Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/01/2016 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Fiscal Effects of Commercial Fishing & Mining by Bob Loeffler, Institute of Social & Economic Research (iser) | |
| Salmon Genetics by Jeff Guyon, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, and Bill Templin, Alaska Department of Fish & Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2016
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico, Co-Chair
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): FISCAL EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL FISHING & MINING BY
BOB LOEFFLER, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL & ECONOMIC RESEARCH (ISER)
- HEARD
SALMON GENETICS BY JEFF GUYON, NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, AND BILL TEMPLIN, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH &
GAME
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BOB LOEFFLER, Professor
Public Policy
Institute of Social & Economic Research (ISER)
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, "Fiscal
Effects of Commercial Fishing, Mining & Tourism."
JEFF GUYON, PhD, Supervisory Research Geneticist
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Alaska Fisheries Science Center's Auke Bay Laboratories (ABL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation,
"Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of Salmon Incidentally
Caught in Alaska Federal Groundfish Trawl Fisheries."
BILL TEMPLIN, Principal Geneticist
Gene Conservation Laboratory
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation,
"Alaska's Genetics Program, Genetics applications for fisheries
management."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:16 PM
CO-CHAIR DAVID TALERICO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Olson,
Seaton, Josephson, Tarr, Nageak, and Talerico were present at
the call to order.
^OVERVIEW(S): Fiscal Effects of Commercial Fishing & Mining by
Bob Loeffler, Institute of Social & Economic Research (ISER)
OVERVIEW(S):
Fiscal Effects of Commercial Fishing & Mining by Bob Loeffler,
Institute of Social & Economic Research (ISER)
1:04:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the first order of business is
a presentation on the fiscal effects of commercial fishing,
mining, and tourism by Bob Loeffler of the Institute of Social &
Economic Research (ISER).
1:04:58 PM
BOB LOEFFLER, Professor, Public Policy, Institute of Social &
Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage, said
he is a half-time professor at ISER and works half-time with a
small consulting firm, Jade North. He began his PowerPoint
presentation, "Fiscal Effects of Commercial Fishing, Mining &
Tourism," by acknowledging his co-author in the study, economist
Steve Colt.
MR. LOEFFLER, in response to Co-Chair Talerico, stated he has a
master's degree in civil engineering from Stanford, a master's
degree in regional planning from Harvard, and a master's degree
in hard knocks. He advised that approximately 10 years ago, the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
published what it called "The Net Benefits" reports, which
included commercial fishing, mining, and tourism and his
presentation is a continuation of that. He clarified he is not
talking about the net benefits of commercial fishing, mining,
and tourism, rather he is talking about a very small slice of
that - only the fiscal impacts. What he means by that is what
the government receives in revenue versus what the government
spends in revenue. The net benefits, of course, are much
greater. For example, commercial fishing has a huge effect on
employment, income, community health, and social objectives, but
he is not talking about that, he is only talking about the
fiscal impacts. He noted the conclusions in his presentation
are his and Steve Colt's, not those of the university.
1:07:36 PM
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Economist-speak,"
and explained that the fiscal effects are solely the revenue the
state receives minus expenditures to promote or expand the
industry. He reiterated that they do not include the economic
effects of jobs, income, and revenue to business.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, with regard to the fiscal effects, state
revenue versus state expenditures, asked whether the revenues
that are shared with municipalities are included in the state
revenues.
MR. LOEFFLER responded that he will discuss them separately
because they are critical. He confirmed that they are included
in just the state revenue.
1:08:48 PM
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Figure 1. Commercial
Fishing," and noted it is a bit different than the figure
contained with the committee packets. He said the striped boxes
on the right-hand side are what Representative Seaton asked
about - they are revenues the state shares with local government
and are about $50 million. The importance of those is that it
is about equal to state revenue sharing, so commercial fishing
is a very important component of the fiscal health of
municipalities. The green bar below that is what goes to the
state, and the other two are just state expenditures only.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether when Mr. Loeffler says
"state and local revenue" that it is only revenue collected by
the state or does it include local head tax in tourism, or a
local fishing landing tax.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that the state revenue is what is
retained in the general fund or the permanent fund, the local
revenue is the major local sources. He further explained that
it would be the pass through to fish tax and taxes that are in
the local fish taxes, and that it does not include sales tax or
property tax by the locals. He pointed out that it is not a
comprehensive income that the locals get, but it's the major
sources of income. He related that on the expenditure side, he
is only discussing state expenditures, and that the local
expenditures are much less than the state's. He pointed out
that commercial fishing, including state and local revenues,
brings in a lot more than the state expends. He pointed to the
operating budget and said it changes somewhat, the state's
operating budget is about $8 million less in fiscal year (FY)
2014 than what the state expended to manage or promote the
industry. When including the capital budget, the difference was
about $27 million in 2014.
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "State Commercial
Fishing Revenue: $70.2 million," and stressed that these are
state only, about $70 million. He said half of that he calls
"'True' Taxes" where the legislature decides what to do with
them. One-third are "'Pass-through' Taxes" wherein an industry
agrees to tax itself for a specific purpose, such as a hatchery
or marketing, and the taxes are then collected by the state and
allocated to the purpose often through the capital budget. The
last slice on the slide is fees used for agency management. If
a person was a fisherman, he explained, the two green slices
would look the same - just paying the state.
MR. LOEFFLER addressed the slide entitled, "State Commercial
Fishing Operating Budget: $78.3 million." With respect to the
operating budget, he said about two-thirds [65 percent] is for
the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), mostly the Division of
Commercial Fisheries. He noted that this only includes state
general funds and does not include federal funds or other
special purpose funds from another source. It is what the state
expends and what the state gets, so federal revenue and
expenditures are not included. Roughly 20 percent is by the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), essentially fisheries marketing, and 9 percent is from
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) mostly the Division of
Alaska Wildlife Troopers where it performs commercial fishing
enforcement, and the remaining other is 7 percent.
1:13:31 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK inquired whether the public safety portion
includes wildlife troopers.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that it includes the portion that is used
for commercial fishing.
MR. LOEFFLER returned to his presentation and noted that revenue
goes up and down, so the revenue is averaged for the years 2010-
2014 and is updated at 2014 dollars. Turning to the slide
entitled, "Capital Budget: $18.5 million," he said the capital
budget for the three years of 2012-2014 looks at the portion
that was used for commercial fishing. For example, for a
hatchery the proportion of the amount caught by the commercial
fishing industry was looked at and that portion of the capital
project was allocated to commercial fishing. He said about $20
million was spent over those three years, which he expects is
greater than what will happen over the next three years.
MR. LOEFFLER moved to the slide entitled, "Municipal Revenues:
$50.8 million," and said [the municipal share] from the
fisheries business landing tax is $25 million, $5 million is
[the municipal share] from the fisheries resource landing tax,
and about $20 million is municipally imposed special taxes. He
said it does not include sales tax or property tax. Mr.
Loeffler then noted that the caveats include: the values are
all estimates and the conclusion is not necessarily accurate for
any portion of the industry, even if it is good industry-wide.
For example, according to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), the average revenue for a salmon permit for the upper
Yukon was about $1,100, but for a seining permit on the Alaska
Peninsula was about $200,000. So, some places bring in more
money and some places cost more to manage - there is a huge
difference between fisheries. The third caveat is that
prices/values fluctuate tremendously year by year. Some years
prices are high and runs are big so fishermen get a lot of money
and the state gets a lot of money. And some years the prices
are bad; for example, the price in Bristol Bay this year was
$0.50, so the 2015 taxes coming in will be much less. The
fourth caveat is that when people around the state think of
industries they think of oil.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed to the slide entitled, "Alaska mandates
unitization of oil fields to prevent this" [picture is of
numerous oil wells side by side]. One of the objectives is to
make money for the state, he said, but that is not what
fisheries are about. Displaying the slide entitled, "We do not
mandate unitization of fisheries to prevent this" [picture is of
numerous commercial fishing boats fishing side by side] he
explained that inefficiencies are allowed in fisheries because
of what it does for communities, social health, employment, and
people allowing their children to come to their set net sites.
The state manages fisheries partially for sustainable fisheries,
but socially it manages the fishing industry for very different
purposes than it manages oil. He stressed it is important to
realize that the fiscal impacts are only a very small slice and
said, "I know when you think of the commercial fishing industry,
you think of it on a much broader basis." Displaying the slide
entitled, "Figure 1. Commercial Fishing," he said the basic
conclusions from the fiscal side are that the state spends a
little more than it takes in on commercial fishing if the
capital budget is included, but the communities receive about
$50 million out of commercial fishing.
1:17:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the capital budget side was
done over a five year [period].
MR. LEOFFLER responded that the revenues were over five years
and the capital budget was over three years because over those
three years they looked at capital projects from the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
only and performed a computer search to determine which ones
might be relevant and there were 3,100. Then another computer
search was performed to narrow it down to about 400 and then
researchers had to read them all.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she has not had a chance to review the
lengthy report and asked whether the report provides greater
detail about how that was assessed. She advised that her
question relates to the Chinook salmon research effort, and that
"we have bumped up our capital budget spend over the ... most
recent past in that area." She further asked whether that gives
the legislators a good number on the capital side, or whether
legislators should have extended the time period to get outside
of the big chunk of money going there.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that if there was an unusual high amount
during 2012-2014, it would be reflected in these numbers,
although divided by three. He guessed that it is possible, if
this box is slightly higher than it otherwise would be, that the
overall conclusions are probably still valid - "that considering
the operating budget doesn't quite pay, capital budget there's a
slightly larger deficit if you include communities, it's very
important for communities."
1:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed from the slide entitled, "Figure
1. Commercial Fishing" that it is obvious the state spends more
than it takes in. But, he continued, when looking at the right-
hand side, the state actually is taking in more but giving away
a big portion of it. He surmised that if, without restructuring
the tax to industry, the percentage the state shared with
municipalities went from 50 percent to 25 percent, then the
state would be about on par with the total budget including
capital.
MR. LOEFFLER answered yes, although he assumes capital would be
less, and it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul as it is all
Alaskans who live in communities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that the state is in a fiscal
situation and he appreciate Mr. Loeffler presenting all of the
industries to determine where the legislature comes from because
building more state deficits is unacceptable. He said, [the
information is helpful] in trying to determine which pieces go
together, whether to raise taxes on the industry to get to a
breakeven point, and noted that that distribution will have to
be considered.
MR. LOEFFLER quipped that he is pleased to present the
information and pleased he does not have to make the decisions.
1:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked that, broadly speaking, one of
the revenue proposals with the least attention in newspapers is
the fisheries tax. He asked what that would do to the $70.2
million, and why it is believed that the administration supports
it and finds that it is affordable.
MR. LOEFFLER stated that he does not feel comfortable speaking
for the administration, but that he does feel comfortable with
these numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether Mr. Loeffler knows what
the tax would bring in.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that, on average, in 2014 dollars the
fisheries business tax brought in $22 million, and the fisheries
resource landing tax, the state's share only, brought in another
$6.3 million. Therefore, it brought in $28.3 million on average
and when raising it by 20 percent it brings in 20 percent more.
He reiterated that it includes the state's share only and if the
local share is added it is the amount [depicted in green stripes
in the Figure 1 graph.]
1:23:32 PM
MR. LOEFFLER specified that the picture on the slide entitled,
"Mining," is of the Fort Knox [Gold Mine] pit and tailings lake.
He then moved to the slide entitled, "Figure 2. Mining," and
said that state revenue for mining is somewhat different.
Although it brings in close to $100 million, the cost to manage
mining is much less, roughly $10 million over those five years.
When including the capital budget it doesn't change much because
the capital budget for mining is relatively small - there were
only two projects spread over the years that were looked at.
The amount to localities is about $22 million and is not spread
as broadly as the fishing industry, it is in those localities
where the large mines are located. The $22 million comes from
the Red Dog Mine, Greens Creek Mine, Kensington Mine, Fort Knox
Mine, and to a lesser extent the Usibelli Coal Mine. He said
that the Red Dog Mine is about the only taxpayer in the
Northwest Arctic Borough, the two biggest taxpayers in Juneau
are Greens Creek Mine and Kensington Mine, and Fort Knox is the
largest taxpayer with the exception of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System in Fairbanks.
MR. LOEFFLER displayed the slide entitled, "State Mining
Revenue: $96.4 million," and noted that, to the state only,
mining brings in 6-8 times its cost. About 40 percent of the
revenue to the state comes from the mining license tax, one-
third from corporate income tax, and mining rents and royalties
are 20 percent but are only for the mines that are on state land
- Fort Knox Gold Mine, Pogo Gold Mine, and the Usibelli Coal
Mine - plus the placer mines.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed to the slide entitled, "State Mining
Operating Budget: $10.7 million," and said that roughly two-
thirds is the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), although
some of the costs DNR passes through to other agencies in that
for permitting of the state's large mines there is an unusual
situation where the state does the permitting and enforcement
and bills the company through a voluntary procedure. When the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) performs fish studies
in preparation for mine permitting, that is typically paid for
by the company but included in the DNR budget. Of interest, he
noted, the Department of Law (DOL) for mining is shown
separately because it is a larger amount that reflects "you
don't do much in mining without being sued."
1:26:43 PM
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Capital Budget: $4.0
million," and advised that there were really only two capital
projects over those three years, which averaged about $4 million
a year. He then turned to the slide entitled, "Municipal
Revenue: $22.5 million," and advised it includes the Northwest
Arctic Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, City and Borough
of Juneau, and the Denali Borough.
MR. LOEFFLER addressed the slide entitled, "Mining Caveats:
averages don't represent all segments." He said that the mining
average doesn't represent all of the industries because the
placer industry is very different from coal mining. Drawing
attention to the slide entitled, "Revenue dependent on prices,"
he observed that for mining, this study would have been very
different 15 years ago when gold prices were $250 an ounce.
This is because, like the commercial fishing industry, mining
revenues depend on metal prices and the amount mined. When gold
and zinc prices were really low the state did not get much
revenue. So, historic mineral prices have gone up and historic
mining revenues have gone way up.
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Revenue not
Included," and pointed out that there are important revenues not
included in the state's revenues for mining. The Usibelli Coal
Mine spends almost $20 million a year shipping coal on the
railroad. He said this study did not include that as a revenue
to the state for two reasons: first, if revenue is included the
cost must also be included and the costs of the railroad are
proprietary; and second, the railroad is not part of the general
fund in a sense in that it is a corporation. He offered his
understanding that the railroad does not receive operating
appropriations from the legislature and it does not give the
legislature revenue and therefore it was not included for this
report. There were about $12 million in payments to the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) for the Red
Dog Road and those payments pay back AIDEA bonds. He explained
that AIDEA owns the Red Dog Road and it tolls zinc travel over
the road, which pays back the bonds AIDEA spent plus a little
more, thereby making a profit that AIDEA keeps internally and a
portion is paid to the legislature.
MR. LOEFFLER brought attention to the slide entitled, "Figure 2.
Mining," and reported that mining brings in $6-8 million to the
state. In addition there is $22 million in revenue to local
municipalities.
1:30:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the local revenue is
additional local mining taxes.
MR. LOEFFLER replied yes, and said it includes the property
taxes from Greens Creek on the mine in particular, and it does
not include property taxes for "related stuff." It also
includes the local taxes and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
from the Red Dog Mine to the Northwest Arctic Borough.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that those were locally
assessed and were locally assessed in basically two areas.
MR. LOEFFLER responded yes.
1:31:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the slide entitled, "Capital
Budget: $4.0 million," and observed that it states two projects
spread over five years.
MR. LOEFFLER responded that it is an error, the five years
should be three years.
1:31:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the best source to
compare tax rates on the mining industry is from the Fraser
Institute.
MR. LOEFFLER answered no, a variety of reports are done. Dr.
Otto [ph] prepared a report for the Alaska Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development about 8-10 years ago,
and the World Bank has prepared reports as well. He offered to
send the committee the important parts of that comparison.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired about expenses for remediation
such as at the Illinois Creek and Rock Creek mines.
MR. LOEFFLER explained that the state did not pay anything for
those. Illinois Creek Mine was paid for by the mining so there
was no state expenditure.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON understood $20 million of remediation
was needed for Rock Creek Mine.
MR. LOEFFLER replied the state did not pay for that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the remediation has been
done.
MR. LOEFFLER responded he does not know about Rock Creek, but he
knows a lot about Illinois Creek.
1:33:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated she is aware that the mines have to
bond for the reclamation work, but state employees would oversee
that work so there would be some impact [to the state].
MR. LOEFFLER apologized and said there are some state salaries
involved in that, although a lot of that is billed back to the
company. With regard to Illinois Creek Mine it was not because
the company went bankrupt, but he does not know what happened
with the Rock Creek Mine.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR requested more information in sorting that
out because in her experience, the bonds do not cover the costs
of the remediation and if the company goes bankrupt then any
leftover remedial costs would have to be picked up by the state.
She said this has happened in the past, but maybe not on the
aforementioned examples.
MR. LOEFFLER agreed it has happened occasionally with placer
mines and money has been taken from the bond pool of bonds that
the placer miners have paid. With respect to the large mines,
Nixon Fork Mine and Illinois Creek Mine went bankrupt. Nixon
Fork was on federal land and other than occasional trips out
there to inspect there were no federal expenditures, and it is
back in business now in temporary cessation. Illinois Creek
Mine went bankrupt in 1996 and he considers it a success story
in that it was reclaimed without any state expenditures except
state salaries, and the result was a "permanent fund, if you
will," just to manage Illinois Creek Mine and monitor it for 30
years. It is now at $1 million, which the state holds and is
state money, in case something goes wrong with the remediation.
Therefore, the state has not spent any state funds other than
the incidental salaries, which would be in the state operating
budget so they'd be counted for remediation of any of the placer
or large mines in Alaska.
1:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that his sense from the
community is that the potential impact of mining can't be seen
for decades, whereas any harm coming from the fishing and oil
industry is seen by the general public as less likely. He asked
how to calculate those expenses and whether this perception is
unfair.
MR. LOEFFLER answered yes. He said that the Mount Polley Mine
disaster was clearly a catastrophic example and "we have not had
that in Alaska." He pointed out that if a mine is reclaimed
without a lot of open water, "they are very unlikely." However,
the ongoing chronic effects don't often require years and years,
they often show up. Mr. Loeffler continued:
I will say that Alaska has certainly the country,
certainly maybe the hemisphere, possibly one of the
world's best monitoring systems. ... Now I'm not
talking as an ISER employee, I'm talking back from to
monitor the long term ... water quality impacts. And
really that goes back to the excellence of Fish &
Game. It was invented by Fish & Game where they do
bio-monitoring of the algae, the mid-level microbial,
the fish. Fish & Game monitors the water quality. So
that level of monitoring is actually extremely good in
determining if there is some long term effect. Now
you can of course have acid mine generation that
doesn't show up for years afterwards and that of
course is possible. We're relatively confident we
have some idea of the acid generation of our mines and
we have had two - Greens Creek and Red Dog have been
operating since 1990, so that would be 25 years. Red
Dog has obvious acid generation potential and Greens
Creek has some as well, but ... that's been part of
their ongoing reclamation.
1:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred back to the discussion regarding
mining taxes and opined that the bond was not sufficient for the
Illinois Creek Mine but the belief was that there was enough
gold to pay. The bankruptcy situation occurred and after that
the state increased the bonds to ensure those would be covered.
MR. LOEFFLER agreed the mine was under-bonded but said a bond
was not required at that time. A Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) bond was required but the state bond was
capped. In roughly 2002, the law was changed to allow for full
bonding. He reminded the committee that he was director [of the
Division of Mining, Land and Water] at the time, and said he was
pleased to help push that bill.
1:40:05 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK [referring to the slide entitled, "Revenue
dependent on prices"] asked whether the fluctuation between 2004
and 2012 in gold revenue has anything to do with the life of the
mine and then finding another mine and receiving more revenues
from the new mines.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that he thinks it was a combination of the
price of gold and the price of zinc. Responding further to Co-
Chair Nageak he said the price of gold went way up and the dip
is probably due mostly to the price of zinc. Much of the
state's money comes from Red Dog Mine, which is a zinc mine with
no gold.
1:41:17 PM
MR. LOEFFLER next addressed the topic of tourism. Displaying
the slide entitled, "Figure 3. Tourism," he said tourism is a
much harder industry to analyze because it is a collection of
products and services, and a lot of what is done to manage
tourism is also done to help Alaskans. For example, sport
fishing is managed to help tourists, but it also helps Alaskans.
Another example is the state giving a capital project to the
Anchorage Museum and 50 percent of its visitation is tourists
and 50 percent is Alaskans bringing their kids. And the same is
true to some extent for many of the other things.
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "State Tourism
Revenue: $54.3 Million," and reported that the tourism industry
brings in about $80 million to local communities, which is a
significant amount of money and many communities rely on tourism
for the fiscal health of their government. When discussing
state expenditures solely, the state brings in about $18 million
more than its operating budget, and roughly equal when including
the capital budget. He explained that the difference when
including the capital and operating budgets would be roughly
equal for state revenue and expenses only. Approximately half
of the revenue is cruise ship taxes that were all put in in
2006, a little over one-third of it is hunting and fishing
licenses, and the remainder is the state portion of vehicle
rental tax and corporate income tax.
MR. LOEFFLER drew attention to the slide entitled, "Operating
Budget Cost: $35.9 Million," and explained that for the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) it is mostly sport fish, and
the question is how much of the Division of Sport Fish is a
tourism expenditure and how much is to help Alaskans. He
explained that for the report it was determined that 43 percent
of the visitor days in sport fishing are by tourists and
therefore is 43 percent of [ADF&G's] general fund budget. He
advised that another major portion is the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development and a lot of that is
essentially the tourism marketing initiative.
MR. LOEFFLER displayed the slide entitled, "Operating Cost
Assumptions," and pointed out that tourism, unlike fishing and
mining, has many economic assumptions to determine. So, for the
report, 20 percent of DNR's Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation's budget was used because the parks get about 20
percent of the visitation from tourists, 43 percent of ADF&G's
Division of Sport Fish budget, and 14 percent of ADF&G's
Division of Wildlife Conservation general fund because 14
percent of the state's hunting and fishing licenses are bought
by outsiders.
MR. LOEFFLER moved to the slide entitled, "Tourism Capital
Budget: $19.4 million," and said that about 110 capital projects
had some portion of which was for tourism, roughly $20 million a
year. He turned to the slide entitled, "Municipal Revenue:
$82.6 million," and said local government gets a lot from
tourism: 13 percent of the pass through taxes are from cruise
ships, visitor related sales tax industry, bed tax, and dockage
and moorage revenue which is Ketchikan and Juneau's assessment
on cruise ships.
1:45:15 PM
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Tourism Caveats,"
and reiterated that tourism is difficult to estimate and the
expenses overlap in that what is done for tourists is also done
for Alaskans. He noted that it requires many economic
assumptions in that the average from a bear hunt or a Bristol
Bay lodge may not be the same as for the trains.
MR. LOEFFLER moved to the slide entitled, "Revenue not
Included," and stated that the report does not include the $21
million that the railroad gets from out-of-state visitors
because there is a cost associated with it and the revenue money
does not come to the legislature to appropriate. The Alaska
Marine Highway System was different in that it receives
approximately $20 million a year in non-resident fares, but its
costs are so much greater than its revenues. It was determined
that without tourists the marine highway might run a few less
ferries and then the state would save money. In fact, he
related, previous analyses have included the Alaska Marine
Highway System as a net cost, but he and Mr. Colt disagree that
getting $20 million from non-residents cannot be a net cost
because "that's too weird." It is included here and committee
members can think of it however they wish.
MR. LOEFFLER turned to the slide entitled, "Figure 3. Tourism,"
and said the conclusions are relatively robust in that many
local communities rely on the total $80 million, "but that with
respect to the state and the state only, with respect to the
operating budget we get in a little more, with respect to ...
include the capital budget ... in 2014 it's roughly equal."
1:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON acknowledged the margin of error, and
noted the situation in the center graph of Figure 3 of expenses/
capital costs, especially when adding something on for ferry
costs possibly being more than revenues. He understood the
governor has a bill regarding the extra amount allocated to
Juneau and Ketchikan of approximately $7.00 per person that
would stay with the state. He asked whether Mr. Loeffler has
analyzed the bill to know where on the graph that would put the
state line instead of municipal line.
MR. LOEFFLER said he does not know what the governor's
projection is.
1:48:19 PM
MR. LOEFFLER brought attention to the slide entitled, "Some
Observations: Management Cost," to provide his observation about
how little it costs the state to manage the mining industry.
Turning to the slide entitled, "Revenue as [Percent] of First
Market Value: Similar among the industries," he noted that he
and Mr. Colt took what he would call the "first market value,"
which is ex-vessel value, the value of minerals, the "GDP" of
tourism, and looked at the state's revenue as a percent of that.
Much to his surprise, he reported, they were all pretty similar.
Today, mining would be significantly down due to metals prices
and fishing would be down due to fish prices. However, overall
for the five year period covered by the report, he was surprised
that these three industries were relatively similar. Responding
to Representative Seaton, he explained that "GDP" is the
expenditures by tourists in the state.
MR. LOEFFLER lastly reviewed the slide entitled, "These industry
revenues do not compare to oil," and said when people think of
industries they think of oil, and that all of these industries
are a very small portion of what oil brings in. He then drew
attention to the slide entitled, "A Final Caveat..." and
remarked that these industries are most important for their
economic portions - for people who set net, for keeping the
Northwest Arctic Borough a borough, for all of the things that
industries do to support the state of Alaska. He said his
presentation today is just a small portion of those fiscal
impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO commented that the legislature is moving
forward and vetting a lot of revenue proposals and several are
within the topics that Mr. Loeffler just brought forward.
1:51:13 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
^Salmon Genetics by Jeff Guyon, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, and Bill Templin, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game
Salmon Genetics by Jeff Guyon, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, and
Bill Templin, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
1:56:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the final order of business is
an overview on salmon genetics by the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
1:57:02 PM
BILL TEMPLIN, Principal Geneticist, Gene Conservation
Laboratory, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said that he supervises the gene
conservation laboratory within the Division of Commercial
Fisheries.
1:57:15 PM
JEFF GUYON, PhD, Supervisory Research Geneticist, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Fisheries Science
Center's Auke Bay Laboratories (ABL), provided a PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of
Salmon Incidentally Caught in Alaska Federal Groundfish Trawl
Fisheries." He said his presentation relates to the salmon work
being performed at the Auke Bay Laboratories, but highlighted
that they also work on a number of different fish species,
including herring in Lynn Canal and Prince William Sound.
Genetics are used to distinguish between closely related
rockfish species, and through a collaborative studies a new
species of sand lance was discovered. He explained that they
collect a sample from a fish, take the biological data, digitize
it into a genetic term called genotyping, and that each dot
represents an individual fish. He said the reason being that
when fish are caught at sea they determine the impacts of the
harvest of those fish.
DR. GUYON turned to the portion of his presentation regarding
"Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of Chum Salmon Bycatch from
the 2013 Bering Sea Walleye Pollock Trawl Fishery." The issue,
he noted, is the large pollock fishery in the Bering Sea that
catches over a million tons of pollock. That fishery is quite
clean, but because it is so large the fishermen encounter other
species, including chum salmon. Genetics are used to determine
where those chum salmon are coming from and what the impacts are
of catching those chum salmon. He drew attention to the slide
entitled, "Chum Salmon Bering Sea Bycatch," and pointed out that
the size of the chum salmon bycatch peaked in 2005. In 2013,
about 125,000 chum salmon were incidentally taken in federal
trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea. Analyses have been done in
the past to determine where those stocks of fish are coming from
and these analyses have used scales and allozymes, a protein
variant for genetic studies. Much of the work NMFS performs
synergizes with state agencies. From 2005-2013 microsatellites,
another genetic marker, have been used and for 2013 the sample
set was 4,123 fish. The good news, he pointed out, is that all
these different analyses by the University of Washington, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service have produced similar results.
2:01:34 PM
DR. GUYON turned to the slide entitled, "Our Stock Grouping,"
and said they try to determine where fish are coming from by
describing different groups of fish. The baseline used is the
baseline developed in Canada through collaborations with
different groups. Each dot represents populations of fish.
Chum salmon that are caught in the Bering Sea can be caught from
throughout the species range; therefore, a baseline is needed
that encompasses populations throughout the entire species
range. Those populations are grouped into six different regions
so the stock composition re-partitions the fish back to those
six regions.
DR. GUYON turned to the slide entitled, "2013 Chum Salmon Bering
Sea Bycatch, Statistical week," and advised that the pollock
fishery is separated into an "A season" and a "B season." The
"A season" is the spring season where a lot of pollock is caught
but not a lot of chum salmon. However, within the "B season"
fishermen start to pick up chum salmon. The genetic samples are
picked up in the "B season" and the sample distribution closely
mimics the actual catch distribution. He explained that each
dot on the slide entitled, "2013 Chum Salmon Bering Sea Bycatch,
Number of 'B' season chum salmon bycatch per vessel," represents
an individual vessel fishing in the Bering Sea during the fall
"B season." He picked out a dot and said it would have
harvested over 3,000 incidentally caught chum salmon, and with
that is shown the number of genetic samples that were collected.
The line on the graph represents a sampling rate of 1 in 30, and
he expressed amazement that hardly any vessels deviate from the
1 in 30. Therefore, he explained, there are over 100 different
vessels, all with different observers, going through the
different distribution points, such as Dutch Harbor, Sand Point,
Kodiak, Seattle, and Anchorage, and these are getting shipped to
Auke Bay Laboratories and at the end this is what the lab gets.
2:04:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that the vertical axis of the
graph is the number of genetic samples and the bycatch is per
vessel. He asked whether that means the number of samples is
directly related to the number of salmon caught.
DR. GUYON replied exactly right. It was a simple approach to
sample 1 out of 30 fish encountered, but the ability to get to
that required some restructuring of the observer program and it
was a large process. He noted that it is amazing, given the
number of vessels, that they were able to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that the purpose is to
demonstrate that the lab is effectively sampling no matter what
the catch per vessel, thereby, accurately sampling about 1 in 30
of each of the fish so there is not a skewed distribution base.
DR. GUYON agreed.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO presumed that the catch percentage does not
vary on a per capita type basis, that they are all reasonably
close regardless of the volume they actually take.
DR. GUYON agreed and said the sampling rate is exactly the same.
He reiterated that each dot on the graph is an individual vessel
in the "B season."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that they could have quite
different bycatch rates. The chart indicates the sampling rate
of the number of chum salmon that they had, even if some of the
vessels were "dirty fishing" and getting lots of bycatch and
others were getting fewer bycatch. The chart is saying that the
sampling effort was 1 in 30, no matter what.
DR. GUYON agreed.
2:06:53 PM
DR. GUYON turned to the graph on the slide entitled, "Chum
Salmon Bering Sea Bycatch - Proportions." He explained that the
stock composition results are shown in red, but cautioned that
the sampling was performed differently in different years. He
said these are the six different stock group, and the Y axis is
the proportion. In 2013 about 15 percent of the fish came from
SE Asia, which is Japan mostly; about 45 percent of the fish
came from Northeast Asia, which is Russia. So about 60 percent
of the fish are Asian in origin and about 40 percent are from
North America with this distribution. He noted that this stock
composition gives a proportion of the catch. He then turned to
the slide entitled, "Chum Salmon Bering Sea Bycatch - Number,"
and explained that the actual numbers of fish are determined by
taking those proportions and multiplying them by the actual
numbers of fish to determine the potential impacts. For
example, the proportion from Western Alaska was multiplied by
the number of chum salmon that were encountered in the bycatch
to come up with the estimate of about 22,000-23,000 fish that
came from Western Alaska.
DR. GUYON stated that the slide entitled, "2013 Chum Salmon
Bering Sea Bycatch, Area 517," indicates the stock compositions
by time and area of where the chum salmon are intercepted in the
Bering Sea in order to determine whether there are differences
that might assist in making regulations. He explained that the
slide entitled, "CIAP-WASC chum salmon collections," highlights
the collaborative project working to determine whether some of
the stock grouping of chum salmon in Western Alaska could be
further differentiated. The collaboration included: Western
Alaska Salmon Coalition (WASC), a group of organizations from
Western Alaska; University of Alaska Fairbanks; Alaska
Department of Fish & Game; and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). Currently, he said he is saying that a certain
number of fish come from Western Alaska, but they could come
from the Yukon River, the Kuskokwim River, and other places in
Western Alaska.
2:09:09 PM
DR. GUYON turned to the portion of his presentation entitled,
"Genetic Stock Composition Analysis of the Chinook Salmon
Bycatch from the 2014 Bering Sea Pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus)
Trawl Fishery." He related that this is recent information that
has to do with the large pollock trawl fishery in the Bering Sea
and is about the Chinook salmon that are also taken incidentally
in addition to the chum salmon. The study is to try to
determine where those Chinook salmon are from. Turning to the
graph entitled, "Chinook Salmon Bering Seat Bycatch," he pointed
out that the purple line shows the magnitude of the Chinook
salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea from 1992-2014. The bycatch
peaked in 2007. There is an "A season" in the spring and a "B
season" in the fall, and the purple line is the total bycatch of
those two seasons. The study is using scales and snips, a
genetic marker, to determine where the Chinook salmon are from.
Like with the chum salmon, researchers are getting similar
results using different techniques. In response to
Representative Tarr, he reiterated that the "A season" occurs in
the spring and the "B season" occurs in the fall.
DR. GUYON continued his explanation of the slide, noting that
the salmon samples are partitioned to determine where they are
from by using a genetic baseline developed by Bill Templin of
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Referring to the maps on
the next two slides with Mr. Templin's name on the bottom right,
DR. GUYON explained this baseline is comprised of 172
populations; each dot on the maps is a population of fish that
have been aggregated into 11 stock groupings. The samples that
have been gathered will be partitioned in to those 11 groupings.
2:11:40 PM
DR. GUYON displayed the slide entitled, "2014 Chinook Salmon
Bering Sea Bycatch," and pointed out that the blue line is the
bycatch broken down by the different statistical weeks for the A
and B seasons. [The Y axis on the left is the bycatch] and [the
Y axis] on the right represents the samples that were taken.
The dots are the samples they have.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the graph indicates that
during the time of harvest of Chinook salmon there is more
bycatch.
DR. GUYON replied that the actual harvest of pollock is not
being shown here. He explained that most of the time the "A
season" encounters more Chinook salmon bycatch than the "B
season," although that is not always the case as there are
differences in different years of when Chinook salmon are
encountered.
2:13:07 PM
DR. GUYON turned to the slide entitled, "Chinook Salmon Bering
Sea Bycatch - Proportions," and said the results shown are for
seven years of analysis [2008-2014]. He cautioned that
consideration must be taken because of how the samples were
collected. The graph shows that 50 percent of the samples came
from the coastal Western Alaska in 2014, and that the majority
of samples encountered in the Bering Sea are from river systems
that flow into the Bering Sea. He said there is representation
from all of the different stock grouping that are in the
baseline, but the majority of fish come from river systems that
flow into the Bering Sea. This is different than what is seen
in the Gulf of Alaska, he said.
DR. GUYON then addressed the portion of his presentation
regarding the "Genetic Stock Composition Analysis to the Chinook
Salmon Bycatch Samples for the 2014 Gulf of Alaska Trawl
Fishery," which is a report that just recently came out. He
said the pollock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) is smaller
than that in the Bering Sea. There are other trawl fisheries in
the Gulf of Alaska, including rockfish and arrowtooth flounder
that incidentally catch Chinook salmon, but do not tend to catch
chum salmon. Displaying the graph entitled, "Chinook Salmon GOA
Bycatch," he explained that it shows the magnitude of total
bycatch (in purple), bycatch from the GOA pollock trawl fishery
(in red), and other fisheries (in green).
2:15:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked whether the bycatch has been broken
out by vessel.
DR. GUYON answered that there is information by vessel, but some
of the data is protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). So, how the data is
aggregated is more complicated.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said he has heard anecdotally that it was
limited to several vessels.
DR. GUYON replied that he will be addressing this in a few
slides. Continuing his presentation, Dr. Guyon said that the
previous stock composition analysis was performed by the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game and University of Washington in
previous years, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service
in the following years. And once again, he pointed out, the
chart shows the same thing which is always a good thing.
2:15:57 PM
DR. GUYON turned to the slide entitled, "2014 Chinook Salmon GOA
Bycatch - Pollock," and said it may get to Representative
Olson's comments. He explained that the blue line represents
the bycatch that occurred and the dashed line represents the
sample set. The manner in which bycatch is enumerated and
samples collected is different in the Gulf of Alaska than in the
Bering Sea due to the smaller size of the fishing vessels. He
explained that it is more difficult for the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to put an observer on smaller boats as
opposed to the larger vessels in the Bering Sea. As such, some
of the numbers get extrapolated. There is systematic random
sampling with proportion to cruise. This is then normalized by
using a weighted approach to come up the stock compositions. It
was found, he pointed out, that not a lot of fish are from the
Bering Sea, but rather are flowing stocks that include the
Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and the Gulf of Alaska.
2:17:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how the timing of this collection
compares with the timing of the "A season" and "B season" in the
Bering Sea.
DR. GUYON answered that the timing is similar because there is a
spring fishery in the Gulf of Alaska that is divided into both
the "A season" and "B season," and how they've done that is for
various historical reasons. In the fall there are "C" and "D"
seasons, however there is some fishing that occurs outside those
boundaries.
2:18:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that there is another effort reviewing
the origin of certain fish, particularly Chinook, to determine
what is going on with the population numbers. Some of that is
consistent with what Dr. Guyon studies are seeing as far as the
origin from British Columbia and the western coast of the United
States. She recalled that there was surprise to find that the
[Chinook] were coming from such great distances; for example the
origin of salmon in the GOA being all the way down in British
Columbia. She further recalled that this information came from
the Kenai River Sport Fish Association. She asked whether Dr.
Guyon had the same reaction of surprise regarding the geographic
distribution.
DR. GUYON replied that the scale pattern analysis suggested
there would be differences between the Gulf of Alaska and the
Bering Sea. A lot of the work in the Bering Sea is coming from
results from 2010 and 2014, and they are inherently quite
reproducible from one year to the next year. He offered that he
has been surprised by how one stock composition is done one year
and, then given the changes that occur in the fishery, that it's
been relatively stable.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR queried whether the finding that the salmon
were coming from as far away as the west coast was a surprise.
DR. GUYON responded that researchers also had coded wire tag
data and recoveries of coded wire tags have come from California
groups up into the Bering Sea. So, there was an understanding
that salmon do make a longer migration based on some of the tag
recoveries. What did surprise him was not picking up many fish
from the river systems that flow into the Bering Sea - finding
how much that went down.
2:20:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he represents the legislature on the
"West Coast Fisheries Task Force" for various states. He
advised that a few years ago the Klamath River was experiencing
the biggest run it had ever had during the same time that Alaska
was experiencing very small runs. He asked whether the pattern
of recovery that Dr. Guyon is seeing is based on the abundance
in certain river systems and their production.
DR. GUYON answered that the samples are from fish that fishermen
are trying not to catch, which is different than in a regular
fisheries survey sampling, so sometimes it is difficult to
extrapolate. However, a lot of times it is the only data that
researchers have. He expressed that it is worthwhile to
continue doing analysis every year and that by continuing the
analysis from one year to the next year allows researchers to
get to some of those questions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether wild stocks versus hatchery
stock are included in any of the analyses that are being done.
DR. GUYON replied that researchers work with the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council and the data has been presented. The
council has a science and statistical committee that has asked
that some of the data be extrapolated from coded wire tag
recovery and use it in conjunction with Dr. Guyon's genetic data
to determine the proportion of hatchery fish being caught for
Chinook salmon. In a month or so there will be discussions on
attempting to do something like that.
2:23:05 PM
DR. GUYON addressed the slide entitled, "Rockfish - GOA Chinook
Bycatch," and highlighted that there is not a requirement for
the National Marine Fisheries Service to collect these samples.
Therefore, these samples are collected by industry at industry's
own expense and sent to him for analysis. He noted that the
rockfish fishery depicted on this slide is for areas 620 and
630, which are right off Kodiak. The industry collected in a
census approach - a genetic sample was collected from every
single salmon that the industry encountered in both 2013 and
2014. The samples were sent in for analysis and the stock
composition show in the chart is the result of that analysis.
DR. GUYON discussed the slide entitled, "Arrowtooth Flounder -
GOA Chinook Bycatch," and pointed out that industry also
collected these samples at industry's own expense and with no
requirement to do so. In 2013 and 2014, it was opportunistic
sampling as opposed to census and the chart depicts the stock
composition for those two years.
DR. GUYON concluded with the slide entitled, "Acknowledgements,"
and noted that it acknowledges everyone who assisted in the
analyses. The amount of time, money, and effort that has been
put into collecting these samples is amazing and a tribute to
all the hard-working folks in the observer program. Those
hundreds of observers are working under very difficult
conditions. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game helped out
with the baseline and some of the statistical work. The Alaska
Groundfish Data Bank and the Alaska Seafood Cooperative are the
two industry groups that collected the samples from the rockfish
and arrowtooth flounder fisheries. Funding for this work came
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, and NMFS was funded
for a while through the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund with a
matching grant from the North Pacific Fisheries Research
Foundation, an industry group.
2:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) at one time did more fish
tissue sampling out of Southeast Alaska. He understood that the
budget for that was cut in half. He asked whether Dr. Guyon or
Mr. Templin are familiar with the budget cut and whether it
impacted their work.
MR. TEMPLIN replied he has no information related to the budget
cut and said that sampling for fish goes on in Southeast Alaska
under a number of programs. He offered to find the information
for the committee.
2:26:07 PM
MR. TEMPLIN began his presentation entitled, "Alaska's Genetics
Program, Genetics applications for fisheries management." He
noted that Dr. Guyon's presentation is a large-scale project
that provides direct information in a very consistent manner to
help fisheries application, especially in federal fisheries,
while his overview is of all the other things that the State of
Alaska uses genetics to help achieve its management goals and
mission. Turning to the two slides entitled, "Why does ADF&G
have a genetics lab?" he advised that ADF&G's mission is to:
protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their
use and development in the best interest of the
economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle.
MR. TEMPLIN explained that the genetics lab provides information
and assessment that gives the department the information needed
to improve management, allow for the development of new uses for
resources while at the same time protecting the resources for
the future. To achieve that, the laboratory provides four main
services: 1. To provide an understanding of the resource, such
as where the fish are coming from, whether the fish are
different from each other, whether the fish in one stream are
the same as the fish in another stream; 2. Help develop
capabilities for management by providing tools, such as those
being used by Dr. Guyon to look at the bycatch on the open
ocean; 3. Assess genetic risk of human activities; therefore,
the lab is involved in permitting of hatchery or fish resource
uses, and the lab is becoming increasingly involved in
mariculture, which includes marine invertebrates and seaweeds;
and, 4. The lab has direct applications to inform or assess
management actions, how the department can help provide the best
economic opportunities while also providing for the escapement
necessary for future production.
2:30:14 PM
MR. TEMPLIN turned to the slide entitled, "Questions that use
genetic information," and outlined seven questions. 1. Did
exposure to oil cause genetic injury in pink salmon populations
in Prince William Sound? 2. What species of salmon is this?
The lab is often sent tissue from fish that no one is able to
identify. So, one application is that the lab helps to identify
Atlantic salmon escapees from farms in British Columbia. 3. Is
this crab a hybrid? Many of the crab fisheries have different
regulations for two different species and for the hybrids
between those species. 4. Which broodstock are these hatchery
salmon from? 5. What is the genetic structure of these
populations? This is one of the most important areas that the
lab works in because of the theory that salmon in different
locations will be genetically distinct from each other because
they are isolated. The genetics laboratory allows the going out
and taking of measurements that can then be used for management.
6. Where are these fish going? For example, the lab takes
samples from the Pilot Station test fishery on the Lower Yukon
River and assesses the percentage of Canadian fish moving past
Pilot Station, which is immediately useful information performed
in-season so that the managers will know how many Canadian fish
are passing. 7. Whose fish are being harvested? This is always
a question in fishing communities. For example, in Southeast
Alaska the lab has assessed the stock structure of the harvest
of Chinook salmon and has directly used that information for
applications in the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
2:32:25 PM
MR. TEMPLIN discussed the first of five slides entitled,
"Applications: Understanding the Resource, Example: Red king
crab population structure." He said this work began in the
laboratory in the 1990s. It had direct forensic applications to
a situation where someone was saying they had captured red king
crab in one area, but the evidence was that they had captured it
in another area. Enforcement elected to let genetics decide and
that is how the genetics laboratory first started and was
eventually funded. [Referring to the map on the first slide] he
explained that red king crab occur across the North Pacific and
all the way from the Sea of Japan over to Southeast Alaska. It
would be expected that king crab would be different across that
that area, but how to manage with that information when one does
not have that information. Turning to the second slide in the
group [a map of Alaska in grey with yellow dots], he said each
dot represents samples that were taken in crab producing areas
throughout the state and one sample from Russia.
2:33:45 PM
MR. TEMPLIN addressed the plots on the third slide in the group.
He explained that each dot is a population and that on this
space the closer any two dots are the more genetically similar
they are, the further apart they are the more genetically
distinct they are. Thus, this is a map in genetic space rather
than geography. He noted there is a lot of space between the
red dots on the right. The yellow dots come from the Western
Gulf of Alaska and Eastern Bering Sea across the Alaska
Peninsula. Of the three blue dots, one comes from Russia, one
Norton Sound, and one from the Aleutians - geographically there
is a wide amount of area between the blue dots, but genetically
there is not as much distinction. Returning to the red dots, he
pointed out that the top red dot on the far left is Seymour
Canal in Southeast Alaska, so the red dots indicate that the
populations are distinct genetically even though they are
geographically very close together.
MR. TEMPLIN moved to the fourth slide in the group to elaborate
regarding the pattern of diversity. He explained that the
arrows show where the groups of dots originate from, and that
the height of the dot in the plot is a measure of its genetic
diversity. Moving towards the east geographically, the level of
diversity among populations decreases. Turning to the fifth
slide in the group, he discussed the implications of the
aforementioned for fisheries management. First, gene flow and
ice-age isolations provide information on the pattern of how
this population structure has occurred over time and so it
offers a sense of what might happen in the future as well.
Second, red king crab might be managed on a small geographic
scale in some regions, given it was seen how distinct red king
crab populations were from each other in Southeast Alaska, a
small area, while it was seen by the blue dots across a wide
area that they are less distinct - so in some areas genetic
concerns might be more important than in other areas. Third,
this can be used as guidance for possible stock enhancement.
Projects are being undertaken, not by the state, looking at
enhancing red king crab populations. This type of information
is very important for the permitting side of what the department
does in guiding human activities.
2:36:34 PM
MR. TEMPLIN turned to the first of seven slides entitled,
"Applications: Develop Capabilities, Example: Chinook salmon
coastwide baseline." He noted that Dr. Guyon already showed a
section of the Chinook salmon coastwide baseline. So, what he
would like to show the committee is how the lab works together
with different groups, thereby making it more efficient and less
expensive. In regard to the Chinook salmon, he said ADF&G,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, and
the University of Washington worked together to get various
aspects of this coastwide baseline together. Turning to the
second and third slides in the group, he noted that some Russian
samples were needed because the fish caught in Alaska are from
everywhere, including Russia. The lab worked through the North
Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission in a collaborative way to
obtain samples from Kamchatka. In addition the lab received
samples from the Pacific Northwest and from Southeast Alaska by
working with the Auke Bay Laboratory. The lab also worked with
its partners in the Pacific Salmon Commission as well as many
laboratories up and down the west coast of the United States and
Canada.
MR. TEMPLIN moved to the fourth slide in the group and reported
that the samples and information generated from all of those
laboratories were used by the ADF&G lab to put together a
baseline of 172 populations of Chinook salmon from throughout
the salmon's natural range. Each color and shape of dot on the
map represents groupings and there are about 14 groups. These
groups can actually be distinguished into much smaller groups,
but for large-scale applications it does not make sense to get
down to the last little river.
MR. TEMPLIN displayed the fifth slide in the group and stated
that another way to show genetic relationships is to use what is
called a tree. In the tree, each dot represents a population
and each color relates to the same color depicted on the map.
Dots that are closer together are more genetically similar to
each other. He pointed out that Western Alaska - Norton Sound,
Lower Yukon, Kuskokwim, Bristol Bay - are yellow squares on the
map and on the tree these yellow squares are a tight cluster,
indicating the level of genetic diversity in that very large
geographic area. Other places, however, have lots of
distinctions. There are a lot of very interesting geographic
patterns; for example, in the Upper Yukon and Yukon Territories
are reddish or purple squares and moving down the Yukon are the
green squares and then when it dumps out into the Bering Sea are
the yellow squares. There is a pattern of distinctiveness up
and down the Yukon River which is handy for the department when
using genetics in Chinook salmon on the Yukon River.
2:40:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether there is general agreement
among the researchers about how the 172 populations are defined
so that everyone is talking about the same 172 population.
MR. TEMPLIN replied that that is the reason why the lab works
together with many partners up and down the coast and throughout
the range so everyone can all come to an agreement on the best
ways to organize these. That way the information is consistent
report to report. He pointed out that the western United States
and British Columbia are grouped because the sample size there
was too small to be able to distinguish individual units "that
they like to use down there but it is very helpful for them to
know that in Bering Sea bycatch that there is at least a unit of
... British Columbia and a unit of west coast U.S. and they are
in agreement with that." This baseline is currently being
doubled and the number of snips, genetic markers, is being
increased by a factor of about four. When that project is
completed there will be much more resolution in this baseline
and much more ability to distinguish. This will therefore
increase Dr. Guyon's power to provide more information from the
bycatch, and the department's ability will be greatly increased
for Southeast Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that the 172 populations were further
broken into 11 different groupings [by Dr. Guyon] and into 14
groupings by the lab. She surmised that this is because each
agency has different research needs. She further surmised that
someone wanting to know more about population 172 would be
confident that the data describing this population would be the
same population.
MR. TEMPLIN answered correct. Basically, the National Marine
Fisheries Service is using this baseline and these designations,
but for the sake of providing more certainty around groups at
the cost of resolution among groups, NMFS has chosen to group a
few. So, it is hierarchical in that manner and NMFS has
basically combined a few of these groups.
2:43:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the slide with the tree and
asked whether these are the closest relatives; for example, the
Cook Inlet appears to be segmented away from the Seattle area.
He recalled that in the past people have transported fish from
one location and introduced them into others. He surmised that
this current genetics information indicates that those genetic
stocks did not take and the state is left with a quite different
stock than that from the Washington area.
MR. TEMPLIN replied correct. That is the lab's evaluation when
asked questions about whether these long distance transports of
fish actually had an effect or took. Not only is the group of
blue dots distinct from the ones down south, but they are fairly
similar within themselves as well. This indicates that whatever
location those hatchery fish may have been planted in, it did
not necessarily change their fundamental genetic signature. He
added that "Neighbor Joining," as written in the bottom right of
the slide, is a type of tree. There are a large number of
different ways to organize these trees, and F is the measure of
ST
distance.
2:45:09 PM
MR. TEMPLIN brought attention to the sixth slide in the group
with the subheading, "Stock-specific migration in the Bering
Sea" and the citation "Murphy et al. 2009, Stock-Structured
Distribution of Western Alaska and Yukon Juvenile Chinook Salmon
from United States BASIS surveys, 2002-2007." He said one
application that has been very useful for ADF&G in regard to
treaty issues on the Yukon River, is knowing about the
distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Bering Sea during
their first year after leaving the rivers. He explained that
the darker the color on the map, the more Chinook salmon were
captured in the trawl surveys in these areas; for example, in
locations outside the river mouths. However, there are also
areas where the salmon potentially mingle. The map on the right
shows genetic stock identification of those fish from those
different sections - Mixture 1, 2, and 3 moving south to north.
What this basically means is that the fish on the north are
identified as coming from the Yukon River, whereas the fish on
the south are identified as coming from the Kuskokwim and
Nushagak rivers. He said this work is very helpful and the work
has been expanded upon and has become an index that is useful
for forecasting Chinook salmon returns to the Yukon River.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the term "coastal" in the
upper right legend means the Kuskokwim River.
MR. TEMPLIN responded yes and pointed out that the coastal group
is the group of yellow boxes on the previous map. He said,
"I've taken a whole big project and kind of crammed it down to
give it to you in a couple of minutes and so I cut one piece out
and that would be that this ... just north of the island here is
kind of a valley in the abundance of Chinook salmon, and so
because of the size of these fish, their age, the time that they
would have left the rivers, we assumed that anything that was
identified as coastal north of this island would come from the
Lower Yukon, and anything south would be coming from the
Kuskokwim/Nushagak area." Some of that is an assumption on the
speed of time in which juvenile salmon can swim and their
distribution in the ocean, but it can be seen that the dark and
blue portions in the pie chart for salmon which come from the
middle and Upper Yukon River are not seen in the chart farther
down south.
2:47:55 PM
MR. TEMPLIN turned to the last of the seven slides in the group
and the second of two slides with the subheading, "Stock-
specific migration in the Bering Sea." He said samples were
obtained from across the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and the
coast of Russia. This information can be used to get a sense of
the movement of Chinook salmon across the North Pacific, Gulf of
Alaska, and Bering Sea. Information from these samples
corroborates prior studies with coded wire tags, he reported,
but in much more detail and depth. It is also useful
information for the Chinook Salmon Research Initiative and
understanding ocean ecosystems.
2:48:56 PM
MR. TEMPLIN addressed the first of 17 slides entitled,
"Applications: Assess Genetic Risk, Example: Chum salmon
hatchery/wild interaction." He said a question often asked is
how there can be so many Chum salmon in Prince William Sound
without having effects on wild populations. He explained that a
study was performed to get an answer and that he will walk the
committee through the fundamental ideas by reviewing the next 16
slides:
I've got five circles at the top, those are five
different populations, their color indicates genetic
nature. You can see they're all distinct from each
other. Over time if they continue spawning in the
same location, it'll maintain that structure. We know
that wild salmon have some amount of straying amongst
themselves, but it happens over a long period of time
and it comes to an equilibrium over time which is what
we really see. What we're looking at is the result of
the past years of straying and returning to their own
... streams to spawn. Alright, so that's the system
basically, over time pretty stable. Now we're going
to take fish from one of these streams and we're going
to put it in a hatchery and greatly increase it.
Alright. And over time we expect because it is being
brought back into the hatchery, not going back into
the wild system, over time it will become
domesticated, it will change, it will get used to
living in a hatchery, being born in a hatchery, not
necessarily born in the stream. This is a human
activity, it's what we do, it's how Holsteins came
about, or bugs, right, dogs change over time. So, if
we put this hatchery now in this area and we allow the
hatchery, you see the hatchery straying. The idea is
the hatchery will have a much higher stray rate, maybe
not a rate, but number of fish because you're
producing a lot of fish. But even if it's not a large
number, it's still some of these fish potentially be
showing up in the wild streams and over time those
streams will become to look more and more like the
hatchery. Now that's the theory. But nobody's ever
really gone and measured it, does this really work,
does this really happen? We do know that some streams
are going to be resistant ... the hatchery fish may
not do well in the stream or the hatchery fish may
never stray there. Right. So, in the Prince William
Sound we've got these streams ... each black dot is a
major Chum salmon spawning location. We had samples
from four of those, four of the natural populations
and one from the hatchery. These samples came across
time, from back we had scale samples that we could get
DNA from, pre-hatchery, and we're able to go and take
samples nowadays so that now we can compare for ...
genetic change over time. So here's what we have ...
we have these contemporary samples down here at the
bottom, we've got the historical samples, and we can
compare them to the hatchery. What did we end up
with? Here's another one of those trees, I just have
flattened it out a bit. If the populations were
becoming more like the hatchery in a large way, you
would expect all the contemporary samples to be
centered, or close to the Wally Noerenberg Hatchery
[WNH], the hatchery itself. But instead what we came
across was that a lot of the genetic structure remains
within these populations even after 30 plus years of
Chum salmon production in Prince William Sound. You
can see the historical and contemporary samples from
each of these locations are closer to each other than
they are to any other population. If you look up here
and you see Wally Noerenberg right in the middle of
Wells River, it's because the original population for
Wally Noerenberg Hatchery is the Wells River. There
was a little bit of Beartrap that was brought in, but
no indication that it had an effect. One other thing
that we'd like to look at is how much is there change,
and how much is it changing over time. Effectively
this plot here is a comparison of the old sample to
the hatchery on the ... X axis on the bottom, and the
contemporary sample to the hatchery on the Y axis.
Each dot is a genetic marker and we would expect,
comparing these, if there was no effect that all of
these black dots would line up on that blue line.
Okay. The red line is the trend through that cloud of
dots and so the difference of the red line from the
blue line is a measure of how much it's changed
towards the hatchery. Okay. If there's a change
towards the hatchery, that red line will become more
and more horizontal. Alright. And we can see that
the effect here is very different, Wells is almost
horizontal but Wells was also the original hatchery.
Constantine, very little change over 30 years, that
red line is very close to the blue line. This is all
described in a paper that is publically available.
2:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that the Wells River was the
original genetic source.
MR. TEMPLIN clarified the Wells River was the main source.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether within the hatchery the
Wells River stock changed its genetic composition and then is
straying into the Wells River streams and overwhelming the
preexisting genetic composition.
MR. TEMPLIN responded that he did not believe that could be said
yet, because the Wells River was the original population, the
main population that contributed to the hatchery. He explained
that there are many potential reasons for this and more study
would have to be done. A hatchery/wild interaction study is
currently ongoing, funded in part by the State of Alaska and the
processors. He opined that two reasons could be that because
the original stock came from Wells River that strays from the
hatchery might do well in the Wells River. He noted that Siwash
Creek is actually closer to the hatchery and has recorded
sometimes as much as 50 percent stray fish and for some reason
it is not being affected much by the hatchery. He opined that
it may have to do with the hatchery fish returning at a time
that is not optimal.
2:56:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said in order to determine whether the
spread between the red and blue lines indicates the genetic
change to the base population, it would have to be assumed that
the population was taken from Wells River and put it in the
hatchery. Although, if it was put right back at the same
genetic there wouldn't be anything seen. So, he surmised, it
would have to be assumed that the Wells River stock
significantly genetically changed through the hatchery
operations and then some of that spread back to Wells River. He
said he was trying to determine how there could be this drastic
differential in the parent population.
MR. TEMPLIN answered that he has taken a lot of information and
condensed it down. The red line is a measure of "introgression
rate," the movement of genes from the hatchery into the natural
populations; for example, if hatchery fish successfully spawn in
the stream some of those genes are now in the gene pool. So,
this is a measure of how fast or whether that is even occurring.
Also, he noted, when reviewing the spread of the dots, Wells
River is a cloud whereas Constantine is stretched out, which is
an indication of the amount of genetic difference between Wells
River and the hatchery, and Constantine and the hatchery. So,
there is a continuum upon which he would have to do these and it
would be another study. Yes, he said, this indicates that over
time that these populations are becoming slightly more like the
hatchery but it does not measure how or where that is happening.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised he is trying to clarify because
the public is listening to the hearing and this study has
several potential meanings that must be figured out.
MR. TEMPLIN agreed that there are several potential meanings in
this and said it is carefully laid out in the paper.
MR. TEMPLIN continued his presentation, noting that the
implications of the study are that the population structure is
not visibly eroded, introgression rates are highly variable
among locations (some places there is resistance and some places
there are changes), and both distance from the hatchery and life
history can effect that introgression rate.
2:59:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to a documentary that was produced
in the last couple of years regarding efforts to restore wild
salmon populations along the western coast and the dam removal.
One of the challenges discussed within the documentary was that
populations have been so weakened that they are not strong
enough to rebound on their own. She asked whether, as the red
line comes closer to the horizontal, that means the wild stock
has been diluted, and should Alaska be similarly concerned about
the strength of those populations going forward.
MR. TEMPLIN answered that the distinction between the State of
Alaska's hatchery system and the hatchery systems in the Pacific
Northwest is that those in the Pacific Northwest are mainly
rescue and supplementation type hatcheries that are trying to
build up populations from harm that was caused. Alaska's
hatcheries are generally systems designed to create fish to be
caught. Therefore, Alaska's previous scientists developed a
genetics policy to guide hatchery programs as well as a large
number of regulations and statutes that guide Alaska's hatchery
programs, and put sideboards on it to keep this from happening.
MR. TEMPLIN responded to Representative Tarr's second question
by saying, yes, if all of those red lines were horizontal it
would indicate there was quite a bit of change happening and a
change in the direction of the hatchery population, and that
would be a big warning to the state that some of its management
is not working.
3:01:44 PM
MR. TEMPLIN elaborated on the remaining slides in his PowerPoint
presentation, beginning with the slide entitled, "Applications:
Inform/Assess Management, Example: Western Alaska Salmon Stock
Identification Program [WASSIP]." He advised that WASSIP was
funded by the legislature and was the biggest thing of its kind
ever done anywhere. He related that Area M had a long history
of differences of opinion on the interception fishery and in
many instances decisions were being made without much
information. In the early 1990s there was the idea of using
genetics and a study provided information. But there was still
a lot of concern about what was going on. U.S. Senator Ted
Stevens stated he would be willing to pull political support
together to fund a large-scale collaborative genetic project
"If, and only if, the stakeholders could agree on the necessary
information, the study design, and results." A miracle happened
and a large group of organizations got together and formed an
advisory panel [WASSIP] and signed a memorandum of understanding
to guide this study. The study looks at every fishery from
Chignik all the way around the coast up to Kotzebue Sound.
MR. TEMPLIN pointed out that the length of the coastline is
about 3,300 kilometers. Approximately 278 fishery strata were
identified for Chum salmon and [307] for Sockeye salmon. The
numbers of individuals to be genotyped [74,445 Chum salmon and
81,932 Sockeye salmon] do not look large, but at the time of the
study a typical laboratory might put between 5,000 and 20,000
fish through per year. The study had to 75,000 Chum and 82,000
Sockeye in about a year and a half. He said the Chum salmon
baseline basically has about 36,000 individuals and about 300
populations covering everything from Korea to Washington.
Regarding what kind of information is received from such a
study, he pointed out that one of the big questions [needing to
be answered] is, What stocks are caught in my fishery? Other
questions include: How many fish of each stock were caught in
my fishery? What fishery catches my stock? He noted that these
questions were done for both Sockeye and Chum. This very
successful study has been very useful and is still being used;
for example, a large number of proposals for Area M are being
based upon this WASSIP information.
3:05:50 PM
MR. TEMPLIN discussed the six remaining slides entitled,
"Applications: Inform/Assess Management, Example: Port Moller
Test Fishery - Inseason." He explained that in this fishery,
the department provides real time information inseason as the
fishery is happening to guide management. He advised that this
information is used by managers, fishermen, and processors. The
Port Moller Test Fishery takes place in lines off of Port Moller
stretching towards Cape Newenham. It looks at fish passing
through this line towards Bristol Bay and the questions being
asked include: Which stocks are these coming from? How are
they distributed? How many are there? He brought attention to
a news release that goes out to managers, fishermen, and
processors that provides real time information about the fish
that are coming through or not coming through. This test
fishery is now a global fisheries management tool of interest to
Russia, Japan, and Korea.
3:09:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1.16 - HES RES - NOAA Genetics in fisheries Pt 1.pdf |
HRES 2/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2.1.16 - HSE RES - ADFG Genetics in fisheries Pt 2.pdf |
HRES 2/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2.1.16 - HSE RES - ICER Dec 2015 Rpt - Fiscal Effects Of Commercial Fishing, Mining, &Tourism.pdf |
HRES 2/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2.1.16 HSE RES - ICER Dec 2015 Rpt - Fiscal Effects Of Commercial Fishing, Mining, & Tourism - Research Summary.pdf |
HRES 2/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2.1.16Loeffler-Colt Hse Resc Fiscal Effects Presentat'n.pdf |
HRES 2/1/2016 1:00:00 PM |
ISER presentation |