Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/10/1999 01:15 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
February 10, 1999
1:15 p.m.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
TAPE(S)
99-6, SIDE(S) A & B
99-7, SIDE(S) A
CALL TO ORDER
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman, convened the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting at 1:15 p.m.
PRESENT
Committee members present at the call to order were Representatives
Ogan, Sanders, Harris, Morgan and Masek. Representatives Whitaker,
Joule and Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representative Barnes was excused.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Frank Rue, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
presented an overview of the department, followed by overviews of
their respective divisions by: Robert D.(Doug) Mecum, Director,
Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development; Wayne
Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation; Kevin
Delaney, Director, Division of Sport Fish; and Mary C. Pete,
Director, Division of Subsistence.
Also present were Kevin Brooks, Director, Division of
Administrative Services; and Ken Taylor, Director, Division of
Habitat and Restoration. However, there was insufficient time for
their presentations.
By special request through the House Rules Standing Committee, the
following excerpts relating to the testimony of Doug Mecum and Mary
Pete are provided:
TAPE 99-6, SIDE A
Number 482
ROBERT D. (DOUG) MECUM, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries
Management and Development, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), informed members that he had been on the job about one
month but had worked in the Southeast region 12 years. His
division has a $44 million budget, 60 percent ($25 million) general
fund, with 289 full-time and 600 seasonal employees. Organized
into four regions, it has one headquarters office and about 40
permanent and seasonal offices around the state.
MR. MECUM advised members of his division's mission to optimize and
sustain the yield of resources that are important for subsistence,
commercial use and personal use fisheries. Recent goals relate to
creating opportunities for Alaskans to participate in new and
developing fisheries. In the last several years, the division has
worked with the industry to improve quality and value of the
commercial harvest, particularly in the salmon fisheries.
MR. MECUM agreed that there is a fairly diverse set of
responsibilities. He said although commercial fisheries is the
main emphasis, the division manages subsistence fisheries around
the state, as well as all personal use fisheries with the exception
of some in Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. Also important is
fish hatchery oversight and planning, although the state is now out
of the hatchery business from a general fund standpoint. The
division is also involved in some fishery rehabilitation and
enhancement work, as well as developing new fisheries and
supporting mariculture.
MR. MECUM restated Commissioner Rue's observation that the ADF&G's
responsibilities extend 200 miles for crab fishery management, and
for coordinating on groundfish management with the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). Many staff members are
extensively involved in treaty negotiations, some of which are
going on right now in Portland, Oregon. In addition, many staff
are extensively involved with the NPFMC process, as well as with
crab and groundfish plans.
MR. MECUM advised members that commercial fishing is Alaska's
largest private sector employer; in some areas of the state, it is
the only major source of employment. Taxes generated from
commercial fisheries harvest provide the second largest
contribution to the general fund. Annual earnings of more than $1
billion come from Alaska's commercial fisheries; that figure
doesn't include the wholesale level but is ex-vessel value to the
fishermen. Mr. Mecum mentioned undeveloped fishery resources,
noting that many opportunities exist for economic activity.
MR. MECUM touched briefly on current major issues. Mentioning the
"salmon disaster" in Western Alaska, he said the federal government
is about to give Alaska $50 million, most of which will pay people
affected by the poor salmon returns; of that amount, approximately
$7 million is going to research in the Western Alaska area.
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his understanding that most of that money is
going to municipalities for capital improvement projects, rather
than into the hands of the people who were directly affected.
MR. MECUM replied, "I guess more correctly I should say that a
significant portion of that is going to direct payments to
individuals. I don't know the specific numbers. Off the top of my
head, I think it's about half-and-half, but I could be wrong about
the numbers." He indicated his division is only dealing with the
$7 million targeted for research, not those funds. They are
developing a research plan for those funds, an issue Mr. Mecum had
addressed in the House Special Committee on Fisheries a week or two
ago. He also indicated his division is trying to involve
stakeholder groups in the development of the research priorities,
which they hope to finalize within the next month or so.
MR. MECUM mentioned salmon marketing, saying they are working in
several different areas to try to improve both quality and value of
Alaska's commercial salmon harvest; they are participating in
salmon forums, such as the one coming up soon; and they are working
in cooperative task force groups with local fishermen, trying to
figure out ways to get full utilization and higher quality.
MR. MECUM briefly discussed developing fisheries, another source of
federal funds coming into Alaska; he indicated about $1.3 million
had come through U.S. Senator Stevens' office. Most of that money
is targeted towards developing sea urchin fisheries, although there
is some money for crab and groundfish fisheries.
Number 579
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked Mr. Mecum to expand on his reference to
unrealized potential in the fisheries industry.
MR. MECUM replied that in Southeast Alaska and many other areas of
the state, there are so-called under-utilized resources, species
like sea urchins, including red urchins and green urchins; sea
cucumbers; geoduck clams; horse clams; and littleneck clams. Only
recently have they started fisheries on some of those species. Mr.
Mecum stated, "What has been really stopping us from moving forward
quickly in the development of those fisheries is money. It takes
money to make money." He said the ADF&G has some federal funding
sources. In addition, in Southeast Alaska a dive fishery
association was created by legislation; members had met recently
and taxed themselves 7 percent on geoducks, for example, and 5
percent on sea cucumbers. Mr. Mecum explained, "Those funds are
intended to be used as part of the puzzle that we're trying to put
together here: existing state funds, limited as they are; new
federal moneys that are coming in; CIPs [capital improvement
projects] that the legislature has given us for developing
fisheries, in particular; and then the private industry segment,
which is -- I guess you could call it a partnership between all
those entities to try to bring funding to develop these species and
increase revenues to local communities."
MR. MECUM cited as an example the sea urchin fishery, which is
labor-intensive and creates many jobs. In Ketchikan, the NorQuest
Seafoods facility and other processing facilities provide a lot of
local employment. As the fishery develops, the hope is that it
will create secondary processing opportunities. Mr. Mecum said
"multiplying benefits" of those kinds of fisheries are enormous.
He stated, "In the one contract that we had with the one company in
the initial development phase, out of about a six million urchin
harvest and a $3 or $4 million value in terms of ex-vessel values,
we were looking at about $500,000 just in air freight alone to ship
that product out of state." He said the potential benefits are
enormous for some of these, although for some others the ADF&G is
still working on them but is unsure how well they will turn out.
Number 612
CO-CHAIR OGAN responded that he'd been involved in that
legislation. He indicated he would look favorably upon creative
ways that a fishery can fund itself for the expenses of being
managed by the ADF&G. He suggested that having a new fishery pay
its own way may be necessary in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE told members that the previous evening, in
another committee, he had heard from the community of Adak, which
is starting onshore codfish processing. He asked what involvement
the ADF&G has in that.
MR. MECUM replied, "We're actually already working with them. We
met with them yesterday, and we talked about the projects that
they're interested in. They are going to need to go to the Board
of Fisheries, they're going to need to work with the council
process, they're going to need to work with us on trying to get
this onshore allocation, this local, slow-paced,
local-community-benefit type of a fishery going. It's already been
done by the Board of Fisheries in several areas around the state,
Kodiak area in particular, the Chignik area, where they've created
onshore allocations in the state waters for local Pacific cod
fisheries. So, that is their hope, is to be able ... to try to put
that together. Right now, they have the opportunity to participate
in the existing fisheries; the fisheries go on all year. What
they're looking is at is down the road having some sort of ... a
state waters allocation, so that they can have a slow-paced,
year-long fishery to support those processing operations there."
Number 635
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that halibut fishermen can fish almost whenever
they want to, as long as they don't exceed their individual quotas.
A halibut fisherman himself ever since moving to Alaska, he
recalled that Southeast Alaska used to have one-day or two-day
openings, during which time there would be intense fishing
pressure. However, because most people fished far offshore, it
didn't affect the halibut migrating in shallower water, which they
do every year. Now, he said, commercial halibut fishermen may
operate alongside sport boats, and he has noticed a tremendous
decline in the halibut catch in Southeast Alaska's inland waters,
at least where he fishes in Icy Strait. He said he has heard that
complaint elsewhere; he noted that there have been numerous
resolutions from communities statewide opposing this, and that
there is another side issue regarding management of resources in
navigable waters. He asked whether there is something Alaska can
do to limit where the halibut fishermen fish during that season, so
as to not impact the sport harvest. He suggested that the impact
is fairly severe, indicating some lodge owners are suffering,
especially when salmon runs are poor.
MR. MECUM agreed with Co-Chair Ogan's overall assessment of what
has happened since the implementation of the IFQ [Individual
Fishery Quota] system, which has changed the behavior of the
commercial halibut fleet, as well as the distribution of fishing
effort. He said it has created some problems, one reason why the
Board of Fisheries is now involved in the development of local area
management plans. Mr. Mecum explained, "It's a process whereby the
board goes around the state. Local sport groups, commercial
groups, other interested people can work together on trying to
develop management plans to sort out some of these issues. The
board tries to deal with those plans as they're developed, and they
also need to be run by the council process. So, there's a protocol
or a coordination that has to occur between the federal government
and the state. That program, or that process, has only recently
started in the last two years. I can't really give you an
assessment for how well that's going to work out in trying to solve
some of these problems, but I can say that the effort ... is being
made through the board of fish process."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there had been a look at litigating
over the IFQ issue. He referred to the Submerged Lands Act of
1953, indicating it rather simplistically says the state was
granted a fee-simple title and the right to manage all the
resources therein of all the submerged land. He added, "We
acquired it under our Statehood Act in 1959, but yet it would seem
to me that we've got another federal program that's being overlaid
on top of our state's sovereign rights to manage our resources,
telling us that, no, we're going to do it differently, we're going
to create this whole system; and surely we would have some say, at
least in the navigable waters, when and where these guys could
fish." Acknowledging that the state may be able to do nothing
about the IFQs themselves, Co-Chair Ogan asked whether the state
can control the zones where commercial halibut fishermen fish, as
well as the times, placing some restrictions to help out lodge
operators, in particular, as well as subsistence fishers and people
like himself who want to stock their freezers.
MR. MECUM said he couldn't answer whether litigation was
contemplated or formulated on that issue. He then stated, "I can
say that our authorities are somewhat weak. We do have some
control in terms of closures in state waters, but very little
control on what happens in the federal waters." He noted that the
halibut fishery itself is further complicated by its being managed
by the International Pacific Halibut Commission because of the
highly ranging nature of the species.
TAPE 99-6, SIDE B
[Beginning of tape, but Number 702 in log notes]
FRANK RUE, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
concurred that the ADF&G has been successful in separating the
conflicts between different user groups through these local area
management plans. He said Sitka is the one place where they have
done that. He mentioned Kodiak, then said Cook Inlet is another
place with a "pretty hot potential conflict" among commercial,
sport and charter interests; he said he believes they have begun
discussions and realize their areas of interest overlap. He
suggested Kevin Delaney, Director, Division of Sport Fish, could
shed light on that, then added that they have not proceeded very
far in developing a management plan, which the Board of Fisheries
can do. Commissioner Rue stated, "Basically the council has said,
If you do it, we'll rubber-stamp it.'" He noted that the NPFMC
doesn't want to get into local area management plans on halibut,
which is an international resource; the council wants to deal with
the bigger picture. Therefore, the board basically has the ability
to deal with these specific issues where there is conflict. "But
the allocation comes from the international commission," he added.
"They tell us how many we can catch, basically."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the IFQs came from federal law.
COMMISSIONER RUE affirmed that, then added, "By the time, as I
recall, Governor Knowles became governor, it was basically an
implemented deal. And, you know, ... it's going to be a very
tumultuous deal." He stated his understanding that the whole
program will come up for review in a few years, although he doesn't
know the timing of that. [He requested confirmation of that; Kevin
Delaney replied, but it was unintelligible on tape.] Commissioner
Rue then said there is a national academy study on the effects of
IFQs that he believes may go before Congress, although he couldn't
remember exactly. He emphasized that the issue is being looked at,
adding that he believes the federal government may look at that
whole issue again. He agreed to find out when it would be up for
review and to inform the committee aide.
Number 767
MR. MECUM responded to Representative Harris's earlier questions
regarding processor capacity in Prince William Sound by offering to
work with his office to provide information on what issues the
ADF&G sees with processor capacity. He said the Governor has the
authority to bring in foreign processing, as one example, if it is
demonstrated that there won't be capacity to utilize those fish.
Mr. Mecum referred to the pollock fishery and said one particular
floating processor that would have normally been there is not. He
again offered to update Representative Harris' office, as well as
the committee, on what is happening there.
Number 787
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what the ADF&G's salmon forecast is
for the Arctic Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) / Bristol Bay district.
MR. MECUM said it is not good. Last year, the Bristol Bay catch
was around 13 million, about what they are forecasting now. He
stated, "For the AYK region, don't expect the chum or chinook
numbers to improve much over what they were last year."
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said she knows the ADF&G is interested in
applying $7 million to research. Stating her understanding that
the department has nothing concrete in terms of which research
approaches it will take, she requested that Mr. Mecum inform her
office and the committee when he knows that.
MR. MECUM agreed. He noted that he had already committed to keep
the House Special Committee on Fisheries abreast of that process,
as well.
Number 813
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to Speaker of the House Porter's
announcement that a plan is being considered for a use priority for
subsistence in times of shortage, under Article VIII, Section 4.
He asked whether those fisheries in the AYK area and in Bristol Bay
are being managed for sustained yield. He noted that Bristol Bay
has a discrete stock management, and people target fish in
different zones, except perhaps on the ebb tide on the North Line.
MR. MECUM replied, "Yes, we are in Bristol Bay. In fact, we were
right on. Kvichak was a little bit of a problem, but we think
that's going to improve. But if you look at the escapement goals
for all those systems, we're amazingly close, even though we had
fairly limited returns and limited fishing. So, sustained yield is
not the issue, something that's happening out there in the ocean,
and that's one of the main reasons why this money is coming in for
research, and why we want to take a comprehensive look at what's
going on." He said in the Yukon River he believes there are some
more serious concerns, partly because of lack of knowledge. In
some areas, the ADF&G doesn't have good escapement information, so
they are going to try to beef that up. And some areas have
depressed runs and some chronic problems; he cited Kuskokwim River
chums as an example. Mr. Mecum concluded, "So, I guess ... my
feeling is that sustained yield is not being threatened, but there
are some chronic problems that we ... need to try to address to see
if we can turn it around and bring those resources back into a
higher level of productivity."
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to a potential constitutional change where
the highest preference would be sustained yield, followed by
subsistence. He asked whether Mr. Mecum would, in that case, see
a change in the management scenario for commercial fisheries,
especially in Bristol Bay and the False Pass area, Area M.
MR. MECUM replied, "No, I wouldn't. I mean, we're already managing
for a subsistence priority and for sustained yield, pretty much
everywhere that I'm aware of." He said he couldn't comment further
on the legislation being introduced because he hadn't seen it, but
he understands that there are still outstanding questions about how
these preferences would be applied, and about ANILCA [Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act].
CO-CHAIR OGAN clarified that no legislation is being introduced at
this point; it is still just a concept. He said it seems that the
escapement for subsistence hasn't been met, or else people wouldn't
be putting salmon on helicopters and flying them out to rural
Alaska.
MR. MECUM said that is a good point, specifying that subsistence
needs are not being met right now in some of these areas.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said it would seem logical to him that if there were
a constitutionally mandated preference, then in times of shortage
"subsistence needs shall be met" would be the highest priority. He
suggested that if the statutes reflected that, some commercial
fishermen would have to sit on the sidelines until the escapement
goals were met, first for sustained yield and then for subsistence.
He asked whether that is a fair assumption.
MR. MECUM said that is correct.
Number 896
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that the Kotzebue Sound chum
fishery, one of the smaller commercial fisheries in Northwestern
Alaska, had a terrible season this past year. Whereas Bristol Bay
may have seen a 40 percent or 60 percent return, the Kotzebue Sound
chum return was perhaps 10 percent. He said in terms of scaling a
disaster, there was certainly one there in terms of fish numbers,
although it is a small fishery. Representative Joule asked about
the determination of who can receive this disaster aid, and he
requested to see the matrix for that, if it is completed.
MR. MECUM deferred to Mary Pete, who had been heavily involved in
that process.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked whether the timing of the "pollock B"
season has been changed at all. He noted that there had been
hearings in Anchorage, or perhaps some decisions.
MR. MECUM said he didn't know but would provide the answer.
[End of first requested portion]
TAPE 99-7, SIDE A
[Tape begins at Number 444 in log notes; Ms. Pete's testimony
begins shortly thereafter]
MARY C. PETE, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, came forward to give a brief overview of her
division. She told members her division's mission is to conduct
research, to document subsistence uses; to estimate harvest levels
and needs for these resources; and to evaluate potential impacts
from other uses and development activities. She said subsistence
is a major contributor to the state's economy and a major source of
employment in rural Alaska. Subsistence activities produce 45
million pounds of food for families in Alaska.
MS. PETE advised members that the division employs about 40
permanent staff statewide, with offices in Juneau, Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Dillingham, Bethel, Kotzebue and Angoon. They hire
about 70 nonpermanent subsistence monitors annually, in more than
60 rural communities, primarily to assess harvest of marine
mammals, waterfowl, salmon and big game. The division has two main
products. First is a technical paper series, nearly 250 reports of
the division's work in about 200 communities since 1980. The
second product is the community profile database, which is
socioeconomic and subsistence harvest information on consumption
per capita, by family, by community and by region. The information
is available by census district, by species, by resource type and
by year; this has proven to be important for management and
development of resources in Alaska, and it is invaluable in
responding, for example, to the disaster this past summer.
MS. PETE mentioned the division's special assignments: the
division serves as liaison between the ADF&G and the federal
subsistence program, and it monitors federal activities to
represent the state's interests. Ms. Pete also serves as co-chair
with her Canadian counterpart in the United States-Canada Yukon
salmon treaty negotiations; she therefore has division staff
dedicated to helping her with that work. Furthermore, the division
is involved in the EVOS [Exxon Valdez oil spill] project
coordination, to "document subsistence as an injured service" and
to help communities adjust to the oil spill; they are helping with
the ten-year EVOS retrospective coming up in March. Finally, this
past year the division has been very involved in the state's
disaster response, particularly in the Arctic Yukon-Kuskokwim
region.
MS. PETE concluded her overview by stressing the importance of
having accurate subsistence information. She told members the
division is systematic about gathering information in order to
maximize nonsubsistence uses and opportunities, because subsistence
is a priority use.
Number 617
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Ms. Pete to address his earlier
question.
MS. PETE replied, "Myself and my staff got involved in the disaster
response, and primarily because we're there, we're in the
communities, and commercial fisheries staff is busy monitoring the
salmon run. So, we had our community profile database to help us
assess how bad the situation was as the Governor's task force went
around the state. The disaster policy cabinet was involved in
decisions almost on a daily basis, and they had to make fairly
quick decisions as we sort of regrouped to assess how we made
decisions. The decision process is public and outlined; we can
give that to you, you know, at what point, at what juncture a
community or an area was in or out from the initial declaration.
The matrix that you referred to is still being refined, because
we're finding that, depending on the area, for example,
unemployment statistics mean one thing; in another, they mean
something entirely different, depending on who gathered that
information. And just to make sure we're talking 'apples and
apples' throughout the state, we want to make sure that that matrix
reflects that. So, there's a little bit of refinement of the
matrix going on."
MS. PETE continued, "I do know in the case of the Northwest Arctic
Borough it's certainly true that the runs were disastrous, were
very horrible when you look at the big picture. However, based in
part on the employment statistics, which we want to make sure ...
are comparable around the state, we're finding, depending on the
year, that the commercial fishing industry itself contributes a
very small percentage. Even though the biological disaster is
certainly real, the economic disaster isn't comparable to the rest
of the state. But that's certainly open to interpretation, and
that's why we want to make sure the matrix is accurate. And that's
where we stand with it."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he understands that, but that sometimes
he has a hard time trying to explain it to the 26 fishermen who
were impacted.
MS. PETE said that is understandable, then added, "Part of that is
to separate market forces from the biological disaster. There's
been fisheries that have been suffering for years because they
don't have a market or the price has been ... rock-bottom."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated his understanding that that fishery
once had more than 200 permits. However, only 40 were used this
year, and the total fishery was worth $70,000, down hundreds of
thousands of dollars, if not millions, from previous levels. He
said not only was last year a disaster, but the fishery has
plummeted, at a commercial level, for a series of years.
Number 635
CO-CHAIR OGAN apologized to Mr. Brooks and Mr. Taylor that there
wouldn't be time for their presentations. He then paraphrased his
recollection of Ms. Pete's testimony the past year before the
House Finance Standing Committee, saying, "Essentially, you
characterized that most subsistence needs, or almost all
subsistence needs, were being met in the state, that there wasn't
a big problem ... with people obtaining subsistence harvest of fish
and game." He asked whether that is a fair characterization.
MS. PETE said that is accurate.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether that has changed since last year, with
the Bristol Bay disaster and what is going on in the AYK region.
MS. PETE responded, "Well, the Yukon suffered subsistence
restrictions, pretty drastic restrictions as you move upriver.
Needs weren't met, so there was some belief by the state."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked, "Pretty much everybody got their subsistence
fishing done in Bristol Bay?"
MS. PETE replied, "Yes. Both the Kuskokwim and the Bristol Bay
current assessments show that subsistence needs were met, in part
because there wasn't competition by commercial users."
Number 667
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether his understanding is correct that sport
fish account for 5 percent or less of the state total catch.
MS. PETE said that is about right, although it fluctuates,
depending on the size of the commercial fishery.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. Pete agrees with Mr. Mecum's
assessment that if there were a constitutionally protected priority
for subsistence use in times of shortage, the state would have to
manage first for sustained yield and then second for subsistence,
and some commercial fishermen would sit it out, while there would
be enough escapement for subsistence.
MS. PETE replied, "That's correct, and that's exactly what we did."
CO-CHAIR OGAN said, "Because right now, technically, we do manage
it for a subsistence priority in statute; is that not correct?"
MS. PETE answered, "Yes, we do have a (indisc.) law that we manage
for."
[End of second requested portion; concludes right before
adjournment]
COMMITTEE ACTION
The committee took no action.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:05 p.m.
NOTE:
The meeting was recorded and handwritten log notes were taken.
Except for the sections relating to the testimony of Doug Mecum and
Mary Pete, no other portions were transcribed. A copy of the
tape(s) and log notes may be obtained by contacting the House
Records Office at 130 Seward Street, Suite 211, Juneau, Alaska
99801-1182, (907) 465-2214, and after adjournment of the second
session of the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, in the
Legislative Reference Library.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|