03/15/2011 05:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (cfec) | |
| HB20 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 181 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 15, 2011
5:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION (CFEC)
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act providing for a priority for a fishery that is
restricted to residents when fishing restrictions are
implemented to achieve a management goal."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act requiring the Department of Fish and Game annually to
collect confidential information related to days worked by
commercial fishing crewmembers and to compile statistical data."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE, KELLER
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) FSH, RES
03/15/11 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL FISHING CREWMEMBER STATISTICS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) AUSTERMAN
03/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/11 (H) FSH, FIN
03/15/11 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC).
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 20, as prime sponsor.
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 20.
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 20.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 181, as prime sponsor.
ERIN HARRINGTON, Staff
Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 181, on behalf of
Representative Austerman, prime sponsor.
MARCUS HARTLEY, Vice President and Senior Economist
Northern Economics Consulting
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
ERIK O'BRIEN, Member
Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
JEFF REGNART, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director
Petersburg Vessel Owner's Association
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN, Executive Director
Crewman's Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director
United Fisherman of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 181.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:04:07 PM
CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Thompson, Miller, and Austerman.
Representatives Johnson, Herron, and Kawasaki arrived while the
meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
OVERVIEW: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
5:04:35 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first only order of business
would be a presentation from the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC).
5:05:49 PM
BRUCE TWOMLEY, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), began by distinguishing the two departmental
agencies, Commercial Fisheries Division and CFEC, stating that
the division implements regulations established by the Board of
Fisheries (BOF) to govern ongoing commercial fishery activities,
while the CFEC is an independent agency with separate statutory
and regulatory authority to limit the number of units of gear in
a commercial fishery via limiting the number of licensed
captains. A fishery is authorized by the BOF and is defined by
an area, the gear used, and the targeted resource. The
limitation process is imposed when certain conditions are met:
limitations would serve conservation/help prevent economic
distress among fishermen. The Alaska Constitution establishes
these two needs, and statute requires and defines the
appropriate action to be followed by the CFEC. A four-year
window of activity is used, in accordance with Alaska Supreme
Court directives, to establish the maximum number of units of
gear to be allowed in a fishery, to wit: the maximum can be no
lower than the highest number of units of gear in one of the
four years prior to the limitation decision. Further, due to
the transient nature of the fishing fleet, applicants are ranked
based on past participation and economic dependence. The
process is inherently lengthy and involves a number of legal
challenges, but once completed a list is compiled by point
ranking and the commission is able to issue permits accordingly.
However, the maximum number has been exceeded in the past,
particularly during the early salmon fisheries, due to two
primary reasons. One is a lawsuit, which resulted in more
applicants for some salmon fisheries than the CFEC anticipated;
and the second is that statute requires the CFEC to issue a
permit despite exceeding the maximum established fishery number,
if an applicant holds a point rank indicating a high dependency
on a fishery.
5:10:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that the limited entry act allows
permits to be allocated based on conservation, the economic
health and stability of the fishing industry, and the optimal
number of permits. He asked how the economic health is
determined, and how it relates to the number of permits
authorized.
MR. TWOMLEY replied that a fishery is usually limited because
it's already experiencing economic trouble, which was the case
with the 26 salmon fisheries in the early 1970's, when the CFEC
was initiated. The maximum number of permits doesn't directly
relate to the economic health of a fishery. The CFEC can
request an optimum number study, which establishes the number
that would be accurate for conservation purposes and economic
health. The results would indicate that either a fishery has
become too exclusive, or that a fishery is in trouble and permit
numbers need to be reduced. In the first instance more permits
would be issued, but in the second case the only method CFEC has
to reduce the number of permits issued is via a buy-back
program, which is financed by fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN maintained interest in understanding
how the economic value of each permit is determined.
MR. TWOMLEY said an optimum number study would be conducted,
which includes an examination of the fishery, over a long period
of time, in order to model the effects of all the known
variables and establish future projections. The study measures
the rates of economic return to individual fishermen. He said
the process is lengthy, elaborate, intrusive, and expensive,
requiring review of individual income tax returns, and other
applicable records. To a follow up question, he established
that halibut IFQ's [individual fishing quotas] are not under the
purview of the CFEC.
5:16:23 PM
MR. TWOMLEY continued, stating that the CFEC work is a challenge
because of the constitutional requirement to consider and uphold
the rights of all citizens to access the state's resources. He
described the tension that exists due to the considerations that
must be given to the various statutory provisions, which creates
a constitutional "tight rope" upon which the CFEC balances its
actions; between the Alaska Supreme Court and the needs of a
given fishery. If the Supreme Court finds cause, it can
overturn and make retroactive, a CFEC decision, with far
reaching results which affect all user types. Hence, the CFEC
proceeds with caution and diligence and, to date, no limited
entry fishery has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Further, he said that because of the limited entry statutes
being in place, Alaska has averted a possible influx of fishing
pressure from fleets displaced by the failure of salmon
fisheries located along the west coast states. At the end of
the process, a permit is issued, which is typically transferable
and allows Alaskan families to maintain access to traditional
fisheries. He reported that approximately 153 more permits have
been transferred between Alaskan families than have been
transferred from Alaskans. However, migration of permits, that
is permits retained by persons who are no longer residents,
presents a less appealing statistic. He said that fisherman pay
their own way, as CFEC is funded through the licensing process.
Further, he reported that the CFEC case load is now a manageable
number. One pending case is casting a significant shadow on the
agency, the class action suit of Carlson v. State of Alaska. It
is in its fifth appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court, and when
the judgment is handed down it could affect 95,000 class
members. Monetary settlements will be provided to only a
fraction of those participants, and the approximate 80,000
members not receiving awards may challenge the CFEC
calculations, upon which the disbursements will have been based.
He predicted that only a small percentage may carry merit, but
even 10,000 claims would present a daunting task to the
commission.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 5:24 p.m.
HB 20-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
5:24:38 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act providing for a priority for a
fishery that is restricted to residents when fishing
restrictions are implemented to achieve a management goal."
5:28:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the prime sponsor, said the intent of the bill is to ensure
local fish for subsistence users and local fisherman.
5:30:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for further discussion regarding
the subsistence and personal use definitions. The bill may need
to have the language clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that the personal and
subsistence use terms have been used interchangeably in the bill
to ensure that Alaskans are served.
5:33:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the back-up material in the
committee packet and asked for comment on whether this bill
effectively handicaps the BOF.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said no, and opined that the BOF will be
better served because the bill neutralizes biases, clarifies
political facets, and removes perceived handcuffs for making
policy decisions. He reported that, during the last BOF cycle,
a measure was introduced to restrict the dip net authorization
to 10 fish per family, and, also, litigation has been lodged by
fishery associations to eliminate personal use dip net fisheries
altogether. An estimated 100,000 Alaskans participate in this
fishery, and it should be prioritized for Alaskans first, he
opined.
5:36:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that a statute, or regulation,
may exist, which establishes a priority for the personal use
fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE offered to provide that information to
the committee.
5:37:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said intercept debates occur in the
district he represents, and asked whether HB 20 addresses
intercept fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE stated his belief that the bill may help
the situation on the Yukon River and similar intercept
fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON restated, and said that the escapement
grounds are up-river from the personal use fisheries and
commercial fisheries occur further down river. He asked how
escapement can be achieved under those circumstances, and does
the bill modulate that type of multiple uses.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE stated his belief that the bill allows
ADF&G the appropriate latitude to ensure that escapement goals
are achieved.
5:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER queried what agency would have authority
for making the decisions called for in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that the regional department
biologist determines whether escapement is being attained, and
it appears that, currently, the decisions are made too late to
benefit the personal use fisheries.
5:43:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN questioned whether the bill language
protects the resource specifically for Alaskan residents.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE agreed that clarity may need to be
considered, and "resident" may not be the best term.
5:45:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON predicted that when HB 20 becomes law
there will be a lawsuit.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE pointed out that lawsuits have already
been filed by Cordova United Fisherman, based on residency
criteria. Therefore, the battle has already begun.
5:47:00 PM
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said the issue is
contentious regarding fisheries resources, and reported that
perhaps 55 personal use fisheries exist across the state,
ranging from the harvest of salmon to shellfish. To a committee
question, he said the department has a neutral position on HB
20.
5:49:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER noted that the bill language takes an
affirmative stance and asked whether the department will be able
to maintain a neutral position.
MR. SWANTON stated his belief that the department has
historically done a reasonably good job of managing the personal
use fisheries while meeting escapement objectives and providing
opportunities for the co-existence of multiple fisheries under
the current regimen.
5:52:53 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON observed that if there is a restriction due to a
declining run, it could require a larger escapement to ensure
that the personal use fishery would be fulfilled, and asked for
comment.
MR. SWANTON responded:
It certainly could manifest itself in that framework.
It just depends on the fishery, how it's configured
and where the personal use fishery fits into the
stream of various uses.
5:54:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if it is consistent with every
fishery that, when restrictions are implemented, the priority is
always adhered to in order to achieve management goals.
MR. SWANTON replied that meeting established escapement numbers
is the primary goal.
5:55:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested that the department provide a
position on HB 181, rather than remaining neutral.
5:58:05 PM
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, offered that discussions have occurred and an official
position can be brought to the committee, upon request.
CHAIR THOMPSON asked that a written response be made to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that this is a policy issue
for the legislature, providing a directive to the BOF,
regardless of whichever position the department holds.
6:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that there will be a large
number of Alaskans who will testify on HB 20. He called for a
deliberative committee process for crafting the bill, and said
he would like to avoid an initiative process from constituents;
cautioning that pent up frustration surrounds the issue.
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that HB 20 would be held over.
The committee took a brief at-ease at 6:03 p.m.
HB 181-COMMERCIAL FISHING CREWMEMBER STATISTICS
6:03:34 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act requiring the Department of Fish
and Game annually to collect confidential information related to
days worked by commercial fishing crewmembers and to compile
statistical data."
6:06:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as the prime sponsor, paraphrased from the sponsor
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Economists estimate that the Alaska seafood industry
is the largest private sector employer in the state.
In November 2010, the Alaska Department of Labor
reported that the industry employed at least 53,500
workers-skippers, crew and processing workers-at some
point during ... during 2009. This number is a best
estimate, though, because commercial fishermen, as
self-employed people, are outside of standard labor
data collection. At present, data to describe the
workforce of 20,000 crewmembers who work in Alaska's
fisheries is almost non-existent. We cannot determine
whether an individual crewmember fished 5 days or 250
in a given year; whether he or she fished in a single
salmon fishery or in seven fisheries across five
regions of the state; on a single boat or on 10; or
whether he or she fished a single year as an
adventure, or is a 25-year veteran of the industry.
State and federal fishery policy can have strong
impacts-positive or negative-on employment in the
seafood industry. At present, however, decision
makers have extremely limited information that can
guide their policy direction with respect to the labor
force in the fishing industry. They are asked to
formulate resource policies that impact the largest
labor force in Alaska, without the benefit of
information on that labor force. Time and time again-
particularly in federal regulatory arenas-Alaskans
have seen regulations implemented that have
significant and deleterious impacts on the seafood
industry that could have been foreseen, mitigated, or
avoided had this information been in hand.
HB 181 is the result of five years of work by fishing
industry participants, coastal municipalities, and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game to develop a
program and approach that addresses the policy needs
and interests of Alaskan fishermen and communities.
It establishes a pilot crew data program in the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Simple year end reports
from commercial fishing crew will provide information
on fishery participation through the course of the
year, and allow the department to link crewmember data
with harvest data for aggregated statistical analysis.
HB 181 has a 5-year sunset. This provides the
Legislature the opportunity to review the efficacy of
the program and ensure it meets the intended policy
goals.
6:08:52 PM
ERIN HARRINGTON, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman, Alaska
State Legislature, directed attention to the committee packet
and the report titled "Improving Seafood Harvesting Labor Data,"
prepared for the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC),
and published in March 2007; the first comprehensive report to
establish the importance of crewmember data for policy making
purposes. She noted that the bill is an important step in
filling a significant information gap regarding Alaska's labor
force. Fishermen are self employed contract workers, reporting
income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on form 1099. The
self employed status exempts them from unemployment insurance
reporting, which is Alaska's major source for data of valid
employment. Thus, the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) cannot include crewmember statistics in
employment reports. As a result, it is not possible to
characterize the crewmember work force regarding contributions
to Alaska's economy, which presents a major disconnect in the
system. She referred to the previously named handout, page 23,
which mentions the ramifications that occur when municipalities
apply for certain federal programs, but lack the data indicating
the seasonal industry impacts. Further, lack of this data
presents a challenge to communities performing comprehensive
planning processes.
6:17:35 PM
MS. HARRINGTON explained that Section 1 adds a requirement for
ADF&G to distribute a crew activity form, to crewmembers, when
practicable. Section 2 describes the new program, one in which
crewmembers would report fishing activity at year's end and
describe the ways in which they had participated. The
subsections establish: what information is to be collected;
ensures that information will be maintained as confidential and
used for statistical purposes only; names the agencies with
which the information can be shared; allows rebuttal privileges
regarding the accuracy of the information collected; allows the
department to establish regulatory authority; and defines the
terms used in the bill. She elaborated on the meaning of the
term "obligated to a vessel."
6:23:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked, "Why don't we require them to fill
the log books out."
MS. HARRINGTON indicated that it has been discussed but there is
stipulation that crewmembers "shall" fill out log books; it may
be an oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON referred to the fiscal note narrative, and
suggested contracting with a private agency to handle the log
books, rather than expanding bureaucracy.
6:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER inquired how HB 181 will be enforced and
reporting handled.
MS. HARRINGTON responded that ADF&G would be honing the process
over the next five years and the sunset date provides an
opportunity for the legislature to review the effectiveness of
the program. She indicated that enforcement would be handled
through the regulatory process.
6:27:22 PM
MARCUS HARTLEY, Vice President and Senior Economist, Northern
Economics Consulting, stated support for HB 181, and said that
the need for crewmember data has been a concern since the
establishment of the individual fishing quota (IFQ) system. At
the time, estimates were made based entirely on assumptions
regarding how many crewmembers might be on a particular type of
fishing boat. Accurate data still does not exist and analysis
of fisheries continues to be absent crewmember information,
which, he opined, if it existed, could prove to be helpful. He
provided an anecdotal story regarding the convoluted process
that ensued when a U.S. Congressional award was made to
compensate fishermen damaged by a ruling. Not having
information on crewmembers greatly impeded the award process.
Also, the lack of crewmember data has an effect on the economic
analysis that is currently being undertaken to characterize
communities and which could be used to support municipal
developments being considered.
6:32:45 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON noted that the accuracy of the information would
be important, and asked whether there is concern for exactitude
received from residents versus non-residents.
MR. HARTLEY stated his belief that both resident and non-
resident crewmembers participate seriously in the fishing life
style, and would understand the importance of providing
information to support the activity. He acknowledged the
difficulty in arriving at a verifiable, enforceable, and
simplistic system. In response to a follow up question, he
suggested that a possible means for enforcement of compliance
would be to deny renewal of a crewmember's license.
6:34:51 PM
ERIK O'BRIEN, Member, Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference
(SWAMC), stated support for HB 181, and said the organization
has worked for seven years to establish a means for gathering
crewmember information, which will allow better economic
decisions to be made in municipalities.
6:37:55 PM
JEFF REGNART, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, stated
support for HB 181, and said that the state sells approximately
20,000 crewmember licenses annually, but fails to recoup any
information regarding the participation level of the licensees.
Collection of the information will enable the state to more
fully describe the contributions of commercial fishing to the
state's local economies, as well as provide valuable information
to policy and rule making bodies
6:39:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if collection of the data could be
accomplished by contracting with the private sector.
MR. REGNART replied that it could be possible; however, the
confidentiality issue may be a concern.
6:40:31 PM
JULIANNE CURRY, Executive Director, Petersburg Vessel Owner's
Association, stated support for HB 181, and said the previous
attempts to collect this information were met with opposition.
However, concerns have been addressed and the lack of crewmember
information is a gaping hole in Alaska's employment statistics,
not to mention the inability of the fishing industry to gather
an accurate picture of a member's presence in the state. To
illustrate the difficulty that can occur in tracking crewmember
information, she offered that as a crewmember, who also owns a
licensed boat, she is not required to purchase a crewmember
license.
6:42:25 PM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN, Executive Director, Crewman's Association,
stated support for HB 181, and suggested a means for collecting
the data via a swipe card system. He suggested inserting
language that fishing vessels, which deliver seafood products,
should be required to furnish crewmen with contract and
reconcilable settlement sheets, which would address the issue of
crewmembers not receiving contracts and appropriate settlement
sheets for tax purposes. He offered to provide further
information regarding these issues to the committee.
6:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether accuracy might pose a
problem, and what the general attitude might be among crewman
requested to fill out paperwork.
MR. DOCHTERMANN stated his belief that collecting the
information, as requested in the bill, may not be productive.
However, the alternative suggestion of using a swipe card could
make it plausible. He said United Fisherman of Alaska did not
agree with having the swipe card approach and, thus, the
suggestion died in the task force committee meeting.
6:47:46 PM
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fisherman of Alaska
(UFA), stated support for HB 181, and said that UFA has never
opposed collection of this data. He recalled that UFA offered
comments on a proposal that required a skipper generated log
book, but which proved to have numerous problems.
6:49:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said questions would be circulated to
the committee for future discussion.
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that HB 181 would be held over.
6:50:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 6:51
p.m.