Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/06/2018 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 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB231 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 6, 2018
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative David Eastman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Mark Neuman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Bryce Edgmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 386
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels; relating to
the registration of vessels; relating to certificates of title
for vessels; relating to the duties of the Department of
Administration; relating to the duties of the Department of
Natural Resources; establishing the derelict vessel prevention
program; establishing the derelict vessel prevention program
fund; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 386 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 231(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 386
SHORT TITLE: VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) FSH, FIN
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: CFEC: BD. SALARY; STAFF CLASSIFIED SERVICE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/17 (H) FSH, FIN
05/02/17 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
05/02/17 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/17 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/22/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/22/18 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/27/18>
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/06/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRYAN HAWKINS, Harbormaster
City of Homer;
Vice President
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 386.
MATT GRUENING, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and explained Amendment
1 to Version D of HB 231.
FATE PUTMAN, Chair
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
231.
DALE KELLEY, Member
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
231.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:30 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Representatives Stutes
Tarr, Chenault, Eastman, were present at the call to order.
Representatives Neuman and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 386-VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
10:03:55 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 386 "An Act relating to abandoned and derelict
vessels; relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the duties of the
Department of Administration; relating to the duties of the
Department of Natural Resources; establishing the derelict
vessel prevention program; establishing the derelict vessel
prevention program fund; and providing for an effective date."
10:05:40 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 386.
10:06:18 AM
BRYAN HAWKINS, Harbormaster, City of Homer; Vice President,
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators,
stated that the city of Homer supports HB 386 and its companion
in the Senate, SB 92. He said the city demonstrated its support
for the bill with a resolution passed this past December. He
pointed out that he is also representing the Alaska Association
of Harbormasters and Port Administrators, which supports these
efforts to bring new legislation for management of derelict
vessels.
10:07:36 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 386.
10:07:56 AM
CHAIR STUTES reiterated that HB 386 has a further referral to
the House Finance Committee and that she would like to move the
bill this day. She pointed out that there are four fiscal notes
attached to HB 386: two zero notes, one Department of
Administration note that has no fiscal impact, and one fund-
capitalization note that reflects the revenue generated from the
new fee structure.
10:08:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report HB 386 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 386 was moved from committee.
10:08:44 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:08 a.m. to 10:11 a.m.
HB 231-CFEC: BD. SALARY; STAFF CLASSIFIED SERVICE
10:11:48 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 231(FSH), "An Act reducing the membership
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to two
individuals; providing that a single commissioner may exercise
all powers and duties of the commission if there is a vacancy on
the commission; providing for commissioner compensation;
relating to tie votes of the commission; assigning employees of
the commission to the classified service; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working
document on 2/27/18, was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 231, Version 30-GH1053\D, Bullard, 2/14/18, ("Version
D").]
10:12:34 AM
CHAIR STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-GH1053\D.1,
Bullard, 3/1/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "member of the commission"
Insert "commissioner"
Page 1, line 3, following "commission":
Insert "if there is a vacancy on the commission"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "A"
Insert "If there is a [A]"
Delete "does not impair the authority of"
Insert ", [DOES NOT IMPAIR THE AUTHORITY OF]"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "[QUORUM OF COMMISSIONERS] to"
Insert "may [QUORUM OF COMMISSIONERS TO]"
Page 2, lines 3 - 4:
Delete "A single member [TWO MEMBERS] of the
commission constitutes [CONSTITUTE]"
Insert "Unless there is a vacancy on the
commission, two [TWO] members of the commission
constitute"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for purposes of discussion.
10:13:00 AM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor
of HB 231, came forward to explain the change Amendment 1 brings
to Version D of HB 231. He directed the committee to page 1,
lines 12-14 of Version D, and stated that the effect of
replacing the term "quorum of commissioners" with "single
commissioner" was fully intended in the drafting of Version D.
However, he stated it was not intended that a single
commissioner could establish a quorum if the other commissioner
was merely out of the office for a short time period, as it is
indicated in Version D, on page 2, lines 3 and 4. He stated
that the intent is to allow a single commissioner to constitute
a quorum and exercise all powers of the commission only if there
is a vacancy on the commission. He said it is not considered
desirable for a single commissioner to be able to form a quorum
and exercise the power of the commission if the other
commissioner is temporarily out of the office due to illness or
for some other common reason.
10:14:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if there would still be an
opportunity to have a commissioner's decision reviewed.
MR. GRUENING responded by explaining that a review initially
begins with a hearing officer, but it can be elevated to the
commissioner if the person requesting the review does not agree
with the hearing officer's decision. A further review would be
directed to the Alaska Superior Court. He said this is how the
process currently works and this structure would remain in
place. He added that it is only in the event of a one-to-one
tie that the decision of the hearing officer would be the
decision of the commission.
10:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there might be a grammatical
error in the amended language, specifically, with the insertion
of the word "may" on page 1, line 14 of Version D.
10:17:21 AM
MR. GRUENING said that an associated change found on page 1,
line 13 of Version D, in conjunction with the change identified
by Representative Eastman on line 14, provides for proper
grammar in the amended bill.
10:17:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES, hearing no further questions regarding Amendment
1, asked Representative Tarr if she was maintaining her
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR removed her objection.
CHAIR STUTES, announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted. She mentioned that HB 231 has a
further referral to the House Finance Committee. She stated her
intent to move it from the Fisheries Committee on this day. She
noted that there are two letters of support, one from the United
Fishermen of Alaska and another from the Southeast Alaska
Fishermen's Alliance.
10:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT referenced the fiscal note from the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) and said that it
shows a savings of $124,400 but the amount should be about
$83,628. He said he didn't know if the committee would want to
change the fiscal note or leave the change to the House Finance
Committee to make.
CHAIR STUTES pointed to the attached fiscal note showing a cost
savings of $125,500 annually, starting in fiscal year 2019. She
said the Office of the Governor had not updated the fiscal note
to Version D because the next stop for the bill is the House
Finance Committee. She added that the updated fiscal note will
still show a cost savings, but the immediate savings will be
less due to the change adopted under Version D, which maintains
the chairman position [one of the two commissioners at CFEC,] at
a Range 27 pay level. She noted that over the long term the
cost savings will be greater because of the reduction in the
number of commissioners on the commission from three to two.
10:20:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the committee has
discussed in length the matter of the number of permit issuance
decisions per year at CFEC, and the fact that there are only a
"handful" of cases remaining. He suggested that CFEC might
effectively be "working itself out of a job," and it would be
reasonable to consider the "notion of a sunset [provision] after
three years or however many years" to account for the settling
of the remaining cases. He added that CFEC might then
transition into an entity solely for ongoing annual permit
renewals and authorizations. He asked for CFEC's perspective on
this idea.
10:21:24 AM
FATE PUTMAN, Chairman, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, responded by pointing out
that there are two mandates for CFEC. He said that for the last
35-45 years, CFEC has been involved with the issuance of initial
limited entry permits. He added that some of these permits are
still pending in the Alaska Superior and Supreme Courts. Of 26
cases that were at the commission, 13 remain unresolved, he
said.
MR. PUTMAN said the other clear mandate for CFEC is for it to
conduct optimum number studies for fisheries, and he offered his
understanding that this mandate has not been addressed. He
explained that optimum number studies occur after a limited
fishery is established and the permits for that fishery have
been issued. He said every fisherman who can demonstrate a
history of participation in a fishery has the right to apply for
a permit if that fishery becomes limited to entry. He said some
people appealed [their denial for a permit], and this created
the cases that CFEC has been dealing with in the Alaska Superior
and Supreme Courts. He pointed out that CFEC has been working
on two of these cases since he began his position there. Those
two cases went to the Alaska Superior Court but have been
remanded back to CFEC for reconsideration.
MR. PUTMAN explained that the number of limited entry permits
initially issued for a fishery is based on the number of
fishermen that participated in the fishery; however, he also
said that a fishery may eventually receive enough pressure that
it must be evaluated to determine the appropriate number of
permits it should have for sustained yield management. He said
that this evaluation is referred to as an optimum permit number
study, and it includes examining the history of the fishery in
terms of past management action by ADFG and the Board of
Fisheries. He said the aware of only two studies performed by
CFEC, and there are 68 fisheries that must be examined. He
summarized by saying that there is an ongoing need for CFEC so
that these types of decisions can be made independently from
ADFG and the Board of Fisheries.
10:23:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for information on the last
two optimum number studies, specifically, when they were
performed and the fisheries that were evaluated.
MR. PUTMAN said that his information on this matter comes from
the report produced by former Administrative Services Director
Tom Lawson and from the legislative audit performed on CFEC. He
said the new commissioner [appointee], Dale Kelley, may have
better information on these fisheries. He said that one of the
two optimum number studies resulted in a reduction in the number
of permits through a buyback program. In a later optimum number
study, questions about the associated buyback eventually
resulted in the buyback being discontinued.
10:25:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what would happen if an
optimum number study conducted by CFEC indicates a number of
permits that is different from the current number.
MR. PUTMAN answered the question by saying a buyback program
would be initiated and that this is clearly laid out in statute.
He gave the example of where a study might recommend 40 permits
for an existing 60-permit fishery. In this situation, CFEC
would work toward buying permits from fishermen willing to sell
them. He said the cost of such a study is paid by fishermen.
The initial funds to purchase the permits would come from a
federal loan, but the money to pay off the loan would come from
fishermen.
10:26:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what would happen if an
optimum number study recommends a greater number of permits than
currently exist in the fishery.
MR. PUTMAN said he assumes more permits would be issued for that
fishery. He noted that this is not the direction for most
fisheries, because, in his opinion, all fisheries in Alaska will
become limited to entry. He indicated that fisheries become
limited as fishing pressure builds and biomass declines. He
said this outcome is "just a matter of time." However, he
stated there are other consequences that must be considered
[when limiting a fishery or restricting permits], including the
constitutional requirements for sustained yield management and
ensuring that fisheries are available to everyone. He added
that CFEC must also consider standards established in statute
and in regulation.
10:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he has "caution"
over the assumed obligation to conduct future optimum permit
studies, given that so few studies have been conducted since the
first limited entry fisheries were established over 30 years
ago. Further, he expressed concern over the prospect of an
optimum number study indicating that new permits might be issued
for a fishery that has been limited to entry for 40 years.
10:27:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for additional information on the
lawsuits that exist at CFEC - specifically, how the plaintiffs
are affected by the lengthy duration of their cases.
10:28:42 AM
MR. PUTMAN responded by saying that CFEC serves as a specialized
court. He referred to it as an appellate court for lower trials
that occur under a hearing officer. A hearing officer makes an
initial recommendation, which may then be appealed to the
commissioners, who in turn make a determination based on whether
the law was followed. He stated that decisions are based on
facts related to a fisherman's economic situation, history of
participation in the fishery, and whether appropriate access to
the fishery was provided. The commissioners can agree with the
decision, remand it back for a hearing, or take other
appropriate actions. The commissioner's final decision can be
appealed to the Alaska Superior and Supreme Courts.
MR. PUTMAN pointed out that while a decision is being appealed,
CFEC is required to offer an interim use permit that allows the
fisherman to continue to fish in the fishery for which he/she
has been denied access. He added that this is a concern because
it creates a situation where the number of permits may exceed
the optimum recommended level for that fishery. In some
instances, these interim use permits have been active for 35
years. He said these cases need to be resolved so that they can
get back to optimum number studies. He stated that there have
been 70 cases that have gone to the Alaska Supreme Court,
probably hundreds to the Alaska Superior Court, and thousands
that have been dealt with by CFEC. Currently, there are very
few remaining cases pertaining to an initial issuance of a
limited entry permit, and CFEC is trying to resolve these. He
noted that appeals in these cases are expected because of the
large sums of money at stake for the fishermen.
10:31:07 AM
DALE KELLEY, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, introduced
herself with the statement, "As much as I know about limited
entry, I know I have a great deal to learn." She acknowledged
that while providing information to the committee, she might
have to get back to them later to correct her record. She
offered her opinion that one advantage of CFEC is that it has
always acted in support of commercial fishing, conservation, and
"keeping people on the water." Regarding the latter point, she
said this is evident because there are people still in the
system contesting their denial of a transferrable permit back in
the 1970s. Ms. Kelley indicated that some have made a career
out of keeping their cases alive in the "quasi-judicial process"
at CFEC. She pointed out that some have kept claims alive by
choice not because of CFEC "dragging them along. She stated
that an advantage of the CFEC system is in its claim process,
which consists of several initial layers prior to bringing the
case to the courts. She suggested that working with a CFEC
attorney is likely much less expensive. She said CFEC leans
toward assisting fishermen during this process, attempting to
find any way possible for them to keep fishing if they are
worthy of a permit.
10:32:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that there are
approximately 1,200 permit applications for Cook Inlet fisheries
each year, but only about 750 permits are fished. He said the
cost of these permits is roughly $75 to $100. He asked if the
discrepancy between the number of permit applications and the
number of permits fished might be a result of persons submitting
applications for the sole purpose of demonstrating participation
in a fishery. He indicated that this might be a means of
becoming eligible for a limited entry permit and an eventual
buyback if the fishery is to become limited to entry.
10:33:46 AM
MS. KELLEY said that people do hang on to permits and fish them
sporadically based on the current market. She stated that the
system is very dynamic. When optimum numbers for a buyback are
considered, it is important not to issue additional permits, but
also not to make the fishery too "super exclusive" [by issuing
too few], because the fishing industry is chronically ebbing and
flowing. She stated she has seen this in many of the fisheries
in which she has participated. She said, "People hold on to
them for a lot of different reasons, but sometimes they do come
and go from the fishery."
10:34:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the value of a permit is
determined during a buyback program and what would happen if no
one is interested at selling his/her permits at that price.
10:34:59 AM
MR. PUTMAN said economists at CFEC follow the sale of permits by
fishery to determine their value, and this information is used
to calculate an individual's annual fee of 0.4 percent of the
permit value. He added that this fee pays for all operations at
CFEC. Regarding Representative Eastman's second question, he
said motivation for a fisherman to participate in a buyback
program could fall into many categories; however, most reasons
would be related to the value of the permit. As one example, he
cited circumstances where [a fishermen's] valuable upland
leases, through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), can
be part of a permit buyback. He acknowledged, however, that
there doesn't seem to be any requirement for fishermen to sell
their permits back to CFEC. He said the committee should be
aware that the Alaska State Legislature always retains the right
to claim all permits without compensation; however, this would
not likely happen given the economics of such a situation.
10:36:27 AM
MS. KELLEY pointed out that fishermen vote on whether they want
to implement a buyback program; it is not a "voluntary seizure
because somebody thinks it's a great idea." She spoke to the
matter of optimal numbers and the question of whether to further
limit or issue additional permits, pointing out that every
permit is a potential job and therefore a matter of economics as
well as resource conservation.
10:37:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN provided a hypothetical situation in
which CFEC might quickly resolve some of the remaining "dozen or
so" outstanding legal cases, and he asked if Mr. Putman would
consider shifting CFEC's focus to the work of optimal number
studies if that situation developed.
10:37:42 AM
MR. PUTMAN answered yes. He added that the 13 lawsuits referred
to at this hearing have been pending for 35 to 45 years as they
are the more complicated cases. He said they can affect
fisheries "all the way up the line," such that an error on the
part of CFEC could result in the Alaska Supreme Court opening a
fishery to all other individuals who were initially denied a
permit. He stated that Ms. Kelley and he have a "very daunting
task" as they must understand every case already decided by the
courts before investigating why the other cases remain pending.
He pointed out that these cases remain despite the many good
commissioners, lawyers, and retired judges that have served at
CFEC. He said he does not have an answer to the question of how
long it might take to resolve the remaining cases and stated he
has been working at CFEC for 12 weeks. He said there were many
other issues identified in the legislative audit and the
aforementioned Lawson report that are being addressed. He said
these items are intended to streamline and modernize CFEC and to
make it operate more efficiently. As one example of changes
being considered, he cited new computer systems for issuing
permits and possibly allowing for multi-year permits. He
pointed out that fishermen and fish buyers are currently using
the old credit card embossing tool, which produces a carbon copy
that is sent to CFEC as a record of a transaction. He concluded
by that a lot updating is needed at CFEC and he stated his
intent to work on this.
10:39:44 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked if a permit is passed on to an heir when the
individual who made the original claim dies.
10:40:12 AM
MR. PUTMAN said there is a case currently pending before the
Alaska Superior Court in which the original plaintiff died. It
is now the owners of the original plaintiff's estate that are
appealing the case, and they can continue to fish with an
interim use permit during the appeal process and until the case
is resolved. CFEC is working toward settling two cases by
offering a time-certain, interim use permit, for roughly 3 to 5
years. The rights to fish would be extinguished after that
period if the individuals agree to not continue the appeal
process beyond the Alaska Superior Court.
10:41:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted CFEC's desire to undertake optimum
number studies that have not been conducted in the past, and he
asked if there is sufficient funding for this or if it might
have to ask the legislature for additional funding.
10:41:47 AM
MR. PUTMAN said he recognizes Alaska's current budgetary
constraints and anticipates CFEC will be able to conduct its
studies within its existing budget. He explained that CFEC's
existing budget was allocated to fund a staff of 22 employees,
including three commissioners; however, the current staff
consists of 15 employees, including two commissioners. He noted
the staff consisted of 45 persons in the past. He said the loss
of one commissioner will, as Representative Chenault pointed
out, provide a cost savings. He said CFEC expects to request
additional hiring to fill positions, particularly in the
research division that would conduct optimum studies. He said
that there are only two employees within that research division,
a director and one economist, but additional staffing could be
provided under the existing budget.
10:42:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many years it would
require to resolve the remaining legal cases if, hypothetically,
optimum number studies are not undertaken "given that's how the
commission has operated in these last few decades." He also
asked if it seemed reasonable to establish a sunset on the
commissioner positions if optimum number studies are not
conducted. He clarified that such a sunset would allow
sufficient time for the remaining legal cases to be resolved.
10:43:35 AM
MR. PUTMAN answered that those are questions asked in the
legislative audit and the report by Tom Lawson on CFEC's overall
performance. He said that Mr. Lawson concluded that CFEC should
continue to exist. He stated that one of the reasons for this
recommendation is that CFEC has autonomy to make certain
difficult decisions, and another is because all fisheries will
eventually be limited to entry. He said that HB 231 is intended
to streamline CFEC for this current period in which fishery
closures are not anticipated. He suggested there is a
possibility CFEC may need to hire a third commissioner in the
future if it becomes necessary to close a fishery or limit the
number of permits, although this is not currently anticipated.
He added that the reduction to two commissioners and the
potential for operating under only one of them is intended for
the current and foreseeable future. He said it is his
understanding that CFEC is very important to commercial fishing
because it provides an immediate response to individuals "not
having a permit and things of that nature" as well as for the
research it performs.
10:44:52 AM
CHAIR STUTES added that it is important to have CFEC
commissioners making these types of decisions as they are
impartial and do not have vested interests in the fisheries.
She indicated that CFEC, rather than ADFG, is the better agency
for making such decisions.
10:45:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated he was not suggesting that
CFEC "go anywhere." He said he was specifically referring to
the commissioners when he asked if they might not be needed in
the future. He added the idea that the hearing officers could
maintain objectivity and impartiality in the decisions made at
CFEC. He also pointed out that the first part of his question
pertained to the number of years CFEC might require to complete
the cases that remain unresolved.
10:45:29 AM
MR. PUTMAN stated that it is his intent to resolve the remaining
13 cases by the next legislative session. He explained the
general concern with these legal cases in the manner it was
explained to him, with the analogy of removing the wrong piece
from a stack of items such that the entire pile of items tumbles
over. He said this is something that must be considered when
resolving these cases. He added that the easiest way to resolve
them is without the use of an interim use permit (IUP); however,
he pointed out that these fishermen are in their 70s and may
want to continue the appeal process to be able to fish with
their families, and CFEC cannot prevent that from happening.
10:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why there are new commissioners
starting now, "from scratch," to resolve these cases. He asked
this with the understanding that the administrations have likely
been very interested in seeing the cases settled and because
CFEC has had so many other lawyers, judges and commissioners
with legal experience working on the cases.
MR. PUTMAN answered by first reiterating that he was appointed
to a vacant seat on the commission just 12 weeks ago, when one
commissioner left in the middle of his term. His position is an
interim seat lasting three years. He said that the former
chairman of the commission, who served for 37 years retired on
March 1, and that four-year seat is being filled by Dale Kelley.
He pointed out that people who worked at CFEC before them also
struggled with these cases. He noted that there were 26 open
cases only three years ago but now only 13 of those are
remaining. He reiterated that it is his intent to complete the
remaining cases before the next legislative session, through
either settlement or resolution.
10:48:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that the work done by CFEC is
important. She said it is important to have separation between
the department [ADFG], the commission [CFEC], and the Board of
Fisheries to depoliticize the decision process and keep it
science-based. She pointed out that as recently as this year
there has been talk of a buyback program in the upper Cook Inlet
area because of fishing pressure. She said this CFEC's buyback
function, as well as optimum number studies, should be
considered because so much has changed in four years. She
stated that a broader concern, related to what is happening with
the budget right now, is that of attempts to grab any money that
is not allocated. She said this does not seem to be appropriate
for this organization, as funds should be available for
"something" that might need to happen in the future. She said
her concern stems from this occurring with the Alaska
Performance Scholarship, the Power Cost Equalization program,
and any pot of general fund money not otherwise obligated. She
stated she appreciates the streamlining and greater efficiency,
because "we can always be doing things better." However, given
the importance of Alaska's fisheries, she said the mission of
CFEC is significant and she wants to see that mission retained.
10:49:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that he is excited to hear
about the recent resolution of two of the remaining legal cases.
He noted that pending cases dropped from 15 to 13 in the last
two weeks. He indicated that it seems CFEC is now "on a tear"
to resolve the remaining 13 cases which have haunted CFEC for a
long time. He added, "Putting these to bed would be a real
accomplishment." He went on to say that his "one question"
relates to the optimum permit numbers study. He said he is
returning to this matter because "it definitely opens his eyes
and ears" to hear that conducting such studies might be a
renewed focus of CFEC. He asked if, aside from the very
infrequent instances in which there is a buyback and a large
amount of stakeholder buy-ins, there are current plans for
optimum number studies on specific fisheries. He clarified his
question by asking how mature the thinking or planning stages
might be for future studies of this nature.
10:50:44 AM
MR. PUTMAN said the reason he spoke of optimum number studies is
because of two mandates from the legislature in 1975 when CFEC
was established. The first mandate is for CFEC to annually
recommend legislation that would enable it to regulate fisheries
better, and the second mandate is for CFEC to conduct optimum
numbers studies. He acknowledged that while only "two or three"
studies have been performed, the mandate for CFEC to conduct
these studies exists. He said that CFEC has been spending most
of its time on permit applications and adjudications, rather
than on optimum number studies. He reiterated that it is the
legislative mandate that prompted him to raise the issue of
optimum number studies. He said there are no specific fisheries
scheduled for such studies; however, he pointed out that
pressures on all fisheries exist, and a determination of the
optimum number of permits is necessary when biomass in a fishery
is reduced.
10:51:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for Ms. Kelley's thoughts on
this matter.
MS. KELLEY said that she is new at CFEC, having worked there for
only a few days. However, she absolutely understands the
mandate of limited entry law and that it includes the matter of
optimum numbers. She said that "if we were going to go down
that path," then it is important to her to consider which
fisheries seem more likely [for an optimum number study]. She
added that some fisheries appear to be likely candidates, but
final analysis sometimes shows they are not. She said that she
is "walking slow" regarding optimum number studies as she has
asked a lot of questions about them over the years, favoring
them at times and not favoring them at other times. She
acknowledged that she would like Mr. Putman's feedback on this
matter. She said she does not want optimal number studies to be
conducted randomly but instead through a thoughtful selection
process, because "some fisheries would be great candidates."
She added that the reasons for conducting an optimal number
study might be due to pressures on a fishery and not only
because of a shortage in the resource. She pointed out that
salmon, as well as every other species, are dynamic.
MS. KELLEY recalled Representative Eastman's question regarding
the suitability of current funding for optimal numbers studies
and responded by saying that they probably have sufficient
funding at this time. However, additional funding would be
needed if there is to be greater focus placed on those kinds of
studies. She reminded the committee that CFEC is completely
self-funded by the commercial fishing industry, with no funding
from the general fund. She said CFEC gives millions of dollars
to ADFG as a "pass-through" which is totally appropriate for
management of our resources. She also pointed out that
capability is needed to perform these tasks to expectations and
to "broaden and bring into the new age the limited entry
commission [CFEC]." She reiterated that optimum number studies
are within the original law, however she said she believes the
legislature expected implementation of the studies would depend
on current circumstances as CFEC evolved.
10:54:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that CFEC has not conducted
many of the optimum number studies, despite its mandate to do
so. He asked why this has been the case and whether it is
because they receive pressure from fishermen who may not want to
cover the cost of the studies through higher fees.
MS KELLEY explained that CFEC has been busy with 70 lawsuits,
some of which she described as "big thorny issues" that have
been in addition to adjudications and general operation. She
cited the example of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) wanting
to seize fishing permits and said this was a very important
issue for fishermen. She said it is her guess, based on
conversations over the years, that CFEC has been busy with other
priorities that had to be addressed immediately. She indicated
that the only time they produced optimum number studies was when
they were specifically requested, as when the court requested a
study for the Johns v. CFEC case.
10:56:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if there is a process where the
commissioners have final say over the results of an optimum
numbers study, such that each commissioner would vote for or
against the recommendation set forth in the staff report.
10:57:09 AM
MR. PUTMAN said that, going forward, he and Commissioner Kelley
intend to work on consensus; although, there could be times when
they have a different opinion on an issue. He said that in any
situation where there are opposing points of view, there is a
compromise point to which the parties can negotiate. As an
example, he said that Ms. Kelley and he might settle on 28
permits for a fishery after they initially choose 26 and 32
permits, respectively.
MR. PUTMAN added that CFEC brings in approximately $8 million
each year through fees; all fishermen must purchase a license
whether they are in a limited or an open fishery. On the
"backend" CFEC charge 0.4 percent of the value of the landings
in an open fishery or 0.4 percent of the value of a permit in a
closed fishery. He said these are the fees that bring in
approximately $8 million each year. He said that about one-
third is used by CFEC and two-thirds is used by ADFG for field
studies to estimate salmon biomass and return rates.
10:58:35 AM
MS. KELLEY said that in recent years, on average, approximately
$5 million dollars of CFEC fees have gone to ADFG for various
purposes. She reiterated that the research section of CFEC has
only two staff members, and therefore, it would be a burden for
CFEC to undertake optimum number studies at this time. She
indicated that CFEC would need to know in advance if there is
intent to "go full bore" on optimum number studies.
10:59:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to report CSHB 231, Version GH1053\D,
Bullard, 2/14/18, out of committee, as amended, with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes that will be
updated in the House Finance Committee.
10:59:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion and
commented that it seemed HB 231 has two opposing aims: one for
cost reduction and the other for increasing the work load even
though there are now fewer commissioners on staff. Rather, he
said that reducing the number of commissioners to an even number
of two is what he would do if he wanted to slow the performance
at CFEC, as opposed to trying to resolve cases and conduct new
optimum number studies. He offered that it may be more
efficient in the short term to have two commissioners, but if
the job is to "get the work done...quickly and efficiently",
then establishing an even number of commissioners would not be
his suggested approach. He added that the legislature might
want to take another look at what we are asking the commission
to do.
11:00:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that he is excited about
the legislation, with its suite of reforms that retain CFEC's
independence and save money, which can hopefully be returned to
the commercial fishing industry and provide additional support
to ADFG's Division of Commercial Fisheries.
11:01:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES stated that she echoed Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins comments as she, too, is excited to see CFEC becoming
streamlined, effective, and efficient. She said she understands
there have been a lot of hurdles and that some of those problems
were overcome through the work of previous commissioners. She
added that CFEC now has "fresh eyes taking a fresh look" and
that this is always helpful.
11:01:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection.
CHAIR STUTES, hearing no further objections, announced that CSHB
231(FSH) was reported from the committee.
11:02:57 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Fisheries Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 231 Amendment #1 3.1.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| HB 386 Fiscal Note DEC 02.26.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Fiscal Note Fund Cap DNR 02.28.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Fiscal Note DNR 02.28.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 386 |
| HB 386 Fiscal Note DOA 03.01.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 386 |
| HB 231 Supporting Document SEAFA 03.04.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| HB 231 Supporting Document UFA 03.04.18.pdf |
HFSH 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |