Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/30/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB28 | |
| HB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 41-SHELLFISH PROJECTS; HATCHERIES; FEES
10:19:06 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 41, "An Act relating to management of enhanced
stocks of shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating to
application fees for salmon hatchery permits and shellfish
enhancement project permits; allowing the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute to market aquatic farm products; and
providing for an effective date."
10:20:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ, as the prime sponsor, introduced HB 41.
He noted that the bill nearly made it to the finish line in the
last legislative session, but then was caught up in the COVID-19
pandemic issue. He paraphrased from the following written
sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]:
Enhancement of Alaska's shellfish industry holds the
potential of expanded economic opportunities in
Alaska's coastal communities and increased
resilience of the State's fisheries portfolio.
To tap this potential House Bill 41 allows qualified
non-profits to pursue enhancement and/or restoration
projects involving shellfish species including red
and blue king crab, sea cucumber, abalone, and razor
clams.
The bill creates a regulatory framework with which
the Department of Fish & Game [ADF&G] can manage
shellfish enhancement projects and outlines criteria
for issuance of permits. It sets out stringent
safety standards to ensure sustainability and health
of existing natural stocks. The commissioner of
ADF&G must also make a determination of substantial
public benefit before a project can proceed.
In addition, the bill allows the Department of Fish
& Game to set the application fee for a shellfish
enhancement project permit and grants the similar
authority over the application fee for a salmon
enhancement project permit. This bill also amends
the statutes governing the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute's to allow ASMI to market aquatic farm
products including oysters and kelp.
House Bill 41 plays an important role in the
development of mariculture in Alaska by providing a
method to increase the available harvest of
shellfish for public use in an environmentally safe
and responsible manner.
10:23:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she is excited to see the
ability for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) to
market aquatic farm products. She said she is grateful to the
sponsor for this important aspect of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY concurred.
10:23:56 AM
CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony on HB 41.
10:24:23 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, Chair, Alaska Mariculture Task Force;
Representative, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
(CBSFA); Representative, Alaska King Crab Research,
Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB) Program, provided invited
testimony in support of HB 41. She stated that the Alaska
Mariculture Task Force is a governor's task force that has been
in existence since 2016. It was renewed by the current
administration, which is very supportive. The task force
started by prioritizing what needed to happen to make
mariculture development in Alaska easier, better, and faster.
The task force prioritized the impediments that need to be
remedied by statute, regulation, science, research, and
marketing.
MS. MCCARTY said passage of HB 41 is a priority of the task
force for two reasons. First, from a regulatory and statutory
point, work on shellfish development and culture can go no
farther than it has without the bill's passage to allow for
implementing regulations to be put together by the department
and by the state to allow shellfish mariculture to progress to
what it can be in Alaska. Second, the task force has identified
marketing issues, and HB 41 would change a few words in ASMI's
enabling legislation to allow ASMI to market non-wild-capture
seafood products, which means mariculture products. These two
aims are a priority of the Alaska Mariculture Task Force.
MS. MCCARTY spoke in favor of HB 41 on behalf of the Central
Bering Sea Fishermen's Association of St. Paul Island, a group
she works for that is a part of the Western Alaska Community
Development Quota (CDQ) Program. She stated that [prior to the
early 1980s], Pribilof residents enjoyed a robust Pribilof blue
king crab fishery around the islands. The fishery contributed
to the processing of crab on St. Paul, which is really the sole
industry on St. Paul Island. The Trident plant there is the
biggest in North America, and it processes some king crab from
the Bristol Bay king crab stock, as well as snow crab. Since
the early 1980s Pribilof Island blue king crab have been so
sparse that no fishery has been allowed on them. The same thing
holds true for the red king crab around Kodiak, which is also so
low that there hasn't had a fishery since the early 1980s. It
used to support a robust industry on Kodiak and was a big part
of the Kodiak economy. Ms. McCarty said she supports HB 41 on
behalf of the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association because
the goal of shellfish mariculture has been to focus on king crab
culture and king crab restoration. Through the programs that
have been put together, and through HB 41 allowing larger scale
production of crab, the hope is to turn that around. She added
that Bristol Bay king crab is also on the verge of being
depleted. King crab is in trouble, she continued, and figuring
out why and how is needed.
10:28:30 AM
MS. MCCARTY further spoke on in favor of HB 41 on behalf of the
Alaska King Crab Research, Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB)
Program, which was put together in 2006. She said it was known
that crab is cultured successfully in other places in the world
and is a big part of the economies of some other countries.
While AKCRRAB's research program is particularly on king crab,
she continued, it is recognized that the technology and
understanding gained from the program can be transferred to
other crab stocks. The program has successfully reared red and
blue king crab to the first crab stage of life, which can then
be raised to adulthood or allowed to be in the wild and become
adults. The technology is there, and research has been done on
every aspect of the crab lifecycle, including genetics and
preferred habitat. The program has published 35 of its crab
research projects in peer-reviewed journals. The program's work
cannot go any farther until HB 41 is passed.
10:30:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE related that he lived on Kodiak in 1981
and used to catch his limit of king [crab] every day, but then
they went away pretty fast. He said he heard it was overfishing
and he also heard it was a parasite. If it was a parasite that
created some of the stock depletion around Kodiak, he asked what
is to prevent that same parasite from flourishing in a hatchery
situation that puts forth king crab that then decimates the
natural population.
MS. MCCARTY replied that much scientific work has been done on
what happened with wild red king crab in the Kodiak area, and
most people have settled on it being overfished. She said she
has not heard a theory about parasites, and deferred to Dr.
Eckert for an answer regarding a parasite theory. Ms. McCarty
said she doesn't believe parasites are an accepted explanation
for the drop in the king crab stocks around Kodiak. As far as
preventing parasites, she stated that there are so many checks
and balances in every hatchery, and checks and balances through
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), to prevent that
from occurring with any species, so it is her view that that
isn't a realistic fear.
[CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Representative Stutes.]
10:33:34 AM
SAMUEL RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), provided invited
testimony in support of HB 41. He noted he is also a member of
the governor's Alaska Mariculture Task Force, which was
established in 2016 by Governor Bill Walker and reinstated and
extended by Governor Mike Dunleavy. He related that ADF&G's
mission statement states that the department 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. RABUNG stated that AS 16.05.092 says, in part, that ADF&G
shall encourage investment by private enterprise in the
technological development and economic utilization of the
fisheries resources and, through rehabilitation, enhancement,
and development programs, do all things necessary to ensure
perpetual and increasing production and use of the food
resources of state waters and continental shelf areas. This
work was under the purview of ADF&G's Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement, and Development Division (FRED) until 1994 when
FRED was merged with the Division of Commercial Fisheries. The
Division of Commercial Fisheries still operates the pathology,
gene conservation, and mark, tag, and age labs, and contracts
the operation of its salmon hatcheries to private nonprofit
aquaculture associations. The division provides permitting and
oversight for its statewide aquaculture planning and permitting
section. The section is responsible for the salmon hatchery
program, the aquatic farming program, and permitting of research
and educational projects statewide.
MR. RABUNG pointed out that currently in Alaska, mariculture is
limited to aquatic farming, which means a facility that grows,
farms, or cultivates aquatic farm products in captivity or under
positive control. Aquatic farm product is considered private
property just as is livestock on a terrestrial farm, and aquatic
farming primarily benefits private owners and businesses. In
contrast, another form of mariculture is fishery enhancement.
This entails the restoration, rehabilitation, or enhancement of
natural production, and this benefits the common property
fisheries of subsistence, personal use, sport, and commercial,
rather than private ownership. This is what would be allowed if
HB 41 becomes law.
MR. RABUNG explained that restoration means restoring a stock to
a location where it has been extirpated, and bringing it back to
a level that can be naturally produced and sustained. Once
achieved the project ceases. Rehabilitation means assisting a
poorly performing stock to recover to its former level that can
be naturally produced and sustained. Once achieved the project
ceases. Enhancement means producing additional numbers of
naturally producing stock above what it can produce in nature in
order to provide additional harvestable surplus. If the project
ceases, the supplemental production goes away and production of
the stock reverts back to what can be naturally sustained.
10:37:00 AM
MR. RABUNG stated that an example of a mariculture restoration
project is the Alaska King Crab Research, Rehabilitation and
Biology (AKCRRAB) Program. This program seeks to plant juvenile
king crab from nearby stocks into locations that supported these
stocks until the 1980s when they were overfished. They have not
recovered, even with 35 or more years of fishery closures. The
only tool ADF&G has at this time to recover these stocks is to
keep the fisheries closed. Passage of HB 41 would provide
another tool to try.
MR. RABUNG specified that examples of mariculture rehabilitation
projects include collecting adult razor clams from the east side
of Cook Inlet, inducing them to spawn in a hatchery, and
planting those juveniles back onto the same beaches their
parents came from, as this could increase recruitment into the
fishery and help that stock recover. This could also be done
for hardshell clams that have been diminished in Kachemak Bay
due to overharvest and sea otter depredation. Another project
could be collecting and aggregating abalone in Southeast Alaska
in order to increase their density and thereby their spawning
success. There are many projects that could be done under these
categories, there is not a one size fits all.
MR. RABUNG said an example of a mariculture enhancement project
is back-stocking sea cucumber juveniles immediately following a
dive fishery. Dive fisheries typically occur on a three-year
rotation, so the same site is harvested about every three years.
Increasing the number of juveniles will potentially increase
recruitment into the fishery and provide for increased yields.
This could be done in perpetuity to produce additional or
supplemental harvest.
MR. RABUNG noted that, like with Alaska's salmon fishery
enhancement programs, if HB 41 passes this work would be subject
to pathology, genetic, and management oversight from ADF&G.
Alaska already has the most stringent aquaculture guidance in
the world and is held up as the example of how to do it right in
a manner that minimizes effects on natural production, and
maintains the sustainability of natural production and the
fisheries and people who depend on it. That will not change.
10:39:15 AM
[VICE CHAIR STUTES returned the gavel to Chair Tarr.]
10:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why the term "genetically
modified shellfish" is defined on page 9, line 24. He further
asked where else the term appears in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ deferred to Mr. Rabung for an answer.
MR. RABUNG responded that he doesn't have a copy of the bill in
front of him. He said it is important to note that "genetically
modified" is a defined term, although he doesn't know if it is
defined in statute. He continued: "We would not allow, per our
genetics policy, any genetic manipulation of a stock that is
intended to be released into the wild. These are intended to be
maintained as wild with the minimal manipulation possible."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS further observed the definition is
in Section 4 of the bill, which is adding a new chapter. He
presumed this is a new definition that is being added in law.
He stated that Mr. Rabung's answer reflects his interest, which
is that "we don't want to be genetically modifying creatures
that are going to be entering wild ecosystems." He suggested
that perhaps this could be revisited with another testifier.
CHAIR TARR recounted that during [the committee's] work on
genetically modified salmon, the company producing that product
had several others in its queue, including shellfish. She said
she has therefore always considered that a concern to watch out
for. During the federal process, a couple years ago, the
company removed all that material from its website as it tried
to get through the approval. While she hasn't recently checked
into where the company is, she has some of the company's
documents from prior to that, which show a number of species the
company was interested in producing in a genetically modified
version.
10:42:16 AM
CHAIR TARR addressed the topic of depleted fisheries from the
1980s. She noted it is always talked about that Alaska has a
strong fisheries management program and is the envy of other
places. She inquired whether things were being done differently
during the 1980s and whether [the management practices] of today
hadn't yet been adopted. She further inquired whether there
would be sustainable fisheries in those places today if things
had been done in the 1980s like they are being done now.
MR. RABUNG responded:
We're always learning, and crab biology and crab
management in the '80s, we learned a lot. One way
that we learned what the limits are is to exceed them
... and in hindsight that's what it looks like
happened in a lot of these crab stocks. So once they
are fished down, then there's what we call "downward
pressure" on the stock that prevents it from
recovering, and that would be generally predation.
Concurrent with overfishing those stocks, though, we
also have what we refer to as the "regime change" when
environmental conditions in the ocean shifted to
benefit finfish such as pollock and flounders and
things like that, whereas prior to that things were
very beneficial to crab. So there was kinda two
things that happened at once.
10:44:06 AM
GINNY ECKERT, PhD, Director, Alaska Sea Grant, University of
Alaska, provided invited testimony in support of HB 41. She
related that in addition to being the director of Alaska Sea
Grant, she is a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
(UAF) [Juneau Center of the College of Fisheries and Ocean
Sciences]. She further related that she is a shellfish expert,
has been in Alaska since 2000, and has served as the science
director of the AKCRRAB Program since it started.
DR. ECKERT addressed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' question.
She cited page 4, lines 21-22, of the bill, which state that
[the permit holder] "not procure genetically modified shellfish
or place genetically modified shellfish into the water of the
state". So that important regulation is in the bill, she said.
DR. ECKERT began her testimony by thanking Representative Ortiz
and the committee for working on the legislation. She noted she
has testified several times in support of previous versions of
this bill. Alaska has these fisheries that have been depleted,
particularly king crab, she continued. These stocks crashed in
the 1980s and have not recovered. The scientific evidence
absolutely supports that overfishing was the cause of the
decline. The fishing rates were very high back then and people
didn't really understand that. There was also bycatch in trawl
fisheries, which people didn't really understand as well.
People just thought these crabs were unlimited. These fisheries
have been closed since their crash, and the Kodiak fisheries in
particular have not been fished in a very long time and they
have not recovered.
DR. ECKERT specified that over the last decade she and her
colleagues have published in many scientific publications, and
done a variety of work on many different aspects of king crab
life history. In looking at what's going on in the wild, she
and her colleagues are pretty convinced that, particularly in
Kodiak where much of this work has been done, these king crab
are not recovering on their own. There's no natural recruitment
happening, and in the case of a lack of natural recruitment,
hatchery production could be one way to help restore this
population. Through their work, she and her colleagues have
developed methods for hatchery rearing, and done research on the
genetics to better understand the genetics. It is absolutely
possible to safely in very scientifically manageable ways make
sure genetic concerns are addressed. These genetic concerns are
absolutely valid and there are mechanisms to address them.
DR. ECKERT said some of the genetic concerns that are brought up
relate salmon to crab. But, she continued, the life histories
of salmon are very different from crab. Salmon reproduce in the
stream where they were born, and biologically it is fascinating
in that salmon are actually inbred on purpose and it works very
well for them. Crab are very different, so rearing crab in
hatcheries is very different as well. Animals from the wild
that have reproduced in the wild would be used, and then just
raised in a hatchery. All that natural selection has already
happened in the wild, and so using a good number of them ensures
genetic viability of these stocks.
DR. ECKERT pointed out that HB 41 is not just about king crab;
this could be used on a variety of other species. Washington
State has a very successful project that right now is out
planting very tiny baby abalone, she said. The project is doing
very well and stands as a model for the kind of work that could
be done in Alaska if HB 41 is passed.
10:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY thanked Dr. Eckert for her work, and stated
that this is critical to get going for Alaska and she hopes the
bill goes through and becomes law.
CHAIR TARR noted that bycatch continues as an ongoing issue.
She asked whether bycatch, environmental conditions, or
predation could be connected to the lack of natural recruitment.
DR. ECKERT explained that king crab naturally aggregate together
and travel around in packs. [Scientists] think much of that
aggregation has to do with reproduction. If there aren't enough
animals out there, there isn't that critical mass to have
successful reproduction. The idea is that the stock is
depressed to such a level that it's not able to naturally
rebound. Even though the fisheries are closed, there still is
some bycatch happening that potentially is contributing to
keeping it depressed. The nature and biology of this animal is
such that it's stuck in that hole, so to speak.
10:50:40 AM
JEREMY WOODROW, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI), provided invited testimony in support of HB
41. He noted ASMI is established in statute as a public-private
partnership to foster the economic development of Alaska's
seafood resources. It plays a key role in positioning Alaska's
seafood industry as a competitive, market driven, food
production industry, and functions as a brand manager for the
Alaska seafood family of brands. He said ASMI supports HB 41 in
recognition of mariculture being an emerging maritime industry
with tremendous opportunity for Alaska's economy.
MR. WOODROW explained that mariculture involves cultivating
marine organisms in the ocean for food and other products, such
as oysters, mussels, abalone, geoduck, and seaweeds like kelp.
The practice does not require feed, fertilizers, herbicides,
insecticides, or antibiotics, making it sustainable. Because of
the economic and environmental promise, the Alaska Mariculture
Task Force identified the goal to develop Alaska's mariculture
production into a $100 million per year industry in 20 years.
To increase jobs and economic opportunity for fishermen and
Alaskan businesses, the ASMI board of directors supports HB 41
and legislative action to allow for the marketing of mariculture
products or aquatic farm products as defined in AS 16.40.199,
which ASMI is currently prohibited from doing so.
MR. WOODROW stated that ASMI is joined in its support of HB 41
by the Alaska seafood industry, the Alaska Mariculture Task
Force, the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association, and many new
Alaskan owned and operated businesses. Mariculture presents a
significant economic opportunity for Alaska, and offers the
ability for seafood companies to diversify their existing
product portfolios. With the support and efforts of the
Mariculture Task Force, small family businesses have already
proven products to be commercially viable by selling boutique
products while offering fishermen opportunities to utilize their
vessels, equipment, and skills during shoulder seasons.
MR. WOODROW specified that if HB 41 is passed, ASMI plans to
include mariculture products in its effective and lucrative
consumer retail food service and food aid marketing programs in
domestic and targeted foreign markets. In efforts to ramp up
dispersion in the industry, ASMI will lend the same expertise
and outreach to the mariculture industry as it has to Alaska's
seafood industry for 40 years. He thanked the committee for
recognizing the value of Alaska's maritime economy and for its
consideration of new legislation to aid economic development
across Alaska's coastal communities.
10:53:42 AM
CHAIR TARR closed invited testimony and opened public testimony
on HB 41.
10:54:00 AM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation (AFDF), testified in support of HB 41. She said the
bill would create a framework from which to develop shellfish
enhancement and would allow ASMI to market aquatic farm
products, which would help develop the new mariculture industry.
The bill accomplishes two of the priority recommendations of the
Alaska Mariculture Task Force, which is part of a larger plan to
fully develop the mariculture industry in Alaska with the goal
to grow a $100 million per year industry in 20 years.
MS. DECKER noted that AFDF's membership is comprised of seafood
harvesters, seafood processors, and support businesses. Founded
in 1978, AFDF's mission is to identify opportunities common to
the Alaska seafood industry, and develop efficient, sustainable
outcomes that provide benefits to the economy, environment, and
communities. One of the more recent opportunities that AFDF has
been promoting is mariculture development in Alaska. She has
served on the Alaska Mariculture Task Force since 2016.
10:55:35 AM
MS. DECKER, to keep her testimony brief, focused her comments on
shellfish enhancement as an economic opportunity. She said
shellfish enhancement could help diversify and expand the
economies in coastal Alaska, and increase harvests for sport,
subsistence, and commercial use. A recent news story stated
that Alaska's salmon hatcheries in 2020 again contributed nearly
30 percent to the state's total salmon catches. Think about the
possibility of this bill creating something similar something
so substantial that it could add an additional 30 percent to
what is currently harvested statewide. The growth of the
mariculture industry can play an important role in Alaska's
economic recovery from COVID-19. Passage of HB 41 is critical
to fully enabling that economic potential.
10:57:11 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, expressed
her concern that there are deficiencies in HB 41. She said her
motive for testifying is her deep concern for the wild fisheries
and the lack of compliance that she sees. While many good
things are going on with ADF&G, she stated, there is some lack
of compliance with these same statutes in regard to salmon. She
drew attention to Section 4 of HB 41 that would amend AS 16 by
adding a new chapter: Chapter 12. Shellfish Enhancement
Projects. She specifically addressed Sec. 16.12.050(b) that
begins on page 5, line 26, in the bill. She asked how the Board
of Fisheries would be involved in making any amendments to the
original hatchery permits. Right now, she maintained, the Board
of Fisheries is completely disregarded in the salmon hatchery
permits. Any alterations are being done through a regional
planning team (RPT), she continued, and then it goes to the
commissioner who is supposed to send it to the Board of
Fisheries and use the administrative procedures.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated that a lot of things are missing in the
bill. She said it's important to look at and understand
opportunities as well as to look at and understand impacts. She
referenced a paper she has on mariculture in which section 1 of
the paper addresses understanding impacts and section 2
addresses understanding opportunities. The paper discusses
impacts to marine species, seabed habitat, genetic diversity,
detritus, and others. There are two sides to the story, she
stressed, but only one side is being looked at [in HB 41], and
it is important to get [the impacts] under control.
MS. HILLSTRAND said she appreciates what has been done in the
lines of culture. She was a fish culturist with ADF&G for 21
years, she related, so she understands what it means to start
something new because [ADF&G] started on something new in the
1970s with salmon culture. But, she added, a lot of mistakes
were made. She stated that there is no framework in the bill,
no comprehensive plan, which at least the salmon had as Alaska
Statute (AS) 16.10.375. For example, she asked, is there going
to be a regional planning team that knows about crab? Is there
going to be a comprehensive plan written prior to this or this
just going to be a mismatch of fragmented management and not
knowing?
MS. HILLSTRAND specified that when the [salmon] hatcheries were
started there were 120 people within FRED, and [the hatcheries]
were created before the statutes came. She maintained that
there are currently very few people in the department who
understand the animal husbandry required with something like
this. She noted that she sent the committee a copy of the 1991
"Alaska State Legislative Review" on the effects of hatcheries.
She urged that this review, now 30 years old, be continued
because a consensus is needed, and more information needs to be
gathered and understood to ensure that no damage is done to
Alaska's wild fisheries.
11:00:26 AM
MS. HILLSTRAND agreed there is a problem with crab not growing
back, but questioned whether things could be made worse by
taking out some of the brood stock. She asked whether ADF&G has
staff on the ground that know about this, and whether anyone has
talked to ADF&G staff in Kodiak or Adak, the actual people who
would be supplying these permits for taking brood stock. She
stressed the importance of finding out these answers beforehand
because industry will place a lot of pressure on ADF&G's on-the-
ground people.
MS. HILLSTRAND urged that a look be taken at the ecosystem
repercussions and the other impacts, that a comprehensive plan
is formed, and that legislative reviews on hatcheries be
continued. More needs to be done than what has happened so far
in a small laboratory creating crab, she said. Things need to
be incremental, so there is something that puts a stopgap to
stop or slow things down if necessary. She again urged the
committee to look at 16.12.050(b) and the Board of Fisheries,
and questioned why it isn't being used because just yesterday
another law passed that bypasses the Board of Fisheries. A
check and balance needs to be in in the bill and not bypassed so
things can be brought up for the public to understand what going
on, instead of just letting industry run off with this. She
added that she would like more people to understand what this is
before running with it and thinking everything is fine when
there are already problems within the salmon hatchery industry.
11:02:40 AM
CHAIR TARR requested Mr. Rabung to respond to Ms. Hillstrand's
suggestions. She said that when she looks at bills, she always
has a concern about impacts to wild stocks for the genetics
reason, but she was feeling assured by what has been presented
on HB 41 so far.
11:03:13 AM
MR. RABUNG responded that he would categorize what was just
heard as grossly misinformed and, because this same comment has
been heard before over the years, he would say it is willfully
misinformed. He stated that there have been many Department of
Law opinions and interpretations of Alaska's statutes regarding
Board of Fisheries authority versus commissioner's authority.
It's clearly laid out in statute that the commissioner's
authority is permitting, and the Board of Fisheries' authority
relates to allocation of harvest. So, that is not at question.
He clarified that HB 41 does not relate to salmon hatcheries.
But in response to the previous salmon hatchery assertions, he
said all existing salmon hatchery programs have been reviewed
for compliance with the state's statutes, regulations, and
policies. Those are published and available on [the division's]
website, and this has been done since about 2010 or 2011. All
have been found in compliance, although some housekeeping things
have been found and rectified.
MR. RABUNG said [the division] has spent a considerable amount
of time in the last 10 years gaining a firm legal understanding
of the statutes and regulations that guide these programs. [The
division] is made up of individuals, he continued, and every
individual has opinions. He said he would characterize what was
happening as a misinterpretation of some of the guidance. This
has since been clarified with the Department of Law and there is
an affirmed understanding of the guidance and everything [the
division] does is within that guidance.
MR. RABUNG continued his response. He stressed that [the
division] has not seen harm from its hatchery programs despite
looking for it. Assertions have been made, but [the division]
can't see it, and so the salmon hatchery production has been at
its current level since the mid-1990s. Three of the four record
wild stock harvests in the history of the state occurred in the
last 10 years, he noted. As well, there have been poor returns
in other places. Salmon runs are cyclical and have ups and
downs, but [the division] doesn't see a significant negative
effect on natural productivity from its hatchery practices.
That's not to say [the division] isn't looking for them, a lot
of effort is being spent looking for these things and ensuring
that if [the division] can make improvements in the program [the
division] will know about it and will try to do that.
MR. RABUNG addressed the statement about a lack of oversight.
He said a provision in HB 41 [Sec. 16.12.010. Permits for
shellfish enhancement projects.] states that the commissioner
shall consult with and solicit recommendations from federal and
state agencies and technical experts in the relevant area
regarding permit stipulations and issuance. So, he continued,
the intention is not to do this in a vacuum but to gain all of
the most valid input and assistance possible to ensure no harm
is being done.
11:08:45 AM
ANGEL DROBNICA, Director, Fisheries and Government Affairs,
Aleutian and Pribilof Community Development Association
(APICDA), testified in support of HB 41. She noted she is a
member of the Alaska Mariculture Task Force and is representing
APICDA, one of the six CDQ groups whose mission is to advance
fisheries-related economic development in member communities in
Southwest Alaska. She said APICDA believes mariculture is very
complementary to its mission and could provide opportunity for
diversification in APICDA's fishing operations and businesses.
MS. DROBNICA noted that this bill has been in the queue for a
number of years, and APICDA is hopeful it will make it to the
finish line this session. She said APICDA believes HB 41
provides an important next step for Alaska's growing mariculture
industry by allowing a regulatory pathway for enhancement
projects that could result in meaningful common property
opportunities to help diversify existing fishing operations and
increase food security. In addition, APICDA has supported past
efforts of the AKCRRAB Program, as crab fisheries are hugely
important to the CDQ Program and to rural Alaska communities.
The bill could provide a pathway for restoration and
enhancement, particularly for some of the stocks experiencing
decline right now. She encouraged the passage of HB 41.
11:10:31 AM
CHAIR TARR, after ascertaining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 41.
11:10:44 AM
CHAIR TARR inquired whether Representative Ortiz had spoken with
other committee members about the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ replied that he had.
CHAIR TARR related that no amendments or additional questions
had been submitted to her for HB 41. She said she would
therefore be comfortable with moving the bill.
11:11:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report HB 41 from committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 41 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 28 Sponsor Statement - Version A 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Version A 2.18.21.PDF |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Sectional Analysis - Version A 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Fiscal Note - DOA-DMV 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Fiscal Note - DFG-CFEC 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - USCG Documentation and Tonnage Brochure - Speaker Stutes 3.4.20.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - Commercial Fishing Vessel Licensing Overview - CFEC 3.21.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - Vessel Licensing Presentation - CFEC 3.21.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/23/2021 11:00:00 AM HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Testimony Received by 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 41 Sponsor Statement ver. B 1.27.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 ver. B.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Sectional Analysis ver B 03.10.2021.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Fiscal Note - DCCED-ASMI 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Fiscal Note - DFG-CFEC 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Fiscal Note - DFG-DCF 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Fiscal Note - DOR-TAX 3.19.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Fiscal Note - SPEC-ST 3.20.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Testimony Received by 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2021 10:30:00 AM HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 41 |
| HB 28 Research - DMV Registration FAQ 2019.pdf |
HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SFIN 4/27/2022 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - Info from Legislative Finance - Bell 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - Boat Receipts Allocation Summary 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM SRES 2/7/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Research - Boat Receipts Fund Source Report - Legislative Finance 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |
| HB 28 Amendment One - House Fisheries Committee 3.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 3/30/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 28 |