Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/10/2015 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Board of Fisheries (bof) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 10, 2015
10:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Jim Colver
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOF)
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Boards Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the presentation on the Board of
Fisheries (BOF).
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:06:11 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. Representatives Ortiz,
Millett, and Stutes were present at the call to order.
Representatives Herron and Foster arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^PRESENTATION: BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOF)
PRESENTATION: BOARD OF FISHERIES (BOF)
10:06:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on the Board of Fisheries.
10:06:57 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries (BOF),
Boards Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), directed attention to his presentation outline, which
will cover the purpose and composition of the board, the steps
in the board process and legal and policy input in board
decisions [slide 2].
MR. HAIGHT described the board structure which is comprised of
three separate entities: the Board of Game, the Board of
Fisheries, and the joint board [slide 3]. He said the main
purpose of the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries is the
conservation and development of game and fisheries resources,
with conservation defined as controlled utilization of a
resource to prevent its exploitation, destruction, and neglect.
MR. HAIGHT turned to a photograph of last years' joint board and
indicated the authority for the joint boards is established in
AS 16.05.221 [slide 4]. Development has been defined as
management of a resource to make it available for use. The
joint board's duties include defining subsistence areas and non-
subsistence areas, and developing rules for the advisory
committees, and for their own regulatory process [slides 5-6].
10:10:27 AM
MR. HAIGHT said the board is a seven-member board, appointed by
the governor and confirmed by the full legislature. Members
shall be appointed on the basis of "interest in public affairs,
good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of
the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interest
and points of view in the membership." In addition, statute
indicates that members are to be appointed without regard to
political affiliation or geographic location of residence. He
listed the six current Board of Fisheries members: Tom
Kluberton, Chair, Talkeetna; John Jensen, Vice-Chair,
Petersburg; Orville Huntington, Huslia; Sue Jeffrey, Kodiak;
Reed Morisky, Fairbanks; and Fritz Johnson, Dillingham.
10:11:09 AM
MR. HAIGHT briefly reviewed the proposal process, noting that it
was publically driven [slide 8]. He said that board members are
public members and distance themselves from the department.
Further, most of the proposals come from the public. Typically,
an agency drives the regulation process, but the BOF's
regulation process comes from the public. The process includes:
call for proposals, distribution of proposals, public review and
comment, board regulatory meeting, and implementation.
10:12:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, regarding the proposal process, related
her understanding that a bill before the legislature would allow
some proposals to be submitted the day of the board meeting.
MR. HAIGHT responded that under HB 103, the Board of Fisheries
can introduce new proposals on the day of the cycle, during the
cycle, but if the proposal is not something related to the
subject of the meeting and it hasn't been properly noticed, it
will go through a 30-day noticing period. For example, recently
a technical change was made regarding the name of the defunct
Kake Hatchery to make it "hatchery operated" so it could
continue to function. The BOF has also undertaken two other
proposals, one with respect to slight changes to subsistence
management on the Kuskokwim River; and the other sets escapement
goals for Bristol Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for further clarification on how
this would work in conjunction with advisory committees, who
have expressed concern for being heard appropriately. These
advisory committees have been providing negative feedback on how
the board has been operating, in particular, in terms of
transparency. For example, concern has been expressed that the
board meets privately, develops proposals, and these proposals
are not vetted through the advisory committees. She said the
committees have suggested if the process is not healthy, the
advisory committees could be eliminated.
MR. HAIGHT acknowledged that advisory committees, although a
critical aspect of the process, do tend to become frustrated.
However, he said he was not aware of a lack of transparency on
the part of the board, or any closed door meetings occurring.
In terms of the foregoing proposals - the Kuskokwim proposal and
Bristol Bay escapement goals - these proposals were part of a
fairly public, long-standing effort, of which he provided some
details. He reiterated that the advisory committees provide
appropriate proposals and are highly regarded. For another
example, eight advisory committees ranging from Mat-Su to Homer
considered Upper Cook Inlet issues, but BOF votes on issues
these committees were most interested in were often split 4-4.
Thus, one committee may feel the board listened while another
would feel the board did not listen.
10:17:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled that three advisory committee
members recently quit after 20 years of involvement. She asked
whether there were any exit interviews held to understand why
they took such action. In the feedback she has received they
were extremely disgruntled.
MR. HAIGHT responded that information has been received that
members had resigned, and although it was regrettable, he said
he has not had conversations with the individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested that follow-up information be
provided.
10:19:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for further clarification if the
legislature were to adopt HB 103, whether it would prevent the
BOF from taking necessary action or if the board could be
hampered in some situations.
MR. HAIGHT answered yes; it would, as there is a need to bring
proposals forward on the day of a meeting. When controversy was
realized, constraints were put on the practice by the joint
board who created criteria that must be followed to bring
proposals forward. There has been some question as to whether
it may impact the board's ability to provide substitute language
for proposals, which has been a standard practice. Sometimes
proposals are conceptual and as the idea gathers support from
the public, the department, and the board, the board will put it
into regulatory language. Often the board brings the new
language forward, even if the proposal wasn't seen as a board-
generated proposal, but has conceptually been brought forth from
the public or another source.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said the goals of the board are to reflect
a diverse group of people from diverse interest groups. He
asked whether it was a fair assessment that the diverse groups
are being heard through the board.
MR. HAIGHT answered that was a fair assessment. In his
experience board members work hard to provide balance and
consensus. He suggested that it was important to recognize and
understand whether the issue or problem was about the process or
the outcome of a debate or action. There will always be
controversy and question over the board's outcome on any issue
since they relate to allocation and allocation decisions are
difficult.
10:24:06 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether the BOF has the ability to insert the
appropriate language, whether the process changes the intent or
meaning.
MR. HAIGHT answered no; that the board works hard not to
completely change position on any proposal. He suggested that
legal representatives from the Department of Law are present at
board meetings to ensure that intent of the proposal is not
altered. In addition, public input is received prior to the
meeting and during the meeting, which tends to shape and impact
how the proposal will be changed.
10:25:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked how many advisory committees exist.
MR. HAIGHT answered 84, but not all are active.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for further clarification on the
member count for the advisory committees.
MR. HAIGHT answered approximately 900, which he characterized as
a massive voluntary effort.
10:25:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, with respect to board action, said that
changes of intent may not be a complete turnaround but spin may
occur, which is the concern. He asked whether the boards were
subject to the Open Meetings Act. He referred to previous
testimony in a prior hearing in which three BOF members and
staff have reportedly met behind closed doors.
MR. HAIGHT recalled that a meeting was held by a user group at
the department and one Board of Game member apparently met with
group. He clarified that up to two board members can legally
meet.
10:27:10 AM
MR. HAIGHT reviewed a proposal form, [slide 9]. These proposals
are typically due April 10 of each year to the department, with
approximately 300-400 proposals submitted. He reported that
this year the number was 278; they can be a specific approach or
be fairly technical.
10:28:26 AM
MR. HAIGHT directed attention to a pie chart to show the source
of 376 proposals received last year [slide 10]. He reviewed the
composition, with many proposals from individuals, the
department, businesses, groups, associations, tribal
organizations. Last year the BOF generated a single proposal.
10:29:14 AM
MR. HAIGHT reported that the BOF meets on a predetermined three-
year meeting cycle. In 2014/2015 topics covered included Prince
William Sound finfish, Southeast and Yakutat finfish/crab, and
statewide Dungeness crab, and shellfish. He reviewed the next
three years agendas.
10:30:03 AM
MR. HAIGHT relayed a typical meeting, which includes
introductions, ethic disclosures and staff reports by the
department, followed by the public testimony period.
Individuals are given 3-5 minutes to speak, advisory committees
and regional advisory councils are given 10-15 minutes [slide
12]. Next, the board committees consider specific subject areas
and proposals, which may include stakeholder participation. He
characterized this as a great way to delve into the issues. The
board will meet as a committee of the whole (COTW) and consider
each proposal, deliberations are held, and miscellaneous
business wraps up the meeting.
10:31:18 AM
MR. HAIGHT said the sources of public input come from many areas
including: general public comment; industry and associations;
local, state, federal governments; tribal governments and
village councils; legislators; fish and game advisory committees
[slide 13]. The BOF sets its schedule two years in advance,
proposals are bound and distributed in August, with a deadline
of two weeks prior to the meeting for on-time public comment.
Comments are distributed to board members; however, the public
has been encouraged to submit up to 10 pages of written comment
until deliberations are complete. Thus the board always accepts
more information on proposals.
10:32:22 AM
MR. HAIGHT indicated the current local fish and game advisory
committees consist of 84 volunteer groups from around the state.
The advisory committees receive state support to help serve the
board and attend meetings. These advisory committees are
considered integral to the board process to provide local
knowledge. The state also funds advisory committee travel if
members wish to present to the full board.
10:33:54 AM
MR. HAIGHT briefly reviewed agency input at the meetings, which
includes the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the
Department of Law, the Department of Public Safety and Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC),
and the US Office of Subsistence Management [slide 15].
10:34:59 AM
MR. HAIGHT explained the legal framework for decisions [slide
16]. The board decisions are influenced by the Alaska
Constitution, international treaties, including the Pacific
Salmon Treaty and the Yukon River Salmon Treaty, court rulings,
statutes, regulations, and policies. In terms of the Alaska
Constitution, the board looks to the natural resources section,
Article 8, Section 4, which speaks to the sustained yield
principle that provides the cornerstone to the concepts of
conservation and development. Article 8, Section 4 reads,
"Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenish
able resources belonging to the State shall be utilized,
developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle,
subject to preferences among beneficial uses" [slide 17].
10:35:47 AM
MR. HAIGHT said the BOF was also guided by Alaska Statutes AS
16.05.050, 16.05.221 and 16.05.251, relating to board authority,
and the powers and duties of the commissioner. In addition, the
Alaska Administrative Procedures Act, the Open Meetings Act, and
the Executive Branch Ethics Act provide further guidance to the
board [slide 18]. He emphasized that the board committee
meetings, including the advisory committee meetings must follow
the Open Meetings Act. The board members must disclose any
financial interest they or their close family members have per
the Executive Branch Ethics Act, he said.
10:37:46 AM
MR. HAIGHT said additionally, the Allocation Criteria helps
board members focus on the criteria as they go through
deliberations [slide 19].
MR. HAIGHT directed attention to subsistence determinations and
reviewed the steps the board takes when reviewing subsistence
regulations, including whether there is a customary and
traditional use, and if so, whether there is a harvestable
surplus [slide 20]. If there isn't, other consumptive uses will
not be allowed. If there is, the board will consider what
constitutes reasonable opportunity for subsistence, which has
the first priority, and to the extent additional surplus is
available it would go to other uses. At that point the board
will deliberate on allocation issues, he said.
10:39:22 AM
MR. HAIGHT said other regulations and policies that influence
the board include the sustainable salmon fisheries policy,
escapement goal policy, mixed stock salmon fisheries, and
emerging fisheries [slide 21].
10:40:21 AM
MR. HAIGHT turned to the procedures for out-of-cycle actions,
which are possible through a BOF agenda change request [slide
22]. In doing so, the board would consider the action for
conservation purposes, whether it corrects an error, if a
regulation has an unforeseen effect, and if it constitutes an
allocative issue. The BOF typically will not take up allocative
issues out of cycle. The BOF will receive agenda change
requests in August, which is vetted at the October work session.
The joint board receives several emergency petitions each year
and considers whether an unforeseen event threatens the resource
or preclude harvest. The BOF has the ability to bring
subsistence proposals in out of cycle to examine fish and game
populations not previously considered, or if there is a change
in the federal fisheries management plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian
Island King/Tanner crab fishery.
10:42:17 AM
MR. HAIGHT said the last slide presents ideas for people to get
involved. He said that anyone can submit a proposal. The board
encourages the public to attend board meetings and present
testimony [slide 23]. Further, people can join the board's e-
mail list, submit a written comment on proposals, submit a
proposal, attend a board meeting and present testimony, join or
attend a local fish and game advisory committee meeting, or join
an industry or stakeholder group.
10:43:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for a description of how the ADF&G's
management staff interacts with the BOF.
MR. HAIGHT answered that the primary interface with the board
happens at the BOF meetings. Outside of the board meetings, the
BOF Chair may meet with ADG&G officials. The BOF Chair will
authorize the release of proposals. In terms of management
though, the meetings are intense and a substantial amount of
interface happens. The Department staff provides comments to
the advisory committees and the board to assist in agenda
discussions, and to the extent that decisions are made, the
basis for them needs to be discussed and vetted during the BOF
meetings. As the BOF gets into tricky issues, board members
will work with area managers, and constituents discussing their
experiences.
10:46:06 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:46
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| BOF Overview.pdf |
HFSH 3/10/2015 10:00:00 AM |
Board of Fisheries |