02/09/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Environmental Conservation - Fish Monitoring Program | |
| Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game - Permanent Id Card Program | |
| HB41 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 9, 2007
8:34 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION - FISH
MONITORING PROGRAM
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - PERMANENT ID CARD
PROGRAM
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act returning certain duties regarding habitat management
from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of
Fish and Game; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 41
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFER HABITAT DIV FROM DNR TO F&G
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/09/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health (DEH)
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the DEC fish
monitoring program, and responded to questions.
ROBERT GERLACH, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM)
State Veterinarian
Division of Environmental Health (DEH)
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the DEC
fish monitoring program.
DR. JAY BUTLER, M.D.
Director
Division of Public Health (DPH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the DPH aspect of the DEC fish
monitoring program, and responded to questions.
DR. LORI VERBRUGGE, Ph.D.
Environmental Public Health Program Manager
Division of Public Health (DPH)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding the public
health aspect of the DEC fish monitoring program.
KRISTIN WRIGHT, Licensing Supervisor
Division of Administration
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the Permanent
Identification Card licensing program, and responded to
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 41, as the prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:34:06 AM. Representatives
Johnson, Johansen, and Edgmon were present at the call to order.
Representatives Wilson and Holmes arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION - FISH
MONITORING PROGRAM
8:34:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the Alaska fish monitoring program.
8:35:29 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health (DEH),
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), described the
fish monitoring program as a collaborative effort, first begun
about 10 years ago by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA provides guidelines for states to implement a monitoring
system. If a state does not take up this task, the EPA will
conduct a program. She explained that, when analyzing and
reporting data, the EPA may utilize a risk factor of "up to
ten," in order to err on the side of caution. The DEC does not
impose the same strict federal standards, and she suggested that
it behooves the state to establish a tailored monitoring
program, for the purpose of incorporating a broader spectrum of
risk and benefit factors.
8:37:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested further clarity on the federal risk
factors.
MS. RYAN explained that, although the EPA does not mandate the
state to provide a program, it is deemed extremely important
that every state monitor fish for contaminants. When a state
does not implement a program, the EPA administers their own.
She described how a standard EPA test might be conducted, and
the resultant consumption advisory that would be issued. This
advisory offers the public a guide to the amount of fish that
can safely be consumed, based on the toxins ascertained to be
present. A ten-fold safety factor is added to the EPA's
calculation, as a multiplier. In response to Chair Seaton, she
stated that if the toxin levels indicated that 20 meals of fish
could safely be eaten per month, the EPA safety factor would
caution the consumer to eat only two meals per month.
8:39:26 AM
MS. RYAN said that because of the possible repercussions from an
EPA consumer report, it would be prudent for Alaska to take
ownership, and evaluate the fish stocks utilizing Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) expertise. She opined that
this would provide the best information to Alaskan's and the
consumers of Alaskan seafood. Additionally, she cited that the
European Union has strict contamination standards, upheld for
imported seafood. There is a growing, global market demand for
confirmation that fish products are low in contaminants.
8:40:30 AM
MS. RYAN reported that in 2001, the department was able to apply
301 funding to foster a monitoring program. These funds are
predominantly targeted for surface water monitoring, but can be
correlated to contaminants found in the fish. In subsequent
years, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens has been instrumental in
providing earmarked funds, to continue the program. Depending
on the source of these funds, the scope of the program has been
restricted. She opined that, if the state were to take
financial ownership of the program, it could be "conducted"
rather than "managed." Ms. Ryan described the means by which
samples have been collected, to minimize costs and maximize
resources. Volunteers from user groups, as well as state and
federal fish management agencies have been drawn on to help with
the effort. A training protocol is conducted, for participants,
to provide consistency in sample collection.
8:42:39 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how and where the samples are analyzed.
MS. RYAN responded that the Environmental Health Laboratory
(EHL), located in Palmer, receives the frozen whole or cut fish.
The technicians prepare the samples for analysis, grinding, and
stabilizing the tissue. Heavy metal testing is conducted at the
lab, however, further studies are conducted by Analytical
Services Ltd. (AXYS), British Columbia, Canada. She directed
the committee's attention to the handout in the packet, titled
"Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation fish Monitoring
Program Total Heavy Metal Concentrations*(ppm) for Fish Species
Collected, Update January 2007." The handout provides the heavy
metal findings by species, and sample count; reporting the mean,
standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum levels.
8:44:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the 2007 report, was completed on a
specific sampling or based on an accumulation of data samples.
MS. RYAN answered that it represents the samples in aggregate.
CHAIR SEATON referred to the Silver Salmon data [fifth page of
data], and clarified that the "94" is the total number of fish
sampled since the program was established in 2001.
MS. RYAN confirmed his understanding and pointed out that the
sampling is opportunistic. Due to the lack of funding, it has
not been possible to procure representative samples from
specific water bodies. Obviously, the resources to be sampled
are on a large scale and the sampling has been minimal, which
places a restriction on the interpretation of the data.
8:46:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if it would be fruitful to generate
a report for each year to identify trends, or if the sample size
is too small to allow for that type of analysis.
MS. RYAN conveyed that the small sample numbers are not adequate
to indicate trends, although the samples do indicate
consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired what sampling size would be
needed to establish a baseline. He observed that the current
sample size is inadequate to identify problems.
MS. RYAN responded that more sampling would be the key to
establish an adequate baseline. Thus far, she said, the samples
have been "broken out" into water bodies. Hiring statisticians
would be helpful, and is under consideration.
8:48:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON referred to the mixing zone bill [HB 74],
heard previously in committee, and asked what level of
confidence the department has in the relationship between the
data collection that is being accomplished and mixing zone
regulations.
MS. RYAN advised that the correlation between mixing zones and
the data being collected "is weak at this point." Primarily,
saltwater fish have been sampled, with a small number of
freshwater species being sampled from interior lakes, or
streams; where mixing zones would occur. The report in the
packet does not target any mixing zone sensitive areas. She
pointed out that mercury, a targeted contaminant, "is
predominantly an issue from coal fired power plants dropping ...
total mercury onto water bodies." The algae transform the
mercury into a methylated form, which is absorbed/consumed by
the fish, becoming concentrated in the flesh and liver tissue.
Other contaminants, identified in the report, are pervasive in
the entire ecosystem, but mercury tends to be an issue in the
water.
8:51:01 AM
MS. RYAN offered that the long term goal would be to monitor the
environment in a comprehensive manner, to ensure the safe
stewardship of the land and proper regulation of industry.
Continuing her presentation, she said that the samples are sent
to the Canadian lab, for Organochloride testing. The outlay for
this testing is $3,000 per sample. Given the funding
restrictions, the subset of samples sent out for testing tends
to be small. The EHL is currently developing the ability to
test for pesticides, and effectively lower the sample testing
cost. She directed attention to the handout titled "Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation Fish Monitoring
Program: Analysis of Organic Contaminants." It represents an
interpretation from DHSS, on organic data. Although the report
is two years old, it provides results of testing for specific
pesticides. At this time, the pesticide concern is minimal,
although, Ms. Ryan pointed out, the PCB pollutants appear to be
elevated. As indicated on page 15, the levels for sockeye and
chinook salmon are at levels beyond the EPA guidelines. This
reading is fodder for a potential concern. Given the inadequate
sample size, however, conclusions cannot be established, and
DHSS has not issued consumption restrictions. The page 9 graph,
compares the PCB content of Alaskan salmon on a world level; the
lowest indicated.
8:54:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many samples were used to
generate the information in the organic contaminants report.
MS. RYAN deferred to the state veterinarian.
8:55:31 AM
ROBERT GERLACH, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM), State
Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health (DEH), Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that a total of 90
fish were sampled, with salmon represented by 18 chum, 24
sockeye, and 35 chinook.
8:55:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the scope of the graph on page 9 [Figure
3], and the location of the reported samples. He pointed out
that some of the Alaskan locations do not provide a reading, and
he asked about the interpretation of this comparison.
MS. RYAN cautioned that the interpretation of the data is a
complex system, and she counseled that DHSS, qualified
toxicologists are charged with handling this aspect of the work.
8:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the statistical validity is
difficult to grasp; the sample size does not appear to be large
enough to make any judgments. He asked if the proportions of
the samples, from specific areas, are identified in useable
numbers.
MS. RYAN directed attention to page 2 [Table 1], for the species
samples by region. The effort is to establish a statistical
representation by water body, and she deferred to Dr. Gerlach
for further comment.
DR. GERLACH, shared the representative's concern for the sample
size, and cited the geographic size and logistics of the state
as a major challenge. He offered that even the 600 halibut
samples, the highest number examined for heavy metals, is not
representative of every region of the state, or of the
commercial and sport harvests. DEC is working with the halibut
commission biometricians, to continue with this initial sampling
plan. He conceded, "The concern about the number of fish
sampled - they're not going to be representative of entire
population[s] of salmon or the halibut, at this point."
9:00:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON predicted that, in the near future, the
legislature may be asked to make decisions based upon this
minimal data, despite the validity of the research, and
expressed his concern for that outlook.
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the need for sound science cannot be
ignored, however, the initial numbers are helpful, despite the
sample size. He expressed that it is up to the legislature to
establish a sampling regime that will broaden the database, and
provide confident answers.
9:02:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated his interest in having the
samples reported on by year. It could help to identify any
trends, even with the minimal samples. He revised his request
to focus on halibut, given the current media concerns and the
larger number of samples available.
CHAIR SEATON requested that a draft of such a chart be submitted
to the committee.
MS. RYAN assured the committee that a yearly graph would be made
available. She reported that the data will indicate a trend for
the larger older fish to contain more contaminants.
CHAIR SEATON cautioned that it may not be helpful to provide a
graph, utilizing minimal samples, and create dubious readings.
Generalizations, and speculations, on such information, could
result in unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON retracted his request, stating that
perhaps the question has already been answered.
MS. RYAN asked Dr. Gerlach to confirm the trend, which she
reported.
9:05:04 AM
DR. GERLACH agreed with her testimony, and stated that the 2001-
2007 data would not indicate a significant change in
contamination levels within the environment, or the fish
concentrations. Long term studies on halibut are available from
NOAA. The older samples could be compared to what is being
sampled now to provide trend lines.
9:06:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON read from the handout, page 10: "The FDA
[U.S. Food and Drug Administration] has established legal
tolerances for the maximum levels of contaminants ...". He
asked if these FDA bench marks have remained consistent or been
made more stringent over the years.
MS. RYAN clarified that different standards are established by
each agency. She said, "The world of what's save to eat is ever
changing, and everyone has ... a different idea about it." One
way this is effected is by how an agency defines a serving. The
FDA assumes a commercial standard where a consumer would eat one
serving of one fish, but EPA considers the recreational user who
may consume one entire fish, thus requiring a stricter standard.
All of the agencies disagree. Ms. Ryan noted that, in regards
to mercury, the contamination does not primarily come from local
sources, but rather from coal fired stoves in China and Russia.
Alaska does have natural ore deposits of cinnabar, however,
which could be a minor contributing factor. The public notice
currently released by DHSS used the heavy metal data, with
specific concern for mercury, to generate a consumer advisory.
The halibut, ling cod, and especially shark, as consumers of
other fish, are beginning to indicate a trend for concentrations
of mercury. Ms. Ryan further described the collaborative work
of DEC with DHSS and ADF&G. She shared an example of a fish and
game intern that exemplified this collaboration.
9:10:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the press release in the
committee packet, and asked about the information reporting that
mercury has been "found in all streams in the West." He asked
if this included Alaskan waters.
MS. RYAN responded that Alaska was not included in the study.
Thus far, DEC has focused on testing fish, and is not testing
the water and soils in the same way; although the University of
Alaska, and some private endeavors, have been applying effort to
the task. All indications are that Alaska is producing "some of
the cleanest" fish, she said, and pointed out that mercury is a
pervasive element in the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that his concern if for the
implications of the article's headline, and he asked again if
Alaska was part of the study.
MS. RYAN assured the committee that this study did not include
Alaska.
CHAIR SEATON cited the articles on mercury being discussed:
February 1, 2007, Volume 13, No. 03, Sublegals, an article based
on a study generated by the EPA in Oregon state and expanded to
the other Western states; January 23, 2007, San Francisco
Chronicle, headlined "Survey Finds Mercury in fish in West"; and
January 24, 2007, The Oregonian, headlined "Mercury found in all
fish in the West."
9:13:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether DEC requested an increment
allocation in the budget for the fish monitoring project.
MS. RYAN informed the committee that the department has tried
multiple times to attain a budget increment, without success. A
Capital Funds appropriation did come through in FY06, as a one-
time allotment, and was in combination with DHSS to complete a
biomonitoring project.
9:14:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referenced the Pacific Salmon Treaty
funding, and asked what limits are placed on DEC for accessing
the treaty funds. He acknowledged that the funds are exclusive
to salmon work, but asked whether this funding could be utilized
for accomplishing DEC sampling goals.
MS. RYAN described the means by which DEC has managed to attain
funding, the channels through which federal funds have been
received, and the need to adhere to regional restrictions, based
on the funding earmarks. A federal increment request has been
submitted.
9:17:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed information from the February 9, 2007, DEC
press release, and surmised:
It sounds like ... the primary concern would be for
women of child bearing age, or young children who
consume many portions from one large fish containing
the higher mercury levels. ... The message here is
that most commercially caught fish aren't going to be
impacted, because they're averaging [a] much smaller
size than this, but that the concern, at least in
halibut, would be for the largest size fish.
MS. RYAN confirmed that this is the identified trend, and it is
expected to continue to be indicated, as more samples are
collected. The larger older fish have the higher concentrates
as do the predacious fish, such as shark.
9:19:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the final page of the
handout, a chart titled "Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation Fish Monitoring Program Total Mercury Concentration
*(ppm) for fish species collected, Update January 2007," and
ascertained from Ms. Ryan that this was the data used to
generate the press release. He asked if DEC has converted this
information into meals per month for every species, or is it
premature to offer advice.
MS. RYAN stated that DHSS is at the point of using this data to
determine consumption advice. She highlighted that this press
release announces the public process. It is not an easy task to
establish consumption advice, and it effects industries unduly.
There is an inherent challenge in predicting how the public will
receive a detailed health related message. With that in mind,
she said that DEC has worked with constituent groups to craft
the message. The caveat is that the "the data is what it is."
CHAIR SEATON cautioned that the long-lived species, such as
dogfish, when tested, may demonstrate similar elevated mercury
levels, as the predacious and larger fish. A dogfish could be
thirty five years old when caught, allowing it the possibility
of attaining high concentrates of contaminants. Although there
is not significant data on specific species for substantiation,
Ms. Ryan agreed with the theory.
9:22:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the questioned raised regarding mixing
zones. He inquired about the ability of DEC to adequately
provide the necessary oversight on the self monitoring program
requirements for agencies with heavy metal discharge components.
Chair Seaton indicated concern for the accumulative effects of
these heavy metals in a watershed. A report of sample
frequency, and heavy metal volume discharge, may be in question.
He asked if DEC has coordinated with the Division of Water to
ensure statistically valid sampling, as pertains to a permitted
mixing zone.
MS. RYAN reported a lack of coordination with her counterparts
in the Division of Water. She explained that the focus of the
fish monitoring project has been on ocean water; however, the
EPA intended the fish consumption sampling project to "drive
discharge permits." A confined body of water, such as a lake
with an available point source, is more easily monitored vs.
determining specific contamination profiles to track stream
pollution. She predicted that the synergistic effect of the two
projects would eventually allow for adequate safety monitoring,
and evaluation, of the states mixing zones.
CHAIR SEATON cited this as a topic currently under consideration
by the committee. Without a statistically valid program to
monitor the heavy metals being discharged, and the ability to
project the cumulative effects, it will be difficult for the
legislators to respond in an appropriate manner.
9:25:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN questioned the suitability of linking
mercury, halibut, and a consumption advisory. Despite the
advisory standards, he stressed the importance for a consumer to
be able to trust that Alaskan halibut is edible. Providing
caveats for heavy metal toxins, he opined, could prove to be
detrimental to the Alaskan halibut market.
MS. RYAN declared, "That is the trickiness of what we're trying
to do, and it will be the health department that ... officially
issues advice." She clarified that the press release was to
begin a public process of releasing the data gathered thus far
by DEC. The department's official stance is that fish continue
to be a safe source of nutrition, and people should continue to
enjoy fish products.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that perhaps it is not necessary
to alert the public.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON interjected his understanding that DEC is
acting under a federal mandate to provide this information to
the public.
MS. RYAN affirmed that if the state does not provide public
advice the EPA will issue a statement. She reiterated that the
federal safety factor is much higher that what is held by the
state.
9:29:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for clarity on the EPA
requirements for dissemination of this information to the
public.
MS. RYAN EPA said, "They issue consumption advisories; EPA will
do it if we don't."
9:29:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON relayed how nuances tend to "get lost," such as the
age discrimination of the fish. It would be good to have
information on these nuances, including species, age, and size.
Even if it is appears to be confusing the public should be
informed.
MS. RYAN confirmed the importance of ageing the fish, a highly
specialized process. Currently there is only one person able to
"read" the fish otoliths, at ADF&G. She predicted that the
primary trend indicator will be the age data, gathered from
these ear bones.
9:31:33 AM
JAY BUTLER, M.D., Director, Division of Public Health (DPH),
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), provided an
overview of fish consumption health benefits including. He said
that fish are an excellent source of lean protein, omega 3 fatty
acids, anti-occident's, and vitamins. Additionally, fish
consumption can reduce the risk of heart disease related deaths,
in adults, and promote healthy brain development in a growing
fetus and young children. The concern of eating large
quantities of fish has been due to the methyl mercury
concentrations in the flesh of certain species and the
neurological effects this has on the brain development of a
fetus. This has prompted a statewide study in Alaska, begun in
2002, to monitor and study maternal hair. To date, hair from
359 women in 51 communities has been analyzed. The median
mercury concentrations are far below the level understood to
cause adverse health effects, as established by the World Health
Organization (WHO); ½ of a part per million vs. 14 parts per
million. Based on the fish monitoring data collected, DPH is
working with a variety of agencies, organizations, and the
public, to develop new fish consumption recommendations for
Alaskans. The goal is to ensure that the mercury concentration
levels remain below the WHO guidelines. He reported that the
Alaska guidelines will focus on species with average mercury
concentrations above 0.4 parts per million. The species
identified by the current data include: lingcod, shark, spiny
dogfish, yelloweye rockfish, and halibut over 50 pounds. The
recommendations for consumption of these species by women of
child bearing age, and young children, will be completed in the
next few months. In conclusion, he opined that fish are one of
the healthiest parts of the Alaskan diet.
DR. BUTLER invited comment from the DPH health program manager.
LORI VERBRUGGE, Ph.D., Environmental Public Health Program
Manager, Division of Public Health (DPH), Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), stated support and agreement with
Dr. Butler's presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said, "Just to make the point, it is 'wild
fish.'"
9:35:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked the doctor to address the validity
of the research that has linked mercury influenced neurological
disorders with autism.
DR. BUTLER described the known mercury effects of subtle
cognitive decline and changes in neuromuscular function. He
deferred to Dr. Verbrugge for the specific connection to autism.
DR. VERBRUGGE stated that correlations have been drawn between
mercury and autism; however, she was unable to comment on the
validity of the studies.
DR. BUTLER explained how the available data suggests that autism
is caused by multiple factors including genetic predisposition,
and environmental exposures.
9:37:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted the use of the term "women of child bearing
age," rather than cautioning pregnant women, regarding
consumption of contaminated fish. He speculated that this would
refer to the concentration levels accumulated over a period of
time, longer than gestation, that could have an effect on the
developing fetus.
DR. BUTLER concurred, and added that it is also used for
"simplicity of message." Public health agencies have widely
adopted the use of this term to minimize confusion.
CHAIR SEATON stressed that the message is used to invoke
awareness of the effects on the developing fetus and child,
rather than for the pregnant mother.
DR. BUTLER affirmed that the mercury concentration toleration
levels are being standardized for adult males or females that
are unlikely to become pregnant. For this category, there is no
evidence of health risks, at this time. In response to a
question from the committee, he stated that the concern is for
how the mercury levels effect the fetus, as well as the breast
fed child.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - PERMANENT ID CARD
PROGRAM
9:40:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
an overview of the permanent identification card program.
9:40:36 AM
KRISTIN WRIGHT, Licensing Supervisor, Division of
Administration, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
explained the availability of the Permanent Identification Card
license to resident seniors over the age of 60, as allowed under
current fishing and hunting statute. License distribution has
averaged 4,300, during the last ten years, up 50 percent from
the previous 10 years.
9:41:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON established these numbers as the yearly average for
newly issued licenses; not cumulative estimates.
MS. WRIGHT clarified that the department does not track if a
person has become inactive. She provided the residency
criteria, necessary to obtain a fish and game license, and
stressed that it is different from other state residency
requirements. To receive a PID, a person must meet these fish
and game residency standards and have attained 60 years of age.
She added that these requirements were recently reviewed by the
attorney generals office. The Alaska Bureau of Wildlife
Enforcement (ABWE) is the agency charged with citing violators.
It is difficult, she reported, for the officers in the field to
ascertain the active and inactive PID holders. Also, non-
resident seniors can easily obtain a PID. Ms. Wright directed
attention to the application form in the committee packet and
pointed out that the applicant is not required to provide proof
of residency other than attesting to compliance with their
signature. Referring to a previous committee request, she
reported that there have been two problems during the past year,
involving PID licensees; one in Ninilchik and one in Hyder, both
handled by ABWE. Both cases hinged on residency requirements:
one had to wait for six more months to become a resident; one
was not resident eligible and received a citation and fine.
9:45:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired about the residency of the person who
received the citation; had they held a PID, and had they ever
been a resident.
MS. WRIGHT responded that the cited card holder was a seasonal
park service employee who considered themselves an Alaskan, but
whose permanent residence was technically "down south."
9:45:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested that basing eligibility on a
person's receipt of a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) check might
simplify matters.
MS. WRIGHT said such a requirement would remove other qualifiers
and streamline the process; however, due to arriving after the
PFD deadline a person may need to wait an extra six months to
qualify. This may not cause an undo burden and a daily fishing
licenses could be purchased, during the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if this would require a change of
regulation or statute.
MS. WRIGHT said it would require a statutory change.
9:47:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested that other issues may exist. From his
PID card, he read [original punctuation provided]:
This card must be in your possession while engaging in
the authorized activities as described on the front.
This card is not valid if residency requirements per
AS 16.05.940 and AS 16.05.415, and veteran
requirements, if applicable, per AS 16.05.341 are not
maintained.
CHAIR SEATON stated that, [even] as a legislator, he is not sure
if he is in compliance and maintaining these residency
requirements. The indications are that seniors obtain these
cards, live elsewhere, but return to the state in the summer and
consider their card valid. He suggested stipulating a three
year renewal on the card.
MS. WRIGHT agreed, and stated that such a constrain would also
be helpful in maintaining a "clean" data base, for statistical
studies and harvest surveys.
9:49:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out how the controls for limited bag
fisheries can also be skewed when a PID holder loses their
separate bag limit stamp. He asked if a three year PID card
could accommodate a location for these stamps.
MS. WRIGHT explained the conflict of the various fisheries and
species that could complicate this approach.
9:51:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN voiced his understanding that this card
was created to eliminate a timeline, hence the term "permanent."
Imposing a three year renewal could nullify that intent and
cause confusion for seniors.
CHAIR SEATON stated that in the process of creating a simplistic
senior benefit, the effort has fostered an uncontrollable
situation.
9:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the two violations, and asked
if this is typical, and if so does it truly represent a problem.
MS. WRIGHT responded that there have been other violations over
the years; however, the citations are very low. She noted that
ABWE is not emphasizing this area for enforcement.
CHAIR SEATON interjected that ABWE officers have difficulty
identifying violators who hold a PID, due to the residency
issues.
HB 41-TRANSFER HABITAT DIV FROM DNR TO F&G
9:54:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 41, "An Act returning certain duties regarding
habitat management from the Department of Natural Resources to
the Department of Fish and Game; and providing for an effective
date."
9:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB
41 as prime sponsor, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2003, former Governor Frank Murkowski made a change
to fisheries protection policy that has been
controversial ever since. By Executive Order [EO], he
transferred the Department of Fish and Game's Habitat
Division to the Department of Natural Resources. At
the time, every former Commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) objected to the move. They
contended, as many still do, that the move created a
conflict that would prevent the Division from
performing its duty to make sure Alaska's fishing
waters and other wildlife resources are protected, and
that development projects be designed in a manner that
doesn't compromise that goal.
The goal of protecting fish and game habitat is
consistent with the goals of the ADF&G. The
Department of Natural Resources is charged with many
functions, including that of resource development. In
theory the Habitat Division could serve its function
equally within either Department. However, the
transfer occurred because certain businesses felt the
move would make the agency more compliant with private
developer interests and consequently less protective
of the fisheries and other resources it was charged
with protecting.
With significant projects on the horizon, like the
Pebble open pit mine, the public should be confident
that the Habitat Division's functions remain
independent and uncompromised. For the reasons stated
by the Board of Fisheries, and the former
commissioners of ADF&G, we believe this division
should be moved back to the ADF&G.
10:02:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA named various testifiers who have provided
written testimony, or will appear as witnesses, during the
public hearing on the bill. He directed attention to the
committee packet and Governor Palin's letter, of February 8,
2007, to the chairman of the Board of Fisheries. Although it
states that she is not inclined to exercise EO privilege, he
opined that she does show concern for the issue. He read:
While the habitat functions, perhaps, should never
have been moved from ADF&G to DNR, that reorganization
has already occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA speculated that the governor understands the
ramifications of moving OHM&P back to ADF&G. Further, he
expressed concern for how future developments, with major
environmental impacts, will be addressed. The issue of fishing
stream protection is in the forefront.
10:03:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there are any examples of OHM&P providing
inadequate habitat protection, within the permitting process,
due to the office's relocation to DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that a definite change in the
"view," which habitat assumes on issues, has been reported to
him. There are reasons, he offered, why lower level employees
may not choose to come forward and "criticize the decisions of
their superiors," although this may be what is needed to
adequately address the issue. He offered the current memorandum
of understanding (MOU), between DNR and ADF&G for the permitting
of the proposed Pebble Mine, as an example. The MOU effectively
calls for ADF&G to assume a "junior role."
10:07:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that a revision of the MOU is being
considered, according to the governor's letter. Prior to
further discussion on HB 41, he asked that the sponsor provide
specific examples of how OHM&P has failed to fulfill its
function, due to the current configuration.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated the difficulty in obtaining
examples, however, he stressed that the sentiment does exists.
[HB 41 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:09
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|