51:19 AM
MR. FLEENER opined that partnering with the Office of
Subsistence Management (OSM) and the Federal Subsistence Board
(FSB) was important; in fact, there are a few agreements between
ADF&G and the OSM to streamline management applications.
Furthermore, a connection between these agencies would limit
confusion for members of the public. Mr. Fleener concluded that
a final challenge for the division was to maintain staffing in
order to provide the information required by the boards.
Typically, staff felt they are unable to provide the best
information on, for example, the Chitina dip net controversy. A
thorough research project often takes two years unless there is
existing data with which to begin.
10:55:15 AM
CHAIR EDGMON stated the importance of understanding how
subsistence affects community members around the state.
10:55:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether rural communities are
satisfied with the state status of management, or was there
still a desire to be consistent with federal law.
10:56:18 AM
MR. FLEENER acknowledged the importance of Representative
Munoz's question. As a village resident, he served on a
regional advisory committee for 10 years, and from his
experience he opined that there are parts of both the state and
federal management systems that villagers support. The federal
management system provides for the priority status and the
regional advisory structure favored by villagers; however, the
dual management system can be cumbersome and difficult. Many
people would like to see one system, or to have the dual system
streamlined.
10:58:53 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS, Director, Public Communications; Legislative
Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, presented the ADF&G publication, "Sustaining Alaska's
Fisheries: Fifty Years of Statehood" that commemorates statehood
and gives a brief history of Alaska's commercial fishing
heritage.
11:00:18 AM
^OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, HABITAT
DIVISION
11:00:36 AM
KERRY HOWARD, Director, Division of Habitat, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G), gave a brief background of her diverse
employment history with the ADF&G, private business, and other
state and federal agencies. She then provided a handout
entitled 2008 Overview, and reminded the committee that the
Office of Habitat Management and Permitting was recently moved
from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) back to the
ADF&G. Ms. Howard assured the committee that the division was
settled in and doing its job. She stressed that the statutory
responsibilities of the division are unchanged by the
transition. Ms. Howard called the committee's attention to the
core services of the division and indicated that it was the one
division at ADF&G that played a direct role in permitting
activities for resource development in the state, such as fish
habitat permits for activities that cover fish passage in
resident fish streams, fish habitat issues, and cataloged
anadromous fish streams. In fact, the division issues about
3,600 permits each year. The division also represents the state
in the Coastal Management Program, coordinates review of
multiple agency permits, and participates with DNR in the
coordination of the Large Project Team. The division has direct
responsibilities for implementing the Alaska Forest Resources
and Practices Act of 2003, and was responsible for updating the
Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing, or
Migration of Anadromous Fishes that defines the statutory
authority to issue fish habitat permits.
11:04:10 AM
MS. HOWARD turned the committee's attention to the ADF&G,
Division of Habitat handout provided in the committee packet.
Included in the handout was information from the department's
web site that listed further responsibilities of the division
and a list of activities for which it issues permits, such as
stream diversions, stream bank disturbances, gravel removal, and
stream crossings. The division has developed "general permits"
for routine activities that do not require site-specific review.
In addition to up-front review and the permitting of projects,
the division was also responsible for monitoring at the
completion of a project. Project monitoring may result in
publications and technical resources that are also available on
the website. One result of the division's return to the ADF&G
was having the lead responsibility for permitting in 32
legislatively designated Special Areas that have been deemed
important habitat or fish value, such as the Mendenhall Refuge,
the Palmer Hay Flats, and Potter Marsh. This responsibility
includes writing management plans for those areas, in addition
to permitting activities. The following pages of the handout
included an organizational chart of the division and the
location of the three regional offices in Juneau, Anchorage, and
Fairbanks, and the area offices in Petersburg, Soldotna, and
Palmer. Ms. Howard noted that the remainder of the handout was
a PowerPoint presentation for committee members' review. She
stressed that her first priority was for her biologists to be
out in the field working with other agencies, and applicants, in
order to make the best decisions for resources.
11:08:10 AM
MS. HOWARD turned to the division budget and pointed out there
has been an increase in the FY 09 budget, largely due to the
move back to the ADF&G. General funds (GF) provide 68 percent
of the budget and interagency receipts provide 19 percent.
Finally, she referred to the handout page entitled Performance
and said, "the overall habitat mission is to protect Alaska's
valuable fish and wildlife resources and their habitats as the
population and economy continue to expand." The mission
statement was followed by the list of core services mentioned
earlier in her testimony. Ms. Howard explained that the
division does not control its work load; however, it must have
the capacity to respond to applicants who wish to conduct a
development activity. The priority performance measurement was
for the division to review every application, and that every
permit issued is in compliance with statutory requirements. She
pointed out the graph entitled Performance Detail and noted that
between 2004 and 2008, the number of permits processed has
doubled with no increase in staff. This is possible by issuing
"over the counter" permits for routine activities.
11:11:51 AM
MS. HOWARD, in response to Representative Buch, continued to
explain that pre-approved permits have standard conditions for
activities such as winter stream or lake crossings. For the
Coastal Management Program, there are "minimus" activities that
are routine and predictable and that do not need additional
review by the division. Another reason for the division's
efficiency was that the staff was experienced and productive;
however, she expressed her concern that 34 percent of the staff
was eligible for retirement in three or four years, and big
projects are expected in the future.
11:13:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked who was responsible for data
collection and retention for aquifer baselines.
11:14:08 AM
MS. HOWARD responded that anytime there was a large development
project, such as the Pebble [Mine] prospect, there are baseline
requirements that have to be met for many regulatory agencies.
The entity responsible for collecting the data was the
applicant, or its designee. Regarding aquifers, she advised
that the division would not have a direct role in gathering or
keeping data; however, when data was made available the division
and other agencies would study the data as part of their project
review of the environmental documents.
11:15:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH re-stated his question and pointed out that
this was Alaska's land, and a lack of information has been a
problem in the past. He recalled Canada has a mechanism to make
data public information after a certain point. Representative
Buch opined that the aquifer baseline study at the Pebble
project was extensive; however, he was unsure when the data
would become available to the state.
11:16:48 AM
MS. HOWARD recommended that this question should be asked of the
Pebble partnership. The collected data has not been presented
broadly to state or federal agencies for review; however, this
information would become public when [the Pebble Partnership]
makes the application for permits.
11:17:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH observed that there was very little data and
material that the state has collected during 40 years of
[resource development] in the state. He asked who should be
responsible for accumulating and storing public information such
as this.
11:19:02 AM
MS. HOWARD offered that the Office of Project Management &
Permitting (OPMP), DNR, was the office that coordinated state
agency involvement for all large project reviews, beginning with
the initial contact with the developer, and through to any
monitoring and follow-up on an approved project.
11:20:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether there was a mechanism
within the state to buy or acquire data on a large project, even
though the project may not be built.
11:21:15 AM
MS. HOWARD deferred the question to OPMP.
11:21:25 AM
MS. HOWARD returned to the measurement graph and noted that the
number of fish habitat Title 16 permits has doubled in the last
five years, but the high level of compliance has been
maintained; in fact, the average number of days needed to
complete review for projects has decreased from 14.4 in 2004 to
8.4 in 2008. She then referred to a graph entitled Average
Number of Days To Complete Reviews For Projects In a Coordinated
Review Process and explained that these projects require
multiple permits, not just those issued by the habitat division.
An example of this would be a project that requires a land use
permit, or an oil spill contingency plan, from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). It was the goal of the
division, once approval was received from the Division of Ocean
and Coastal Management, "to have quick turn around on our
associated permit once that review is completed." The final
graph entitled Percentage of Projects Reviewed During a
Coordinated Review Process indicated that the division
participated in 94.6 percent of the coordinated reviews in 2008.
11:24:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the general permit process
was a response to a shortage of staff. He further asked for Ms.
Howard's comments on the effectiveness of the division now that
it was returned to ADF&G.
11:26:08 AM
MS. HOWARD related that general permits are a tool that has been
utilized for decades at both DNR and ADF&G. She opined any
state regulatory agency issues general permits for routine
activities, and she gave several examples. In response to the
second question, Ms. Howard advised that the years the division
was housed at DNR were valuable to develop a rapport with the
agencies in that department. This rapport is important because
project reviews are not done in a vacuum and involve interaction
with other departments. She advised that colleagues in various
divisions depend on each other to help make the best permitting
decisions.
11:28:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the scope and size of
projects given general permits has increased with the number of
permits over the last four years.
11:29:03 AM
MS. HOWARD acknowledged the number of activities that qualify
for general permits has increased, such as small "ma & pop"
mining operations. She offered to provide a comparison of the
number of general permits issued before and after the division
moved to DNR.
11:29:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI further asked how projects that are
given general permits are monitored.
MS. HOWARD emphasized that a staff field presence during the
review of projects, and for follow-through, was her high
priority. Clearly, there are limitations, and with only 45
staff not every project was reached. However, in the case of a
project that required a permit from another agency, both of the
departments' field staffs can work together to accomplish a
common need.
11:31:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether the division has any
opportunities to work with the private business sector.
11:31:56 AM
MS. HOWARD referred to the FY 10 budget funding sources and
noted that 5 percent of the budget comes from Statutory
Designated Program Receipts (SDPRs). She explained that these
are monies that come through the OPMP and directly fund staff to
work on large projects.
11:32:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON further asked whether there was no
advantage to being housed with a department whose mission
statement was to "protect" resources, instead of one whose
mission statement was to "develop" resources.
11:34:22 AM
MS. HOWARD said habitat is an interesting division in that it
was unique in ADF&G as the only division that issues permits for
activities. This created some advantages to being located at
DNR, in that it was easier to permit. The habitat division does
have a foot in both worlds, in that it was required to protect
and to develop resources. She pointed out the commonality in
the mission statements of the habitat division and of both
departments. She expressed her confidence that the division
would continue to work successfully at ADF&G, as it did at DNR.
11:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed there was proposed legislation
affecting the Alaska Coastal Management Program. He asked how
changes to this program would change the division's role.
11:38:47 AM
MS. HOWARD reiterated that she worked for the coastal management
plan for 13 years prior to its reorganization in 2003 and 2004.
The role of the habitat division has always been that of a
review agency; in fact, under Title 16, the division has very
broad authority in a narrow area and would do whatever staff
felt was necessary to protect fish and habitat regardless of
changes with the coastal management program. Ms. Howard
concluded that, although the administration opposes the proposed
legislation, the division would implement whatever program was
put in place.
11:40:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed his gratitude to the presenters.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:41
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Subsistence Overview.PDF |
HFSH 2/17/2009 10:15:00 AM |
|
| Habitat Overview.PDF |
HFSH 2/17/2009 10:15:00 AM |