Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1995 05:04 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
March 6, 1995
5:04 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
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Kenai River Habitat Problem Presentation
HFSH - 03/06/95
SB 68: "An Act relating to the donation to a food bank of
hatchery salmon, to the donation of food by meat
processors, seafood processors, manufacturers, packers,
processors, bottlers, and similar entities, and to who
qualifies as a food bank."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HFSH - 03/06/95
* HCR 12: Relating to management of the salmon fisheries of the
upper Cook Inlet area.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
ELLEN FRITTS, ACTING DIRECTOR
Division of Habitat and Restoration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4105
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced presentation
GARY LIEPITZ, HABITAT BIOLOGIST
Division of Habitat
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518
Phone: 267-2284
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided presentation
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 68
SHORT TITLE: FOOD BANKS;MEAT & SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN,Ellis,Kelly,Pearce
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/06/95 182 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/06/95 182 (S) HES
02/09/95 225 (S) COSPONSOR(S): ELLIS
02/15/95 (S) HES AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/16/95 315 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/16/95 315 (S) ZERO FN (DEC)
02/20/95 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/21/95 349 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/21/95
02/21/95 354 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/21/95 354 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/21/95 354 (S) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, PEARCE
02/21/95 355 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/21/95 355 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 68(HES)
02/21/95 355 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
02/21/95 355 (S) Leman NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/22/95 370 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
02/22/95 370 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN
CONSENT
02/22/95 371 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/22/95 371 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
02/22/95 372 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 A1
02/22/95 374 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/95 479 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 480 (H) FISHERIES & HES
03/06/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HCR 12
SHORT TITLE: UPPER COOK INLET SALMON FISHERIES MGN'T
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/22/95 447 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/22/95 447 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
03/06/95 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-15, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
He noted for the record that Representatives Ogan, Davis, Elton and
Moses were present. A quorum was present. He stated the bills
scheduled would not be heard due to a 6:00 p.m. majority caucus.
Number 027
ELLEN FRITTS, ACTING DIRECTOR, Division of Habitat and Restoration,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), introduced Gary Liepitz,
the biologist heading the Kenai River project.
Number 034
GARY LIEPITZ, HABITAT BIOLOGIST, Division of Habitat, ADF&G, began
with a slide show entitled, Assessment of the Cumulative Impacts of
Development and Human Uses on Fish Habitat in the Kenai River. He
began, "A few years ago, ADF&G requested and received permission to
develop an analysis of the Kenai River's fishery habitat values as
it relates to the local coastal district programs, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough's district program. As such, the department
requested through the Office of Coastal Management, funding to be
able to go into the Kenai River and assess those habitat values
that occur along the river." He then described the geography of
the Kenai River and said, "By far the most important of the
resource values is the fishery, both commercial and recreational
fishery opportunities, (that) the infamous Kenai River provides. In
1994, the Kenai River was responsible for about $38 million worth
of commercial fish harvest in Upper Cook Inlet, primarily coho
(and) sockeye, with some incidental king catch. It's got about a
$40 million recreational fishery that occurs on the Kenai River
itself, predominantly for coho, sockeye and king salmon. The Kenai
River does host 27 different species of fish and one of the most
highly sought after is the prized salmon."
MR. LIEPITZ indicated that the Kenai River mainstem provides
spawning, rearing and over wintering habitat and said, "Studies by
our fisheries biologists and those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, have shown that some of the most important habitat
occurring on the Kenai River, is that occurs right on the shoreline
of that river. Within a six foot reach off the river, a six-foot
wide band, along the river shoreline, is where these juvenile fish
actually do most of their rearing. In fact, over 80 percent of all
the juvenile king salmon that occur in the river, have been found
within the six-foot corridor or border along the river. Now, a
quick calculation: By looking at 66 miles of river, and again,
that's linear miles...if you look at both banks and then the island
areas, you actually have 166 miles of shoreline habitat, multiplied
by the six-foot corridor where you find these juveniles rearing.
You find that there's only 121 acres of habitat available to raise
all these fish, in the river, and that's total habitat available.
Not all of it is good habitat as we'll see in this presentation."
He added, "One of the main things that juvenile fish need is when
they are rearing in that system, and again, the kings and the
cohoes and the sockeye salmon, rear in the system one to three
years before out migrating into the ocean for another two or three
years before coming back into the system and this overlay, which a
copy is in your packet, shows some of the habitat values that are
important to raising juvenile fish." (A copy of this document can
be found in Room 434 of the Capitol Building and after the
adjournment of the second session of the Nineteenth Legislature in
the Legislative Reference Library.) He then described the ideal
juvenile fish habitat and showed examples on slides of both good
and bad juvenile salmon habitat.
MR. LIEPITZ emphasized, "Suitable stream velocity: A very critical
component. These juvenile fish can only swim to a certain level.
They have to have velocities that don't exceed their swimming
abilities. They have a darting speed they can maintain very
briefly to go around a structure but for the most part, they're
swimming at what we call a sustained swimming speed and for a
juveniles, it's generally less than a half a foot per second. And
that's what we find along the shorelines, that slower water
velocities."
MR. LIEPITZ continued, "The ADF&G is authorized under its state
statute to issue permits and approvals for activities that do
affect the stream and this is one of the reasons it generated this
study. People asked, `How many structures and how much habitat
impact has occurred on the river,' and while we've been issuing
permits since statehood under this authority, Title 16, we really
don't have any ongoing accumulative analysis of how many habitat
permits have been issued, how many structures are in place. So we
requested funding to initiate the Kenai River Accumulative Impact
Analysis. This was a three-year program funded by the Office of
Coastal Management for us to do an inventory analysis of the
structures and uses along the river, determine what we've got in
terms of habitat, natural as well as man-made or altered, and then
identify the cumulative impact assessment methodology to be used as
baseline information to access future permit actions. This
information would then be provided to the local coastal district
and their coastal management program to update their policy
statement."
MR. LIEPITZ added, "One of the intents here is to identify projects
that occur with minimal or low impact so we wouldn't have to
eventually issue a 30-day permit. It could be automatic type of
approvals, allowing people to get their permits and authorizations
very quickly for minor projects and things that don't adversely
affect the stream. And then it was intended to generate some
future management means to look at this type of a system, this
habitat analysis system, as it might be applied to other river
drainages and other systems throughout Alaska."
Number 339
MR. LIEPITZ said, "The department pulled together a group of, I'd
say roughly 12, experts from the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, and pulled together a technical advisory group
to decide how we'd approach this accumulative assessment type of
technique. We decided to break the river down into five distinct
river zones. They are distinct because of their physical nature.
River zone one is the lower river reach. It's ten miles long.
It's tidally influenced. The tide comes up, the water levels come
up and increase. It is (indisc.) mud and silt substraights with
little or no spawning habitat and minor rearing habitat. Mostly a
migration corridor for in migrating adults and out migrating
juveniles. Reach two is a transition reach between the intertidal
zone. It's a 7 mile reach from mile 10 up to mile 17 1/2. And it
is unique in the sense that it is a very low slow slope, with low
mid-channel velocities. Fish were found further upstream in this
case in this reach, but the river's really prone to meandering and
prone to erosion in this river reach, which is of concern to
development actions and uses along the shoreline there. River
Reach three is another individual reach which is the longest river
reach. It runs from mile 17 1/2 to mile 40, 39 1/2. It's
predominantly stable. It goes through a glacial outwash material
that is stable in its banks and doesn't have much tendency to
meander and it has more of the gravel (indisc.) you see spawning
and that type of activity in. River Reach four is the small ten
mile reach below Skilak Lake, half of which is residentially
developed. The other half, immediately below Skilak is U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Kenai moose range lands, undeveloped federal
lands. And then the final reach is the interlake reach between
Skilak and Kenai Lakes." He then referred to the visual material
showing examples of obstructions to the river and trampled
accessways to the river.
Number 418
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked how many lots are "developable" but remain
undeveloped.
MR. LIEPITZ continued, "About half of the properties now are in an
undeveloped status. Half of them are in a developed status. These
represent residential lots that have sold that you might own or I
might own that I could go ahead and put a house on, or a cabin, or
do whatever." Regarding impacted habitat he said, "We have
naturally unvegetated and we have trampled, heavily impacted public
and private access. It represents 5.3 percent of the top of the
bank of the river," and, "structural change to the natural
characteristics of the river and the unaffected: For the entire
river reach, the entire 166 miles, approximately 7.2 percent of
that is in a structurally developed or altered state and another 4
percent is in trampled state. About 12 percent of the river being
affected or altered from the natural conditions that were there."
MR. LIEPITZ then described the effects of velocity on juvenile
salmon, saying, "Ideal juvenile Chinook rearing habitat being
velocities of a half a foot per second, two foot water depths,
undercut bank, vegetative banks, overhanging vegetation. That
constitutes ideal conditions for raising juvenile Chinook salmon.
The juvenile Chinooks were the indicators species of this study
because they're the species that are there most commonly. The
other species usually find tributaries and slower water areas,
they're not as strong swimmers as the Chinook."
MR. LIEPITZ said, "Ideal rearing conditions were found along 15
miles of the river. That amounts to, out of the 166 miles, that
amounts to about 9 percent or so of the overall river. Not a lot
of ideal conditions but as we go down, we have other habitat types
that are also good and grade less and less value to the fish, for
rearing purposes."
MR. LIEPITZ then said, "The bottom line is that, in our undeveloped
properties, private as well as public, we have about 1.3 million
habitat units available for fish production as it stands today,
with this analysis. When we looked at the developed areas along
the river, we found that there's about 12 miles of developed
shoreline habitat on the river," and, "we lost about 40,000 habitat
units from the development occurring immediately adjacent to the
river and into the river. This has all occurred over the last 30
years." He then showed an example of a private landowner who
significantly increased the habitat units of his shoreline
property.
MR. LIEPITZ described the impact of vertical obstacles in the river
banks and indicated that floating docks actually improve the
rearing habitat for juvenile Chinooks. He added, "Right now, we've
got about 88 access locations of the river. People are requesting
to put in their own boat launches. We have the need to reduce the
number of access points." He also said the Division of Habitat
needs "to educate folks on how to better use the river to avoid the
damage to the river that they're causing. (There's) a lot of back
trolling now. They're creating standing wakes. Back trolling
right along the shoreline. We may have to start recommending
people get away from shoreline a little bit." He then described
some examples that are positive for shoreline habitat.
MR. LIEPITZ concluded, "What we're trying to do then is just
generate a little bit more habitat, to continue the rearing and
spawning opportunities so that people can come and catch fish in
this system."
Number 657
MR. LIEPITZ then demonstrated the GIS (geographic information
system) on a laptop computer and an overhead projector.
TAPE 95-15, SIDE B
Number 000
The GIS demonstration continued, targeting on specific properties.
Number 071
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked, "In your executive summary, you
stated there is an approximate 2.2 percent loss of habitat? How
much of that has been attributed to anglers?"
MR. LIEPITZ replied, "The only portion of that would be attributed
to anglers is the portion associated with denuding to access the
river. Obviously, there may be using the river that wouldn't be
angling, people sight seeing, what not. In terms of the modified
bank, which we showed 12 percent, about 8 percent of that is
related to structural change of the river. Structures on the
river, bank stabilization techniques, and about 4 percent of that
actually is trampling."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "So out of the 12 percent total, 4
percent has been trampling from anglers, you'd say?"
MR. LIEPITZ said yes and, "Like I said, 12 miles, if you put it all
end to end, about 12 miles of the river, of the 166 miles of water
frontage, has been modified."
Number 112
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what the projection is for the Kenai
River.
MR. LIEPITZ replied, "I'm really encouraged. We've seen a real
turnaround because of the interest by the public, the private
property owners and the public at large."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|