Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1996 08:31 AM 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, 1996
8:31 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL 547
"An Act relating to a four-year moratorium on entry into Southeast
Alaska dive fisheries; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED HB 547 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 342
"An Act relating to water quality."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 547
SHORT TITLE: MORATORIUM ON S.E. DIVE FISHERIES
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/25/96 3310 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/25/96 3310 (H) RESOURCES
03/27/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 342
SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/09/95 2042 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/09/95 2042 (H) O&G, RESOURCES
10/17/95 (H) O&G AT 1:00 PM ANCHORAGE LIO
10/17/95 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/13/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/21/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/22/96 3267 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 1DP 3NR
03/22/96 3268 (H) DP: ROKEBERG
03/22/96 3268 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, B.DAVIS, WILLIAMS
03/22/96 3268 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)
03/22/96 3268 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/27/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3715
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement CS HB 547.
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, AK 99801-8079
Telephone: (907) 789-6160
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish and Game
P. O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
CLAY BEZENEK, President
Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
P. O. Box 6464
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3738
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
SCOTT HEITMAN
MV Seahad
3213 Timberline Court
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9227
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
JAMES L. LeCRONE
P. O. Box 541
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7992
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
LARRY TRANI, President
Sitka Chapter - Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
2008 HPR
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8114
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
ANDREW KITTAMS, Diver
Petersburg Chapter, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
P. O. Box 1544
Petersburg, AK 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-4823
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
STEVE LACROIX, Board Member
Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
P. O. Box 5686
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 772-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
PATRICK CASSIN
Sea Urchin Test Fishery
P. O. Box 109
Metlakatla, AK 99826
Telephone: (907) 886-3195
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 547.
TOM TRUMPETER
P. O. Box 8641
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 886-6546
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
GRANT THOMPSON
P. O. Box 333 Katlian
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-7889
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
BURGESS BAUDER
P. O. Box 277
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3056
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
MIKE BANGS
P. O. Box 1733
Petersburg, AK 99833
Telephone: 772-3720
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
MICHAEL REIF
P. O. Box 2346
Sitka, AK 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6005
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 647.
DEREK THYNES
P. O. Box 1015
Petersburg, AK 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 547.
LARRY COTTER
Pacific Associates
234 Gold Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS HB 547.
SUSAN BRALEY, Chief
Water Quality Technical Services
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Ak 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5308
POSITION STATEMENT: The department has concerns with CS HB 342.
KATY MCKERNEY, Water Quality Specialist
Water Quality Technical Services
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5302
POSITION STATEMENT: Available for questions on CS HB 342.
BECKY GAY, Executive Director
Resource Development Council
121 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 250
Anchorage, AK 99503-2035
Telephone: (907) 276-0700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CS HB 342.
BRIAN CREWDSON
3000 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 786-5511
POSITION STATEMENT: Available for questions on CS HB 342.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-43, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS called the House Resources
Committee meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams Green, Austerman,
Davies, Long and Nicholia. Representatives Barnes, Kott and Ogan
arrived late.
HB 547 - MORATORIUM ON S.E. DIVE FISHERIES
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. "BILL" WILLIAMS stated his intent to move HB
547 out of committee. He requested a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for HB 547, version (F), for purposes of discussion.
Number 131
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA moved for the adoption of CSHB 547.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 150
CHERYL SUTTON, Legislative Staff to Representative Williams, read
the sponsor statement into the record:
"House Bill 547 would place a moratorium on new entrants into four
of the Southeast Alaska dive fisheries. It would include sea
urchin, sea cucumber, geoduck and abalone. The Southeast dive
fishery is a discrete fishery different from other parts of the
state and the participants are unique to Southeast.
MS. SUTTON read, "Commercial fishermen are attempting to diversify
within commercial fisheries. In the Southeast dive fisheries,
diversification is occurring by fishing for more than one species.
This increased interest and effort caused the number of divers to
be precariously high at the end of 1995.
MS. SUTTON said, "The purpose of this moratorium is to set aside a
period of time for examination of each aspect of the Southeast dive
fisheries absent concern of increasing harvest effort. There is
more than keen interest in the dive fisheries from residents and
non-residents. The Department of Fish and Game has been gathering
assessment and management data on these fisheries. A moratorium on
new entry into the Southeast Alaska dive fisheries is necessary to
allow a proper review and analysis of the sea cucumber, abalone,
sea urchin and geoduck fisheries.
MS. SUTTON continued, "The Southeast Alaska sea urchin fishery
cannot be opened due to lack of research and management. The large
number of new divers interested in this fishery would be difficult
to manage and may threaten the sustained yield management of the
sea urchin resource.
Number 263
MS. SUTTON proceeded, "House Bill 547 places a four-year moratorium
on entrants into the sea cucumber, sea urchin, geoduck and abalone
fisheries. The moratorium is necessary to provide an opportunity
to investigate alternative means of fishing effort regulation that
may be more appropriate for these fisheries.
MS. SUTTON said, "Coordination of available data and investigation
into the management of these fisheries should provide long-term
opportunities to the state and its residents. These valuable
fishery resources need special attention. House Bill 547 would
provide the mechanism for the development of sustainable fisheries
which provide the best economic opportunity to the participants and
the best economic return for the state."
Number 315
MS. SUTTON briefed the committee on the CS for HB 547 explaining
changes from the original bill. Section 1. Legislative Findings,
adds:
(6) individuals who participated in the abalone, sea cucumber, and
geoduck fisheries in Southeast Alaska during 1994 and 1995, would
have been likely to participate in a sea urchin fishery during
those years if a fishery had occurred;
(7) current economic dependence on a fishery is best demonstrated
by recent participation in, and economic reliance upon, a fishery;.
Number 355
MS. SUTTON explained, Section 2 (d) adds: (1) during calendar year
1992 or 1993, the applicant commercially harvested sea urchin in
the Southeast Alaska sea urchin fishery while holding the
appropriate interim-use permits;.
Number 369
MS. SUTTON briefed the committee on the intent of the legislation:
Section 1. Legislative Findings that support placing a moratorium
on these four species.
Section 2. Deals with how it will be executed. We have created
two years for each species for qualifying years to fish during the
moratorium. If someone has fished for sea cucumber, geoduck, or
abalone during calendar years 1994-1995, they would be allowed to
fish during the moratorium. For sea urchin, because there has not
been a commercial fishery in recent years and they are in an
assessment by test fishery mode, the bill goes back to calendar
years 1992 and 1993 to be consistent with qualifying years. The
geoduck qualification was extended through January 1996 because the
fishery was occurring then and there were residents who were
participating in the fishery.
MS. SUTTON explained that the Limited Entry Commission does not
know at this time whether it will be necessary to limit entrance
into these fisheries and the moratorium will provide the time to
examine the issue. There is a real concern within the Department
of Fish and Game on the increased effort. There is an enormous
amount of interest in these resources from places like Maine,
Oregon, Washington State and California. They have harvested some
of these resources in other parts of the country and some in
Alaska. Alaska needs to get a handle on the management of these
fisheries and the moratorium will buy the time to do that.
Number 536
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN wanted to know if HB 547 sunsets limited
entry.
MS. SUTTON replied that the bill allows people who have
participated in those dive fisheries during the qualifying years
laid out in the bill to participate in the fisheries during the
period of the moratorium which is up to four years. Any one of
those species can come out by the legislature creating another law
to bring them out. It just limits the people during the period of
the moratorium, it does not necessarily mean that the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission will find that each one of these species
needs to have a limited access by whatever means. It just is for
the period of the moratorium. After that period, the findings will
determine who, what, when and where.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected, so it is limited entry for a four
year period.
Number 601
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the arrival of Representatives Ogan,
Kott and Austerman.
Number 605
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG wondered if this legislation would be
extension of the limited entry program.
MS. SUTTON stated that the moratorium falls under the commission's
present duties and responsibilities. What the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission will do during the time the moratorium is in
place, is they will work with the participants in the fishery, the
Department of Fish and Game, the Board of Fisheries and their own
staff to look at the available information and make determinations
about the effort in these fisheries.
Number 662
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN professed his support for the concept
of the moratorium saying that the state needs to look at more of
its fisheries, especially, the new fisheries, and make sure that we
do not disallow what the state has done in the past with crab and
shrimp. He advocated private enterprise, but stressed that this is
a finite resource, and by allowing the private sector to come in
and devour everything, we end up destroying a fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that the bill will give the
state time to protect the fisheries while fishing continues and
information can be gathered. He contended that this is not a
limited entry system in the true sense but it give us a moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN deduced that at the end of four years,
there may be fisheries that do not need to be limited. We do not
know that because of how we, as legislators, continue to cut the
Department of Fish and Game's budget. For example, there are only
two crab biologists in the state of Alaska; one crab biologist is
retiring and the department is leaving that position vacant because
of budget constraints.
Number 777
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES questioned the eligibility requirements
of the moratorium suggesting that the bill appears to gerrymander
the dates and recommended the committee look at a definite
interval.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the bill seems to allow people to cross
fish sea urchins and asked for an explanation.
MS. SUTTON replied that sea urchins were commercially fished a
number of years ago and were not fished very strongly because the
market did not support the fishery. Sea urchins are in a test
fishery mode, with no commercial opportunity. The Department of
Fish and Game is trying to investigate how they might manage this
fishery.
MS. SUTTON referred to Legislative Finding (6) stating that the sea
urchin fishery was treated differently, Representative Williams did
not want to exclude the folks who did participate before it went
into an assessment mode. That is why the qualification years go
back to the early calendar years in 1992 and 1993. The bill is
cross-pollinated because the folks who were fishing in the other
dive fisheries probably would have fished in the sea urchin fishery
had it been open for that opportunity.
MS. SUTTON explained the reason the geoduck fishery was extended is
because the season was open in January 1996. There were local
residents who participated and Representative Williams did not want
to exclude those folks because the fishery was open.
Number 949
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wanted to know if the abalone fishery closes
at the end of the calendar year.
MS. SUTTON deferred to Frank Homan, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to Ms. Sutton's comments about cross
pollination of sea urchins and asked why geoduck and abalone were
not considered.
MS. SUTTON answered because of the numbers of participants in those
fisheries, and the fact that they were open continuously without
interruption, our office felt the sea urchin was a special
circumstance.
Number 1080
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN supported the fact that the state needs to come
to terms with its fisheries. He wondered if there was potential
for the permits to increase in value.
MS. SUTTON explained that these are not permits. She elaborated
that the purpose of the moratorium is to buy time, without
additional pressure, to make proper assessments. She agreed with
Representative Austerman's comments about there being no money to
manage a sea urchin fishery. There is assessment data, but there
is no money to manage that fishery. All of those things have to be
figured out and they have to be figured out in an atmosphere where
there are no additional pressures on the resource. A moratorium
provides that protection.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that his line of questions were for
educational purposes rather than argument. Has there been a
consideration for a two-year moratorium? Of those who do not
qualify, are those fishermen supportive of the moratorium?
Number 1189
MS. SUTTON claimed that there are folks who do not qualify under
one fishery, or another and see the need for, and support, the
moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the permits were transferable.
MS. SUTTON advised that the permits were not transferable.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that if the permits were not
transferable, then there was no value to them.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked that staff point that out in the bill.
MS. SUTTON stated that the limited entry commissioner would provide
more information on that concern.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if limiting the fishing seasons was an
alternative to enacting a moratorium.
MS. SUTTON said the seasons are severely limited, abalone is,
basically, nonexistent at this time, in terms of the opportunity to
fish in it. The sea cucumber is, maybe, one day a week during a
select period of time. The department has gone to every management
tool they can to hone down opportunity. Representative Williams
wants to look at all of the fisheries and see if there is a better
management regime, and it is hard to do that under pressure of not
knowing how many participants there are going to be in that period
of time.
Number 1302
FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
referred to statistical tables in committee packets and encouraged
members to use them as reference.
MR. HOMAN began, What is happening in dive fisheries is sort of a
classic example of fisheries that are headed toward a distressed
situation. In the statistics, the average harvests per individual,
or the average harvest per participant, is declining which means
there is more and more pressure being put on the resource and the
number of participants are increasing.
MR. HOMAN informed that the abalone season is almost down to no
season at all because there is no ability to limit the number of
participants in the fishery.
MR. HOMAN related that the sea urchin fishery has been closed for
two years because the department cannot control the number of
participants into that fishery. In the bill, the other dive
fisheries would be allowed to fish in that fishery, that is, only
if it opens. As long as the sea urchin fishery remains closed,
even those eligible under this bill would not be allowed to fish.
Whether that clears itself up in the four year moratorium or not,
it is possible that there would not be a sea urchin fishery in that
time except for the test fishery.
Number 1433
MR. HOMAN applauded Representative Williams office, the department
and the divers, forming a unit in Southeast Alaska, working toward
alternatives in the long term.
MR. HOMAN said the moratorium just stops the procedure of entry
into the fishery but does not necessarily lead to a limitation of
any of the four fisheries in question.
Number 1518
MR. HOMAN returned to the origin of limited entry program: two
criteria set out in statute say a fishery can be limited for two
purposes: resource conservation and the economic health of the
fishery. If the fisheries are in distress, they can easily be
closed completely by the department so that no one is able to
participate. However, in the purpose of the limited entry
commission purpose they do add a balance in there saying the
economic health of the fishery. What the legislature was trying to
craft at that time was to allow the fishermen in Alaska to
participate in a balance with the resource so that both would
remain healthy and have a sustained yield over time.
Number 1594
MR. HOMAN clarified for Chairman Green that during the time of the
moratorium, the commission would issue "interim use permits" and an
interim use permit has no value and they are nontransferable except
in some very extenuating circumstances, such as a medical reason.
Number 1671
MR. HOMAN explained a reason for the bill is also the timeliness of
the legislature being able to act on a moratorium. By this bill,
the legislature can declare the moratorium as of a specific date.
The commission has a statute that allows for moratorium, but it is
a very complex statute and requires the Department of Fish and Game
and the commissioner to make findings that a moratorium should be
established, it also requires the Board of Fisheries to authorize
the department to petition the commission to act on a moratorium.
MR. HOMAN predicted that testimony from the divers would indicate
that time is of the essence and the longer that these fisheries
remain open to entry, the higher the numbers will be and the worse
the situation will be.
Number 1692
MR. HOMAN related that there is a model available for a moratorium.
Four years ago, the legislature adopted a moratorium for the
Southeast Dungeness Crab fishery and during that four year period,
the commission was able to work with the department and the fleet
and come up with an acceptable solution to the increasing numbers.
He encouraged legislative consideration of HB 547.
Number 1728
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES understood Alaska's constitution,
Article A, Section III, that the fish and game resources of the
state belong to all the people for the common use and are to be
managed under the sustained yield principle. She asked whether it
is not, historically, true that the Department of Fish and Game is
mandated to manage under the sustained yield principle through
their own bags and limits of harvests rather than allowing one
fisherman an opportunity over another one.
Number 1768
MR. HOMAN replied that Representative Barnes had hit on a key
element of the reason for the passage of the Limited Entry Act
which was that there was no ability until 1972 to limit the number
of fishermen. There was no way, other than closing seasons,
eventually, to keep the fisheries economical. A constitutional
amendment in 1972 allowed a restriction on the number of entrants,
the reasoning was that at least, for those people in there, there
would be an economically viable fishery.
Number 1873
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the limited entry law that was
passed, as a constitutional amendment by the people, and asked if
that law was for a specific fishery or a specific species.
MR. HOMAN responded that the intent was for fisheries of Alaska.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES alluded to limited entry permits that apply
to salmon fishing and asked if the permits were costly, almost
impossible to buy back once they are sold to out of state
fishermen. She asked, "How did you determine through the limited
entry commission that one permit was not transferrable but another
permit was transferrable." She wanted to know how the limited
entry commission determined that it had the right to limit
fisheries into this fishery.
Number 1870
MR. HOMAN answered that the constitution allowed the limited entry
commission to limit any commercial fishery in the state. In order
to do that, the commission has to investigate that fishery and do
substantial research into who is participating and the resource
that is available. These determinations take a long time to
investigate and to consult with the Department of Fish and Game in
each specific fishery.
MR. HOMAN informed, at the very beginning, there were 19 different
salmon fisheries that the legislature said were distressed and the
commission did not have to do the economic analysis because it was,
at the time, evident that they were distressed, particularly,
Bristol Bay fisheries were in a disaster. The legislature told the
commission on those specific fisheries they could limit without the
analysis. Since that time, on every fishery that has been limited,
the commission had conducted that analysis and public hearings.
Number 1966
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reasoned that the bill establishes limited
entry for a short period of time. He questioned the need for a
bill when it appears that the commission has the authority to
establish a four year moratorium.
MR. HOMAN explained one of the problems with the moratorium statute
is that the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission cannot instigate
the moratorium. It requires a request from the commissioner of the
Department of Fish and Game and the approval of the Board of Fish.
The moratorium legislation was adopted at a time when there was
concern about fisheries limitations and, particularly, what the
federal agencies were doing. The commission was restricted from
the ability to adopt a moratorium and, on our own initiative, we
cannot adopt a moratorium. It has to come from outside the agency.
Number 2077
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reiterated that if the Department of Fish
and Game had the staff to research these fisheries to find out how
big they are and what they can sustain, the state would not be in
this kind of situation. He argued that until that time, the state
has to have the ability to come in and stop the over fishing of a
resource. Even within the four year period, it will be difficult
for ADF&G and the commission to come up with guidance because they
do not have the money to do the work that needs to be done.
Number 2150
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for clarification on the interim use
permits.
MR. HOMAN responded, Title 16, Chapter 43, the commission issues
permits for all fisheries in the state but only some of them are
limited. The permits that are not permanent limited entry permits
are called interim use permits and they are not transferrable.
Number 2233
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game,
stated the department's support of the concept of the moratorium
and explained the department's perspective to the problems that
occur in managing these fisheries: Effort, what kind of resource
you are harvesting, what its productivity is, what level of harvest
it can sustain and then what kind of effort is going to be
harvesting that resource so that effort can be matched through
season and bag limits to what the resource can sustain over time.
MR. BRUCE stated that in these particular fisheries, these
organisms, we do not know a lot about them. They are difficult to
study, they are on the bottom of the ocean. We do know that,
generally, they are slow growing organisms susceptible to over
harvest. For example, geoducks can live to be as old as 100 years
and, typically, when they are harvested they are about 30 years
old. It does take a long time for the organisms to reach the point
at which they are harvestable.
Number 2300
MR. BRUCE apprised that, in season, it is important to gather
harvest data, to track progression of the fishery and to take the
available surplus and not exceed it. In cases where the fishery
occurs too rapidly, by the time the department assesses where we
are in the harvest, we have already exceeded the quota. Repeated
situations lead to stressing and over harvesting the resource, a
declining resource, and, ultimately, a resource that is trouble.
MR. BRUCE continued, in the dive fisheries, the Board of Fisheries,
has attempted to spread the fishery out by limiting the number of
days in the week that a fishery could occur. Those measures were
not successful because of the rapidly, increasing interest in these
fisheries because of the high value of the product. Other, similar
fisheries along the coast, in California, are going to limited
entry. People are being forced out of those fisheries and they are
looking for opportunities to diversify.
Number 2362
MR. BRUCE further stated that the moratorium would enable the
Department of Fish and Game to stabilize the fishery, conduct the
fishery in a more orderly manner, one that would be more matched to
the department's ability to do management and assessment with the
staff that it has. He hoped that in four years the legislature
might provide the department with more money to enable them to hire
more staff to manage the fisheries more effectively.
Number 2385
MR. BRUCE commented that the Board of Fisheries adopted, several
years ago, a regulation dealing with high impact emerging fisheries
which directed the department not to open those kinds of fisheries
unless the department had harvest assessment data and was managing
the fishery on a sustained basis. That is why the sea urchin
fishery was closed after its initial opening, the department did
not have an assessment program in place. The principle of managing
these fisheries is to prepare a crop assessment to determine what
the standing crop is, what kind of productivity there is, and what
percentage of that can be taken on a sustained basis and manage
from that.
MR. BRUCE stated the assessment was not in place for the sea
urchins and, therefore, did not have the fundamental element needed
to manage on a sustained basis. So, the fishery was not opened.
The department is working to complete management assessments in
several districts in Southeast Alaska. It is one option for doing
these kind of assessments without any additional general fund
support.
Number 2448
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wanted to know how much time it takes for the
commissioner to request a moratorium.
MR. BRUCE said the commissioner has to submit a request to the
Board of Fisheries and that would have to be added to their agenda.
In this case, the board is concluding their meeting cycle for this
year, so the earliest that it could go to them would be next winter
and then allowing them time to act upon it would take a year or two
....(change tape)
TAPE 96-43, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. BRUCE commented that Phil Daugherty, Department of Fish and
Game biologist would be available for questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that he would hear from witnesses on
the teleconference network.
Number 077
CLAY BEZENEK, President, Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast Alaska
Harvest Divers Association, testified on behalf of the association
encouraging the passage of HB 537. He agreed with Representative
Austerman that ADF&G is a great gun for the fishermen, but if the
department has no ammo, then they are not too effective.
Number 140
SCOTT HEITMAN testified from Ketchikan thanking Representative
Williams and his staff for introducing HB 547. He said we all want
a fishery group that will provide us with a decent living. We
believe this bill provides for a stable fishery in which Alaska
fishermen can invest capital.
Number 181
JAMES L. LECRONE testified from Sitka in support of HB 547. He
stated that there is too much pressure in the dive fisheries and
this bill looks like a good alternative.
Number 190
LARRY TRANI, President, Sitka Chapter - Alaska Harvest Divers
Association, testified on behalf of the members and stated that all
45 members currently dive in one or more of the dive fisheries and
are near unanimous in support of passage of HB 547 as written.
Number 229
ANDREW KITTAMS, Petersburg diver, testified on behalf of the
Petersburg Chapter, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers, in support of
HB 547. He said, we have seen decreased fishing time and, almost,
a 50 percent increase in all of our fisheries last year. It is
just not equitable to put money into our vessels to make them safe,
as well as the equipment, to go out and harvest these resources.
MR. KITTAMS addressed Representative Davies question about the bill
segregating between abalone, sea urchins, geoducks and sea
cucumbers. He said, there are 120 people fishing geoducks that
would be eligible under this moratorium. We were only allowed four
days of harvest last year, at six hours a day, for a total of 24
hours. In the sea cucumber fishery, there are about 400 people
fishing sea cucumbers and were allowed about eight, one day
openings, one day per week. He said if those 400 harvesters were
also allowed to fish geoducks or abalone, it would totally decimate
the amount of time for those of us who have put in the time and
effort to learn these fisheries. They are segregated because there
are different numbers of people, different harvest levels and
different resources to harvest in each fishery.
Number 291
STEVE LACROIX, Board of Directors, Ketchikan Chapter - Southeast
Alaska Harvest Divers Association, related that the committee had
heard earlier testimony from Clay Bezenek in full support of HB
547. He said he would focus on what will happen if this bill does
not pass. If the bill does not pass, the state is going to have so
many participants in these fisheries, coming from out of state,
that the divers will not be able to make the meager amount of money
that we have already been making. "We know that is going to happen
and that is why we consider this an emergency situation."
Number 311
PATRICK CASSIN testified from Ketchikan relating his experiences by
participating in the sea urchin test fishery. He expressed his
opinion to separate sea urchins from the legislation.
TOM TRUMPETER testified from Ketchikan stating his involvement in
sea urchin fishery for 20 years, nine years in Alaska. As a former
resident of California, he is aware of a great number of fishermen
waiting to come to Alaska when the fishery does open. He sees a
great need for something to done.
Number 421
GRANT THOMPSON testified from Sitka stating that he has a dive boat
and has been fishing since 1990. He agreed with HB 547 except for
several points: Geoducks, as is, makes it 60 percent out of state
divers for the next four years. He recommended adding a clause for
a person in school or the armed services during 1994-1995 that was
an Alaskan citizen and actively involved in industry. He expressed
opinion that it is important to control industry.
Number 460
BURGESS BAUDER testified from Sitka relating his experiences in the
dive fisheries and voiced his support of HB 547 as written.
Number 486
MIKE BANGS testified from Petersburg relating his experiences in
the dive fisheries and urged the committee's adoption of HB 547
which he feels is fair to everyone.
Number 535
MICHAEL REIF, Member, Sitka Chapter - Alaska Harvest Divers
Association, testified in support of HB 547 because the fisheries
resources of Alaska are very valuable. He said, "We, as divers,
are beginning to recognize this more and more. I believe HB 547 is
a rational approach to opening the sea urchin fishery." "This
fishery will be valuable some day and the question I ask, is this
bill going to provide more value for Alaskans or not? The answer
is, this bill will, because there are 533 people qualified under
this bill to fish sea urchins." He related that what he hears, and
what the Department of Fish and Game, hears is that big producers
are going to come from the East Coast, Maine, and from the West
Coast, Oregon, California and Washington. The moratorium is a tool
developed by the state to allow time elements to reevaluate and for
consideration, this tool is needed to protect the resources and the
economics of these resources.
Number 711
DEREK THYNES, lifetime Petersburg resident, testified on behalf of
the Petersburg Divers in support of HB 547 stating that he dives
for geoducks and sea cucumbers. He said, in the last year, between
1994 and 1995, those fisheries have doubled and he predicted that
geoducks will double within the next year.
SCOTT THOMAS, Ketchikan Chapter, Southeast Alaska Harvest Divers
Association testified in full support of HB 547. He related his
experiences in the geoduck and sea cucumber fisheries. He said the
bill addresses the problem now and, hopefully, the divers can
salvage something out of these fisheries.
Number 766
LARRY COTTER, Oceanfresh Alaska, explained that this company is
presently conducting a sea urchin test fishery in Metlakatla and
supports HB 547, in its entirety, with the exception of the
inclusion of sea urchins. He requested that sea urchins not be
included in the legislation because the company feels that the
fishery has not yet occurred. It is potentially a huge fishery in
Southeast Alaska, with millions of pounds of urchins available for
harvest, perhaps hundreds of jobs in the dive industry and millions
of dollars of value. Oceanfresh feels this fishery needs to be
developed in a very rational manner so that it maximizes the
economic return to Alaska and the job opportunities to Alaska. In
order to do that, that fishery needs to occur during the course of
a year. Our existing management techniques may not fit well with
the sea urchin fishery, but we hope that during the next year, the
Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game will work
together with the industry to analyze the existing management tools
and try to develop a management program for sea urchins that is
rational and fits the needs of that fishery.
MR. COTTER further expressed that, if at that time, it is deemed by
the board or by the legislature, next year, that a moratorium is
necessary, we would support the bill at that time. He asked the
committee to not close the door on alternatives to traditional
methods of management today.
Number 859
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Cotter to explain why rational
development of the industry would not be possible under this bill.
MR. COTTER replied that Oceanfresh believes that if traditional
open access for sea urchin occurs there will be a gold rush in
Southeast Alaska led by divers, from throughout the lower 48, who
have expertise in sea urchins and they will be accompanied by sea
urchin companies who have the expertise that we, currently, do not
have available in Alaska. We think that the value will be consumed
by nonresidents and the fishery will last a very short period of
time. We do not think that is in the best interest of Alaska.
MR. COTTER continued, "In order to avoid that, one might say that
we should have a moratorium and put it into effect now so that we
limit the participation by non residents." " Oceanfresh thinks in
the last case scenario, yeah, that is the way to do it." "But we
think there are other alternatives and other approaches that might
be used to maximize Alaskan participation." "There are a lot of
Alaskan fishermen in Southeast Alaska who could dive for a living
and have not dove for a living yet, but given the situation of the
salmon industry, they may choose to participate in that fishery in
the future if it gets going because it provides them with a real
means to make a living in the future."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Cotter how the state could prevent
the "gold rush."
Number 933
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN also wanted to know the answer to that question
and rationalized that having a moratorium would protect against
this "gold rush" because not only would fishermen come from the
lower 48 but the fishermen who are excluded from the other
fisheries would shift over and the state would end up with an
artificial evaluation period.
Number 987
MR. COTTER said, "I am not trying to make your decision here more
difficult. We are not, necessarily, opposed to a moratorium on
urchins, we think it is premature to do it. A year from now, we
think that may be a rational decision because by that time,
hopefully, the collective body, the industry, the department and
the Board of Fish, will have had the opportunity to sit down and
look at what is necessary to manage and develop the sea urchin
fishery. We do not want preclude additional participation by
Alaskans through any vehicle between now and then. A year from
now, if that did not work, sure, let's have a moratorium."
Number 1048
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS closed public testimony on HB 547.
Number 1056
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT moved that CS HB 547 (RES) move from the
House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1111
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS passed the gavel to Co-Chairman Green to chair
testimony on HB 342.
HB 342 - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee hear testimony on HB 342
from the Department of Environmental Conservation and then hear
testimony from Resource Development Council in Anchorage. He said
the committee would not have the time to pass the bill today.
Number 1160
SUSAN BRALEY, Chief, Water Quality Technical Services, Department
of Environmental Conservation, said, "Among other things, our
section is responsible for managing and administering the Alaska
Water Quality Standards which are regulations designed to protect
the water qualities of the state of Alaska." "I am here today to
testify on behalf of the department on CS HB 342, an Act relating
to water quality. I did testify during the initial hearing on this
bill about concerns the department has with the proposed
legislation.
MS. BRALEY proceeded, "The department continues to have concerns
with this committee substitute bill because the changes it proposes
are difficult to interpret and, as written, will allow already
polluted waters to be further polluted. Further, the new section
proposed in AS 46.03.08 5(C) which is at the very end of the bill
requiring the department to promptly adopt water quality standards
consistent with federal water quality standards every time they
change will force the state to, blindly, adopt national standards
with no consideration or evaluation of their practical or
scientific application to Alaskan waters.
MS. BRALEY stated, "Overall, the language in the bill appears to
incorrectly use the terms for water quality criteria, water quality
standards and effluent discharge limits. This leads to difficulty
in interpreting the legislation and how it relates to the existing
water quality standards for Alaska.
MS. BRALEY continued, "As stated earlier, the bill does not
recognize that some waters are already polluted. New sections (1)
and (2) of this bill, which are at the very beginning of the bill,
would limit the ability to clean waters back up to their original
condition since the language suggests that an effluent limit may
not be more strict than the quality of the existing water received
for the use. Thus, a discharger would only have to clean up their
discharge to meet the existing polluted condition of the specific
water body.
MS. BRALEY emphasized, "It would be useful to understand the intent
of this language and why the legislature finds it necessary to make
statutory changes. It appears to be trying to get at the natural
background condition of a water which can sometimes naturally
exceed water quality standards. As a point of clarification, the
department would like to refer to several places in our water
quality standard regulations where the natural background of a
water is considered in setting a criteria limit.
Number 1287
MS. BRALEY referred to Alaska Water Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70,
dated January 4, 1995, page 7, "look at pH and you will see that pH
may not be less that 6.0 or greater than 8.5 and may not vary more
than 0.5 Ph units from natural conditions." "The next column on
`Turbidity' you will see that they base the maximum exceedences on
above natural conditions. So, they do consider the natural
condition of the water body."
Number 1310
MS. BRALEY referenced page 9 of the handbook, directing members to
the column "Sediment," "no measurable increase in concentration of
settleable solids above natural conditions." She further referenced
ADEC regulations on page 27, subsection (b) which basically says
that if the department finds that a natural condition of a water
body has been demonstrated to be of lower quality, the and if the
department sees that the uses are fully protected, the department
can go in and set a site specific criteria for that particular
water. "Just a real life example, we are currently using this for
the permitting of the Alaska-Juneau Mine at Gold Creek where the
total dissolved solids fraction is naturally, or, at least, it has
been higher in the last 50 years since historic mining occurred.
The `critters' have learned to live in that water and, probably, to
reduce it would cause more harm than good. So, we are doing a site
specific criteria for that particular creek based on the natural
condition. This also applies to the permitting of Cominco at Red
Dog Creek, we are doing basically the same thing.
Number 1390
MS. BRALEY said, "The department also has difficulty understanding
why the new section in AS 46.03.085 (a) is considered necessary.
This is at the bottom of the first page of the bill. As a point of
clarification, again, if you turn back to page 9 where we have the
sediment criteria listed, the department would like to note that
water quality standard revisions which were approved in January
1995 already clarified that the measurement for sediment is
settleable solids using the volumetric Imhoff cone method. We
believe this regulation satisfies the intent of this new statutory
section, although, again, I am not real clear on the intent and it
would probably help to understand what this is trying to give. We
made that clarification specifically because there was some
confusion about the definition of sediment and whether it included
suspended solids and settleable. So, that was a specific change we
made to the regulation to address.
Number 1454
MS. BRALEY said, "Subsection (b) is also difficult to interpret, it
appears to say that the department can not apply an effluent limit
that is more restrictive than federal water quality standards. The
language also suggests that effluent limit cannot be more strict
than the quality of the intake water. Although, again, because of
the language it could be interpreted to mean the upstream or
receiving water.
MS. BRALEY said, "As mentioned earlier, the last subsection (c)
regarding the proposed requirement for the Department of
Environmental Conservation to promptly adopt any change in federal
water quality standards is `problematic and alarming' from the
DEC's perspective. One must remember that these federal standards
are set at the national level and do not take into consideration
state or region specific conditions. So, before adopting, the
state must carefully review the new federal standards and research
and evaluate their applicability to Alaskan waters before taking
any action to adopt them.
Number 1512
MS. BRALEY continued, "As a case in point, I would like to use the
arsenic criteria as an example. In 1993, EPA adopted federal
standards for toxic criteria in, what they call, the National Toxic
Rule, they impose these numbers on Alaska as well as several other
states that EPA felt did not have toxic criteria developed in their
state standards. At that time, Alaska argued strongly against the
imposition and, especially, the arsenic criteria which Alaska felt
was unrealistically stringent and not scientifically defensible.
To give prospective, the state adopted level for arsenic is the
drinking water standard of 50 parts per billion. The federal
standard carried in the National Toxic Rule is set at 0.18 parts
per billion. Just to give you an idea of how different it is from
what we now have.
MS. BRALEY stated, "Recent information from EPA confirms that
Alaska's concerns were well founded, and they have admitted that
the 0.18 parts per billion arsenic standard is not scientifically
defensible. Unfortunately, EPA has not gotten around to
administratively removing it from the books, so the federal
standard remains at 0.18 ppb. The DEC is fighting this issue with
the EPA at this point where several NPDES permits are being
reviewed in Alaska. EPA permitters continue to apply the federal
number for determining what conditions the dischargers must meet.
MS. BRALEY continued, "One of our strongest arguments is that our
adopted criteria remain at 50 parts per billion. Therefore, the
EPA should offer the state some flexibility in what it has adopted.
Had we blindly adopted 0.18 parts per billion, you can be assured
that EPA would be sitting back at this time asking the state how we
plan to justify and defend our newly adopted number. In closing,
we ask that you carefully review this bill in front of you to
determine if it truly meets the intent it was designed for. The
water quality standards are admittedly complex and the department
can offer staff assistance in determining how we can help correct
specific situations without making broad statutory changes which
may instead have unattended negative affects.
Number 1641
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Ms. Braley to characterize how many
instances where the state has adopted the standard in regulations
that is higher than the federal standard, and more stringent than.
MS. BRALEY responded that there are actually very few, but the one
that comes to mind that has caused some heartburn for the oil and
gas industry is the petroleum hydrocarbon criteria.
MS. BRALEY's staff spoke up from the audience saying, "we have a
total petroleum hydrocarbon standard that is like 10 parts per
billion and one that is 15 parts per billion. The federal
government has developed a few polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
standards that are chemical specific. Our total is low and it has
been real low for about 10 years, and the unfortunate thing is.."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the staff member to come forward.
Number 1734
KATY McKERNEY, Water Quality Standard Specialist, Department of
Environmental Conservation said, "As far as hydrocarbons, we have
a very low total hydrocarbon standard, it is considered very low,
it is 10 parts per billion and it is a total standard so that means
everything and there is a total aqueous which is 15. The federal
government has developed some chemical specific criteria for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that are much higher. That
reason that number is low is because when we were developing it for
the state, there were some studies done on the North Slope and they
looked at the most sensitive stages.
MS. McKERNEY closed by stating that the question really comes down
to the application and that is where we may have some issues to
address with industry and others.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would recess until
Friday, March 29th. He asked that Ms. Braley return at that time.
He also asked committee members to hold their questions until the
committee was reconvened since there were still people on the
teleconference network waiting to testify.
Number 1842
BECKY GAY, Executive Director, Resource Development Council for
Alaska testified on HB 342 reading her statement into the record:
"RDC supports the goal of the CS for HB 342 to strengthen the
mandate for economically-feasible and technologically-achievable
state water quality standards which are scientifically-based and
consistent with federal standards.
MS. GAY stated, "RDC also supports the CS specifying EPA-approved
measurements which are in line with the state Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC) current policy on settleable
solids measurements, and which in fact, strengthen that policy.
Additional, RDC supports legislation which provides for the
following:
An efficient `change mechanism' for changing state regulations to
match federal regulations;
A professional and definitive process, including an independent
panel review, for evaluating any conclusion which results in state
standards being set stricter than federal requirements;
An allowance for discharge waters to match the quality of the
receiving waters. This will strengthen when natural levels exceed
the state standard, as is often the case in Alaska, particularly
with arsenic.
MS. GAY continued, "Presently states are required to amend
regulation to match federal regulations only when federal
regulations become more restrictive. This is a one-way street.
The state needs to legislate a similar requirement to automatically
adjust state standards when federal changes result in less strict
standards, or when federal mandates are deleted from law. Such a
provision still allows the state to set stricter standards if it
chooses, but will encourage a pro-active response automatically and
a review of that decision.
MS. GAY informed, "For those few cases where the state argues for
a stricter standard than federally required, this legislation
should establish an impartial review methodology for evaluating the
merit of such an argument. Such a review should also allow for an
appeal from the regulated community or industries involved.
MS. GAY testified, "One change RDC recommends is replacing Section
1 (b) and Section 2 (c) with language which would read, "The
Commissioner may not require a more restrictive water quality for
discharge water than the existing quality of the receiving water."
This should help the DEC's concern that polluted or impaired
waterbodies might become more degraded under the current language."
MS. GAY said the RDC believes that the background level, if they do
exceed the water quality, then the background level should become
the standard.
MS. GAY referred to the last section of the bill stating she felt
it important, in state regulations, to find an efficient way to
change water quality standards or criteria if the federal ones go
down which is not very easy to do now. That is what we were trying
to shoot for in that section.
MS. GAY stated that Brian Crewdson, arsenic expert, was standing by
if the committee had more questions.
BRIAN CREWDSON responded to Chairman Green that he had nothing to
add but was available for questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN confirmed with Ms. Gay and Mr. Crewdson that they
would be available for the continuation meeting on Friday 29th.
MS. GAY stated that she would not be available.
MR. CREWDSON said he would be available.
Number 2090
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the House Resources Committee
meeting would recess until 8:00 a.m. Friday, March 27, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Chairman Green recessed the meeting at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|