Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/27/1997 01:21 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 1997
1:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act.
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to water quality; directing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to conduct water quality research;
establishing the Water Science Oversight Board; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to a vessel permit moratorium for the Alaska
weathervane scallop fishery; relating to management of the scallop
fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 141(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental Conservation to
charge certain fees relating to registration of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 19
"An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services operators
and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16(RES) am
Relating to reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species
Act.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/97 314 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 314 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/97 318 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 318 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/97 756 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
03/19/97 756 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/19/97 756 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 141
SHORT TITLE: SCALLOP FISHERY/VESSEL MORATORIUM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/17/97 374 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/17/97 374 (H) FSH, RESOURCES
02/26/97 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/26/97 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/97 508 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 5DP
02/27/97 508 (H) DP: AUSTERMAN, KUBINA, HODGINS, IVAN
02/27/97 508 (H) OGAN
02/27/97 508 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
03/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4230
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 141.
EARL KRYGIER, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6112
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 141.
MARK KANDIANIS, Owner
F/V Provider
326 Center Avenue, Suite 205
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 141.
BRUCE SIEMINSKI
P.O. Box 1302
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 141.
MAX HULSE, Owner
F/V LaBrisa
P.O. Box 770881
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 694-2413
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 141.
WILLIAM KOPPLIN
P.O. Box 192
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-5426
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 141.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-34, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:21 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Masek, Dyson and
Green. Representatives Nicholia and Joule both arrived at 1:24
p.m. Absent were Representatives Barnes and Williams.
HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
Number 0091
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House
Joint Resolution No. 21, relating to amendment of Title VIII of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). He
advised that public testimony was closed following the special
testimony the previous week.
Number 0115
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease, at Representative Dyson's
request, at 1:23 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 1:29
p.m.
Number 0187
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE read from the state constitution,
Article XII, Section 12, which says in part: "The State of Alaska
and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any
property belonging to the United States or subject to its
disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its
political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the
Union. The State and its people further disclaim all right and
title in or to any property, including fishing rights, the right or
title to which may be held by or for any Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut,
or community thereof, as that right or title is defined in the act
of admission. The State and its people agree that, unless
otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this
section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the
United States."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to extinguishment of aboriginal
rights under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and to
John Borbridge's testimony March 13 regarding the conference
committee that met prior to ANCSA. Representative Joule said it
was not the intent of Congress to totally disclaim hunting and
fishing rights for Alaska Natives. Because the state and the
Secretary of Interior did not settle the issue, Title VIII of
ANILCA was introduced.
Number 0458
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said under ANILCA, the state agreed to
language regarding rural people that did not specify Native
Alaskans. Concessions had been made then to accommodate the
state's concerns. He believes HJR 21 goes against a deal that was
made and he objects to it. He suggested figuring out a way to
resolve the issue from a broader perspective.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said on its face, HJR 21 appears to be a good-
faith attempt that calls for interested parties to sit down and
find common ground on definitions in the agreement. He does not
see it as an attempt to go back on anything. However, to his
disappointment, it is not being perceived that way. Without all
the parties at the table, he does not believe there will be an
Alaskan solution acceptable to everyone.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he is troubled by his own vote, as he
gave his word to vote it out of committee. He recommends that
everyone put energy toward finding common ground and some basis on
which to all sit down at the table. He expressed great distress at
the polarization, reactions, and paranoia on several sides of the
issue. He does not want his vote in committee to be construed as
taking sides or breaking a deal. Neither does not believe this
effort, well-intended as it appears, will be successful unless
major portions of the Native community come forward and find common
ground with others. He emphasized he is casting no aspersion.
Number 0884
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON concurred. He recognizes the difficulty of
resolving this issue to everyone's satisfaction. He believes the
most important element of HJR 21 is trying to prevent federal
takeover of management of Alaska's fish and game. It does not
resolve subsistence nor take one side over another. However,
testimony from rural regions indicates no support for it, which
troubles him.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he does not know how to regain trust, have
meaningful discussion and find a solution. It clearly will call
for leadership and statesmanship, with less divisiveness. He
expressed uncertainty as to his final vote, but believes it does no
good to keep the resolution in committee. He suggested this issue
should go through the whole process. He hopes people from rural
and Native communities will help find a solution and break the
impasse.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated his belief that there is enough fish and
game to satisfy everyone's interests. He said he worries about
failing to act and letting the federal takeover of management of
Alaska's fish and game become so entrenched that Alaska cannot get
it back. "So I guess I'm pleading for the real leaders, who
understand this issue better than I do, to help us find solution,"
he concluded.
Number 1106
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA stated her opposition to HJR 21. She
feels that it is not a resolution to the federal-state subsistence
impasse. It divides communities, it is not written with a spirit
of cooperation, it is unnecessary, and it does not build trust. It
also eliminates customary trade. For example, people who are
widowed, elderly, crippled or have some kind of a disease that
precludes them from fishing or hunting for their own families may
use customary trade to exchange gasoline for fish or meat.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA mentioned supplementing budgets with
subsistence. She said rural people cannot survive without
resources such as big game and fish. She also said HJR 21 ensures
that regional advisory councils are ineffective or abolished. "We
have great pride in voting for the person that represents us on
these regional councils," she stated, noting that council members
live in the area, follow caribou herds, know game and fish
populations and work closely with biologists.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said HJR 21 weakens Title VIII of ANILCA,
which they depend on for survival and connection to cultural
activities. Title VIII connects them to customary trade options
and to the earth and all its resources. She emphasized that Title
VIII only falls into place for the rural priority when there is a
resource shortage. In her district, that had not yet happened.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA pointed out there are private lands under
Native corporations in her region. Although they could do so, they
have not kicked anyone off those lands for hunting or fishing. She
said they are trying to work with outsiders and those from urban
Alaska who fish and hunt in her district. "They're great for our
economy," she said. "We realize that. And we welcomed them into
our communities. I've gone up and talked to those guys. They've
had a lot of exchanges with us." She concluded by saying HJR 21
further divides village communities from urban communities. She
does not believe HJR 21 will resolve the impasse.
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN acknowledged this is a much-discussed,
sensitive and divisive issue. He pointed out Alaska's enormous
size and said the square miles are equivalent to the "main actors"
in the Civil War. He said in that case, the ultimate good was
worth the strife. Here, there are two polarized views that will
never come together. However, cultures and times are changing,
with use of motorized vehicles and boats in rural areas, for
example. Whereas when he came to Alaska, people thought it absurd
to walk a mile for a moose, now that short distance would be
welcome. Saying Alaska will forever remain as it was 100 or 50
years ago is not heading into the 21st century with the right
attitude. He believes Alaska's fight collectively should be with
the federal government, not internally over a few issues. As
painful as it may be, he plans to support HJR 21.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said the subsistence issue has been
around many years, and the state has tried to resolve it. The
congressional delegation has consistently requested a position from
the state on this issue. Now, federal agencies have draft
regulations in place to initiate preemption action against the
state, including state land and navigable waters. She said HJR 21
looks at the fine points as far as what the state will be up
against.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that preemptive regulations could
ultimately have a big impact on commercial fisheries, and they
could be initiated as early as October 1997. Finding common ground
is important, and it is the reason she introduced HJR 21. The
resolution is designed to return fish and wildlife management to
the state, while retaining some preference for subsistence on
public lands. It is also designed to specifically exempt state and
private lands or waters from any federal preemption, which she
believes is extremely important.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said the majority of the Senate and House
clearly indicated a state constitutional amendment is neither
possible nor desirable at this time. Therefore, the only
possibility of relief from federal preemption lies within amending
ANILCA. Delays in amending ANILCA only place the state at greater
risk of total preemption by the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK spoke of efforts by former Governor Hickel and
current Lieutenant Governor Ulmer to resolve this issue. The
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) rejected attempts in both cases.
The AFN has adopted a no-net-loss position; she noted that
committee members have copies of this policy. Representative Masek
said the question is what is necessary to protect the state's
interests, including all users of Alaska's fish and wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK acknowledged testimony regarding fears that
the rural preference will be in jeopardy. She emphasized that HJR
21 retains the rural preference. She concluded by thanking
everyone for their input and opinions.
Number 1928
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he too has a heavy heart. He emphasized that
he is acting with malice towards none. His goal in moving HJR 21
is to facilitate conversation and hopefully bring all parties to
the table. "Because if we don't do this, then all the motivation
for solving this goes away," he stated.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the problem people have with customary trade
is not that it's "here's some fish for some gas." He does not
believe anyone would have a problem with that. However, people
have a problem with outright sale of large quantities of
subsistence-caught fish or game. He believes that goes against the
spirit of subsistence.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised listeners that this is not a law but a
resolution, an advisory position of the legislature asking Congress
to make these changes. He shares the concern that Alaska is
running out of time. His concern is for the resource. Looking at
the state of Washington, for example, he does not believe either
rural or urban Alaskans want their resource compromised like that.
Number 2017
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recounted how a pastor had shown excitement over
change resulting from a crisis. He noted that HJR 21 brings this
situation to a crisis. Many feel threatened by it, which he
understands wholeheartedly. However, he believes the crisis will
bring necessary change. It will require leadership by not only the
legislature but the Governor's office, the Native community, the
Alaska Outdoor Council and others.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN expressed hope for a consensus. He said according
to Co-Chairman Hudson, when a consensus is reached, generally
everybody is a little bit unhappy and then you know it is a good
consensus. Co-Chairman Ogan said he wants to move HJR 21 because
otherwise the issue will not be resolved.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA noted that the congressional delegation
requested that Alaska come forward with unified voice on a solution
to this problem. "We don't have a unified voice," she stated,
asking whether passing the resolution out of committee was for
nothing. She asked whether the sponsor wished to address that.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK declined, shaking her head.
Number 2160
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his wish to bring people to the table to
discuss this. He said he would be working towards that goal. He
reiterated his reason for moving HJR 21 is that if it stays in
committee, the discussion ends.
Number 2196
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE advised that the congressional delegation
indicated they had been putting together waivers to extend this.
He suggested letting them know this issue is on the table, that
Alaska would like to leave it on the table and have them obtain a
waiver. Work could then be done in the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE acknowledged that a conclusion may not reached
by the next session. He noted that some people have a problem with
customary trade and barter, some with the state providing
definitions, for example. He suggested taking up one issue at a
time, dealing with it and then putting it away, so that people do
not feel they must address everything at once.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE, responding to Representative Green's
comments, said "our people have learned to adapt." He noted that
although motorized boats are enjoyed, people still use skin boats
for whaling because they are quiet. Although the equipment has
changed, the harvest, the attitude and the spiritual connection
have not.
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HJR 21 out of committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected and asked about the tabled motion
made at a previous hearing by Representative Barnes, currently
absent.
Number 2390
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 2:11 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 2:17 p.m.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated his belief that the motion by
Representative Barnes, left on the table at the March 13 meeting,
had died because it was not taken up March 20. He believed the
current motion was proper.
Number 2430
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON expressed appreciation for Representative
Joule's suggestion of a waiver, which he understood to be
postponement of the federal takeover. He offered to work on a
joint resolution to that end. He agreed with Representative
Nicholia that HJR 21 would do no good without a "wide buy-in" by
most Alaskans.
TAPE 97-34, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would not vote to move the bill
further than committee unless he sees wider agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE maintained his objection.
Number 0053
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked for a roll call. Voting to move HJR 21 from
committee were Representatives Masek, Dyson, Green, Hudson and
Ogan. Voting against it were Representatives Nicholia and Joule.
Representatives Barnes and Williams were absent. So HJR 21 moved
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
SSHB 128 - WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
Number 0075
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was Sponsor
Substitute for House Bill No. 128, "An Act relating to water
quality; directing the Department of Environmental Conservation to
conduct water quality research; establishing the Water Science
Oversight Board; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0087
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that final action was deferred at the
March 25 hearing to allow Representative Green to address
questions. He further advised that the letter recently received
from the Alaska Clean Water Alliance refers to standards in the
original bill, not SSHB 128.
Number 0165
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that his concern had been whether
small companies or individuals abiding by existing standards might
experience hardship because of changing standards. For example, he
knew of cases where samples for toxicity tests were sent to three
different labs because of conflicting results; that is unaffordable
to mom-and-pop operations. However, after talking with the mining
community and people in the science field, he is satisfied.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move SSHB 128 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection, SSHB 128 moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 141 - SCALLOP FISHERY/VESSEL MORATORIUM
Number 0344
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House
Bill No. 141, "An Act relating to a vessel permit moratorium for
the Alaska weathervane scallop fishery; relating to management of
the scallop fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
Before the committee was CSHB 141(FSH), version 0-LS0112\R.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Alan Austerman, said HB 141 implements a moratorium
within state waters off Alaska, similar to that being implemented
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), which
affects federal waters off Alaska. She read from the sponsor
statement:
"Without a moratorium implemented in state waters, it is probable
that there would be an increase in effort on our state water
scallop stocks, as well as on the associated marine habitat, and
create an unmanageable fishery.
"Worldwide, scallops have proven to be susceptible to overfishing
and boom/bust cycles. Scallops are a long-lived shellfish. The
large scallop meats which bring premium prices come from scallops
eight years or older.
"The Alaska scallop fishery started in 1968. Nineteen East Coast
scallop vessels came to Alaska and took 1.7 million pounds of
scallop meat. The fishery continued at a harvest level of 1.3
million pounds of meat annually until 1973. Catches dropped off
sharply after '73, and fishing ceased in 1978 when the scallop beds
were depleted. This boom-and-bust cycle was repeated in the 1980s
and appeared to be repeating for a third time in the 1990s until
the state developed a fishery management plan for scallops in 1993.
All scallop fishing was stopped in February 1995 in order to
prevent an East Coast scalloper, Mr. Big, from fishing in
unregulated federal waters. The fishery reopened in late 1996
under a federal management plan.
"At present, weathervane scallops are managed jointly by the
federal government and the State of Alaska. There is a federal
fishery management plan to delegate management authority of
scallops to the state `in process,' but it has not been finalized.
The management plan includes mandatory 100 percent observer
coverage, caps on the amount of crab bycatch which can be taken and
area-specific quotas. Under new language in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the State of Alaska
could exercise management authority out to 200 miles under
delegated authority.
"It is also in the State of Alaska's best interest that both the
state and federal scallop fisheries have similar management plans
and be managed by the State of Alaska. Representative Austerman's
goal is delegation of management authority by the U.S. Department
of Commerce to the State of Alaska with a more restricted
moratorium base. It should be noted that the council's
Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review found that
four vessels could efficiently harvest the Alaska scallop quotas.
"Within this legislation, Representative Austerman has separated
out the weathervane scallop fishery conducted in Area H, or Cook
Inlet. That fishery is unique in that it is managed an entirely
separate fishery, has different gear specifications and has more
recently been developed.
"HB 141 is needed to ensure careful consideration [note: written
statement says conservation] of the scallop stocks, as well as the
marine habitat in which the scallops live, and to ensure that the
bycatch of other marine animals, such as crabs, are properly
controlled and managed. It's imperative to implement a moratorium
on new entrants into the weathervane scallop fishery now."
Number 0492
MS. DAUGHERTY discussed the three proposed amendments. Amendment
1 stems from a drafting oversight and makes language within the
bill consistent. More substantial, Amendment 2 changes one of the
qualifying years for the Area H fishery from 1995 to 1994, as that
area was closed in 1995. On the basis of fairness, it also allows
inclusion of someone who consistently participated in that fishery
but with different vessels. Amendment 3 resulted from the fact
that the statewide scallop fishery is due to open July 1. Without
the amendment, someone could fish July 1 and possibly qualify under
HB 141. Therefore, the date will be June 30.
Number 0560
EARL KRYGIER, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager, Division of
Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify. He coordinates many
interactions between the state and federal governments because many
Alaska resources are either on the three-mile boundary or cross
back and forth. He noted that with him from the division was Ken
Griffin, coordinator for crab and scallop. Those resources are
under fishery management plans in the federal zone.
MR. KRYGIER said through 1995, the fishery was managed wholly by
the state. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act, the state can extend its authority to manage
vessels registered under state law into federal waters. Until
1995, that was never challenged. However, in 1995, the F/V Mr.
Big, a large offshore catcher-processor, did not register with the
state and fished with no seasons or size limits. That obviously
created a problem.
MR. KRYGIER advised that worldwide, scallops are susceptible to
overfishing. Many overfished resources have been depressed for 10
or 20 years and may never return. Compared with that of other
areas of the United States, the resource off Alaska is small. For
example, on the East Coast, 30 million pounds of shucked meats are
taken annually. Off Alaska over the last five years, the harvest
has been 700,000 to 1.8 million pounds. The ADF&G has set an upper
limit for extraction of the statewide resource at 1.8 million
pounds.
MR. KRYGIER said because of increased fishing beginning in 1990,
the state developed a management plan. They conducted research and
set guideline goals, such as making sure habitat and bycatch were
not impacting other important species.
MR. KRYGIER explained that scallops do not move around once they
settle. Therefore, the state manages the fishery by small regions,
which are either a bed or a series of beds. In some areas,
reasonable harvest rates are determined by surveys. In others, the
annual limit is based on a long-term, mid-level catch range.
Number 0747
MR. KRYGIER said the state requires offshore vessels to carry
certified observers; it costs $6,000 to $7,000 per month for an
observer. The state is trying to become a better manager by
gathering information about the resource.
MR. KRYGIER said presently, the offshore fisheries are harvested by
fairly large catcher-processor vessels, ranging from 80 to 114 feet
in length, which carry up to 12 crew members. In scallop
fisheries, efficiency is basically restricted by the number of crew
members, who hand-shuck the meat.
MR. KRYGIER reported that in Cook Inlet, the harvestable resource
is only 20,000 to 28,000 pounds. A number of years ago, the Board
of Fisheries recognized a special fishery there. It limited dredge
size to six feet and set up crab bycatch levels to keep fishermen
out of important crab areas such as Kamishak Bay. In addition, the
ADF&G sometimes sends out a department employee as a short-term
observer; the fishermen do not pay for that. He noted that in the
offshore fishery, two 15-foot-wide dredges are used simultaneously.
It is more industrial than the small-boat fishery inshore, which
has vessels up to 70 feet long.
Number 0869
MR. KRYGIER said after the Mr. Big came in and tried to fish
uncontrolled in federal waters, the state asked the NPFMC to close
the waters, which they did for 18 months. During that time, the
state tried to put together a joint management regime to help
manage this fishery.
MR. KRYGIER advised that federal managers are not really interested
in managing that fishery because the state has done so for a long
time. Currently, they mirror closures by the state. He stated,
"They'd like to get to the point where they actually delegate the
authority back to the state to manage, and there would be the two
management plans. They have put in place a moratorium in federal
waters. And since ... many of the beds are trans-boundary beds,
they're right on the three-mile line, and we don't have exact
measurements of the numbers of animals in those beds, it's
impossible for us to say that so much could be take on one side,
inside the three-mile zone, and so much in the federal zone.
Fishermen have fished those beds, back and forth across the line,
so ... either you're an outside fisherman or you're a Cook Inlet
fisherman."
Number 0927
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that during
harvesting, a big scoop was pulled, picking up everything.
MR. KRYGIER said it is a dredge, a metal bag that has a bar on the
front. It digs into the surface a little bit. In places like
Yakutat, where there are observers on board vessels, there is
almost no bycatch of any other species. In other areas, there is
some bycatch. "But we have the observers on board, and we'll
actually shut down a fishery if they're starting to cause some
interaction problems," he explained.
Number 0972
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN compared dredging with mowing a lawn. He
asked what happens to the scallop bed.
MR. KRYGIER replied that on similar beds on the East Coast, harvest
had occurred for numerous years. The dredge kind of bounces along
the bottom, without digging in all the way. It has rings large
enough to allow most smaller scallops to pass through. Since 1968,
a number of beds have been harvested in a sustainable manner. The
ADF&G is not concerned about impacts on the beds themselves, as
long as enough spawning biomass remains to ensure replacement.
Number 1056
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this plan covers both state and
federal waters.
MR. KRYGIER replied this is presently for state waters. However,
it is similar to that put together for federal waters. It is a
little more restrictive, but it basically mirrors the major
portions of the fishery that ADF&G is concerned about.
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether, once harvested, a bed could be
harvested again, and after how long.
MR. KRYGIER indicated there could be an annual harvest of a portion
of the beds. For example, at Kayak Island there had been a
sustainable annual harvest of 50,000 pounds from one bed. After
the Mr. Big came in, that fishery was shut down for a year, after
which the bed was surveyed. This year, only 20,000 pounds was
allowed. The ADF&G hopes within a few years it will return to a
sustainable harvest level of about 50,000 pounds.
Number 1163
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why there is such a significant
difference in harvest levels between the East Coast and Alaska.
MR. KRYGIER explained that the East Coast has a large area of
highly productive beds, probably related to the Gulf Stream. The
scallops are broadcast spawners, similar to oysters. Beds remain
in one place, and the males and females broadcast spawn into the
water. Many settle in the same bed or at the edges. However, if
currents are strong, they settle in new areas. In Alaska, the area
productive for scallops is smaller than elsewhere. In addition, a
few areas have been permanently closed to scalloping to protect
bycatch of crab, for example.
Number 1266
MARK KANDIANIS, Owner, F/V Provider, came forward to testify. An
Alaska scallop fisherman since 1980, he had been through two boom-
and-bust cycles of the fishery, in addition to the current slower
bust cycle. In 1992, there was an influx of boats, new arrivals
from the East Coast, including the Mr. Big. The Mr. Big attracted
attention from the East Coast, which had mismanaged its fisheries.
In Alaska, there had been little regulation. Suddenly, vessels
were coming to Alaska, going through the Panama Canal two at a
time, resulting in a "feeding-frenzy type of fishery."
Number 1364
MR. KANDIANIS indicated they approached the NPFMC in 1992 for a
federal moratorium; however, it took three or four years to get it
in place. The scallop fishermen suffered. The fleet more than
doubled in size, beyond the break-even capacity. The Mr. Big then
got its permit back from the state, "by some mistake, I guess," and
went out to fish alone in federal waters, with no observers, and
fished in areas where the guideline harvest quotas had been taken.
As a result, the NPFMC closed the fishery for 18 months. Mr.
Kandianis lost a half million dollars net, and the captain of his
boat lost his home and family.
MR. KANDIANIS said this legislation is important. Although perhaps
too liberal, it is, he has been told, probably the best deal he
will get for now. He believes the fishery can support three or
four boats, less in some years. However, the limits the state has
come up with are almost double that. Mr. Kandianis suggested the
scallopers would "fight it out on the grounds" to find out who
would survive economically. He urged passage of HB 141.
Number 1513
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 0-
LS0112\R.1, Utermohle, 3/4/97, which read:
Page 5, line 1:
Delete "Alaska"
Insert "the state and the adjacent United States
exclusive economic zone"
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1531
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, 0-
LS0112\R.4, Utermohle, 3/27/97, which read:
Page 3, line 24:
Following "registration area":
Insert "(1)"
Delete "1995"
Insert "1994"
Following "1996":
Insert "; and
(2) during each of at least three calendar
years between 1984 and 1996, inclusive"
Page 3, following line 24:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) Notwithstanding (d) and (e) of this section, a
vessel owner who does not own a commercial fishing vessel
that qualifies for a vessel permit for a scallop fishery
registration area may receive a vessel permit for that
registration area if the vessel owner owned and fished
two or more commercial fishing vessels whose combined
participation in the scallop fishery for that
registration area would satisfy the requirements for a
vessel permit for that registration area under this
section. The commission shall issue a vessel permit
under this subsection to the last commercial fishing
vessel that the vessel owner owned to satisfy the
requirements for the vessel permit for the registration
area if the vessel owner still owned that commercial
fishing vessel on July 1, 1997.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "(d) - (f)"
Insert "(d) - (g)"
Number 1539
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion.
MS. DAUGHERTY explained that the first part is necessary because
the Area H fishery was closed in 1995. Next, it places a
requirement of three calendar years. The bulk deals with
situations where a person did not consistently fish the same vessel
during the qualifying years. This is a vessel moratorium; the
amendment makes a slight adjustment in talking about vessel owners
instead of just vessels.
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was further objection. There being
none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1722
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read:
page 3, line 14:
change "July 1" to "June 30"
MS. DAUGHERTY explained because the statewide fishery opens July 1,
someone could qualify by fishing one day in 1997. This stays with
the intent that everyone who qualifies has already fished this
year.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1801
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the "United States exclusive
economic zone" is.
MS. DAUGHERTY replied it is from three to 200 miles.
Number 1810
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 2, line 20, which says it is the
intent of the legislature that the Board of Fisheries maintain 100
percent observer coverage for all vessels engaged in the Alaska
weathervane scallop fishery. Referring to the zero fiscal note, he
asked how this will be paid for.
MS. DAUGHERTY explained that is for "statewide," the outside
fishery, and the vessels pay for it.
Number 1883
BRUCE SIEMINSKI testified via teleconference from Seward in
opposition to HB 141. He came in Alaska in 1968 to fish scallops
and has been here since. He noted there is no provision for the
original fishermen who are still trying to get money together to
buy a vessel. Although he believes the fishery should be managed
to a certain extent, he opposes the permit system giving the right
to only a few people.
MR. SIEMINSKI reported that there had been observers aboard the
vessels all the time he fished from 1970 to 1975. He said for
every crab a scalloper killed, a crabber probably killed 100,000;
he saw no danger from scallopers in that regard.
Number 1978
MR. SIEMINSKI referred to Area H and suggested the state look at
more of the three-mile limit for the whole state. There are other
places where scallops can be fished year-round and into the three-
mile limit, such as off Yakutat, the Fairweather Grounds, Sitka and
elsewhere. He suggested that be allowed.
MR. SIEMINSKI restated his opposition to this permit system. He
cited the example of permitting at Bristol Bay 20 years ago. Those
families have children who are now grown, and there is now one
permit for five or six families, or one boat carrying six or seven
people. He concluded by asking what would be done for people who
had been here a long time but were waiting to get back into the
fishery.
Number 2099
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN reminded Mr. Sieminski he could submit written
testimony as well.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 3:00 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 3:01 p.m.
Number 2129
MAX HULSE, Owner, F/V La Brisa, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. A scallop fisherman who owns a boat with his son, he
referred to a fax he had sent concerning their history of scallop
fishing. They had written the proposal to open the scallop fishery
in Cook Inlet. They fished scallops from 1982 until 1988, and in
1994 and 1996, during which time they owned and fished three
different vessels. He thanked those responsible for Amendment 2,
adopted that day, which allows them to fish in Cook Inlet.
MR. HULSE said they will qualify in the moratorium in federal
waters to fish both Cook Inlet and the outer fishery in Alaska.
However, he believes they have enough equity in the Alaska scallop
fishery that they should also qualify in statewide waters. He
further believes minor changes in HB 141 could allow that without
affecting the overall intent of the bill.
Number 2304
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Amy Daugherty was nodding her head,
indicating she expects Mr. Hulse to be in touch with her. He
encouraged anyone else to do likewise.
Number 2330
WILLIAM KOPPLIN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying
he has owned a small scallop boat in Homer for three or four years.
He referred to a fax he had sent. He stated, "We have fished in
state waters; we have fished in federal waters. And this bill
would not allow us to fish in federal waters. And I just don't see
that's fair, since we are Alaskan residents. It is an Alaska
resource." He said he has proposed amendments that he will contact
"the proper channels" about.
MR. KOPPLIN had been told that in 1996, the scallop quota was
approximately 1.5 million pounds. He said the ex-vessel price per
pound for scallops is seven dollars, which comes to $10.5 million.
TAPE 97-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. KOPPLIN asked where the analysis came from that says the
fishery can only handle four boats. He said originally, the NPFMC
was going to allow 11 vessels. "Even 11 boats divvying up $10.5
million seems like a pretty decent catch," he said.
Number 0083
MR. KRYGIER responded that in 1996, there were 733,000 pounds
harvested. At seven dollars a pound, the total value was $5.13
million, and the average per vessel was about $500,000 per vessel.
He understood Mr. Kopplin to be mixing both Area H and the
statewide fishery when talking about the two numbers. "There's
about four vessels under the federal and state moratorium for the
Cook Inlet area," he said. "And the total is eleven under one and
seven under the other for the outside waters. So that's the
difference."
Number 0166
MR. KOPPLIN asked whether eleven vessels were allowed for the
federal waters, with only four now being allowed under HB 141.
MR. KRYGIER replied, "The number is actually five in Cook Inlet.
We've added that extra one with that inclusion, and seven on the
outside. So that's a total of twelve."
Number 0223
MR. KOPPLIN referred to page 5, lines 4 through 12. He asked
whether someone could send or fax him the applicable statutes.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that section was being removed from the
statute. He suggested Amy Daugherty could discuss it with him.
Number 0320
MR. KOPPLIN asked whether, if HB 141 is adopted, it will supersede
the moratorium placed by the NPFMC or whether there would be two
different moratoriums and sets of regulations.
MR. KRYGIER explained, "Presently, the federal moratorium is still
in the federal process. It hasn't been published. The council's
already ready to go to the next step, and the next step would be a
license program. And what they'll do is, is they'll adopt a
license program which basically mimics what you do in the state
moratorium, so that they'll both be consistent out the back door."
Number 0411
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move the amended committee
substitute with the attached fiscal note. He asked unanimous
consent. There being no objection, CSHB 141(RES) moved from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0436
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|