Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
02/07/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 52-TUTKA BAY HATCHERY
1:06:42 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act providing that operation of the
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery in Kachemak Bay is compatible with the
functions of Kachemak Bay State Park; and providing for an
effective date."
1:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 52, Version 32-LS0327\D, Bullard, 2/4/22,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version D
was before the committee.
1:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor of HB 52, reviewed provisions of the proposed CS,
Version D, via a PowerPoint presentation titled "CSHB 52(RES)."
She said the proposed CS represents community collaboration on
an agreement that can help protect the land. Speaking to the
first slide, "CSHB 52(RES)," she outlined the bill's overall
objectives: adds state land to Kachemak Bay State Park, cures a
legal land disposal issue, maintains that the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game's Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery, protects Tutka Bay
Lagoon lands, and supports the China Poot dipnet fishery.
1:09:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE provided a sectional analysis of Version D.
She said Section 1 of Version D amends the section adding three
parcels totaling about 267 acres to the Kachemak Bay State Park
(KBSP) in the Cottonwood-Eastland unit on the north side of
Kachemak Bay. Parcel A provides much needed access from East
End Road to the underutilized Cottonwood Eastland unit about 17
miles northeast of Homer. Parcels B and C connect adjacent
portions with the Cottonwood-Eastland unit.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that Section 2 adds a new section
that removes Tutka Bay Lagoon and the land on which the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery (TBLH) sits, approximately 123 acres, out of
the KBSP and requires it to be managed as general use lands by
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Section 2 cures the
legal land disposal issue and secures the lands to be managed by
DNR in perpetuity so that it cannot be sold to any private
entity. This language is specifically different than the
previous version - it clarifies that the land will be managed by
DNR in the long term.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE specified that Section 3 repeals the
removal of Tutka Bay Lagoon and the land on which the hatchery
is located out of the Kachemak Bay State Park if the Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) does not operate or contract with
another party to operate TBLH within a 3-year period. Section 3
is a change included in Version D to allow ADF&G an opportunity
during a 3-year period to either change a contract or determine
if the hatchery is needed in the future. If ADF&G chooses not
to continue the hatchery operation, the section of land that has
been removed would automatically revert to state park land.
1:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that Section 4 adds a new section to
include the aforementioned conditional language that transfers
the Tutka Bay Lagoon and the land on which the hatchery sits
back into the state park if ADF&G does not continue hatchery
operations within a 3-year period.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE related that Section 5 requires the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to notify
the revisor of statutes of Section 4 giving 30 days to be able
to revise those statutes accordingly. Section 6 is the
immediate effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said the proposed CS is a compromise with
the people in her community, many of whom do not want to lose
state park lands by any means necessary. While she understands
where they are coming from, she pointed out that there is a
legal land disposal issue. Version D therefore gives a
compromise that carves out the lagoon to be managed according to
DNR's general use land to continue hatchery operations.
However, it safeguards that land for the future by saying that
access to park land will continue as it is now, but if hatchery
operations do not exist it will then automatically be reverted
to state park land.
1:12:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to the second slide, "What does the
bill do?" She specified that the bill adds the 267 acres on the
north side of Kachemak Bay to the state park, which is land that
KBSP has been trying to get for the past 20 years. The bill
seeks to cure the legal land disposal issue [by removing Tutka
Bay Lagoon, and the land on which the hatchery sits, out of the
park]. Further, Version D adds conditional language that [if
ADF&G does not operate or contract with another party to operate
TBLH within a 3-year period, the land will revert to Kachemak
Bay State Park].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE discussed a map of Kachemak Bay State Park
displayed on the third slide. She drew attention to the red
dots on the map and explained that she is trying to give a view
of where the hatchery/lagoon is located, where the China Poot
dipnet fishery is located directly across from the Homer Spit,
and the three added parcels on the north side of Kachemak Bay.
She noted that the added parcels are not directly adjacent to
the park land where the lagoon is located.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reviewed another map of the state park
shown on the fourth slide. She said the bill adds parcels A, B,
and C, totaling about 267 acres in the Cottonwood-Eastland unit
on the north side of Kachemak Bay. The blue outline designates
the current state park, she noted, and parcels B and C are
currently managed as state park land and harmonize the long-term
objectives. Parcel A allows road access into the park on East
End Road about 17 miles northeast of Homer. It would be the
only road access directly into the park and would take pressure
off the private landowners there by allowing parking and,
possibly in the future, cabins.
1:16:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE turned to the map on the fifth slide and
stated that HB 52 removes the Tutka Bay Lagoon and the land on
which the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery is located, approximately
123 acres, out of the park and requires that it to be managed as
general use lands by DNR. This section cures the legal land
disposal issue and secures the lands to be managed by DNR in
perpetuity so the land cannot be sold to any private entity.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE proceeded to the sixth slide and stated
that the China Poot dipnet fishery is a benefit of curing this
legal land disposal issue within the park, retaining the success
of a personal use dipnet and commercial fishery. She said the
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery supports several fisheries across
Kachemak Bay, Cook Inlet, and the Kenai Peninsula, and accounts
for more than 25 million pounds of commercial fish harvest and
nearly $32 million in ex-vessel value.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concluded by stating that the changes
proposed in HB 52 present clear benefits to the public interest
from a legal, wildlife management, and public lands perspective.
The bill's net effect would double the acreage to the state park
that is proposed for removal, a net gain of about 144 acres.
The bill meets the needs of constituents who wish to preserve as
much of the state park as possible and those who harvest fish
commercially and personally, as the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery
plays a direct role in the commercial harvest of pink salmon and
the China Poot Bay personal use dipnet fishery. The Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery is the only permitted hatchery for the egg-take
and release of the brood stock that is necessary to help provide
for the China Poot personal use dipnet fishery. The bill
provides security for the lands on which the hatchery sits in
that the lands will be under DNR's possession in perpetuity.
The bill only pertains to the land disposal issue, she stressed,
it does not pertain to the hatchery, the hatchery's permitting,
or the contractor that is currently managing the hatchery.
1:19:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about which salmon species are
harvested in the China Poot Bay dipnet fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied that it is mainly a red [sockeye]
salmon dipnet fishery for personal use.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery is currently producing that sockeye.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that the Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery does the egg-take, then utilizes the Trail Lakes
Hatchery, and then brings [the juveniles] back to the China
Poot.
1:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired about the number of driftnetters
versus seiners in Cook Inlet. He further inquired about the
number of those fishermen who pay into the [Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery] and how many of them fish for the pink salmon that are
raised at the hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to Mr. Sam Rabung of ADF&G to
answer the question.
1:20:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked about the number of people who
participate in the dipnet fishery, and the number of fish taken.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to Mr. Sam Rabung of ADF&G to
answer the question.
1:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired about the differences between
Version D and the original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered that the main substantive change
is the addition of conditional language that safeguards the land
to be managed by DNR. [The original bill] carved out the Tutka
Bay Lagoon and the land on which the hatchery sits and put it
into general use DNR land. Version D creates conditional
language that says if hatchery operations are ceased, that land
will automatically be reverted to state park land.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is a sunset date for
when that land is supposed to be coming out of the park or
whether that is what is happening now with the management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied that the bill removes this land
from the state park, so there would be no sunset date. However,
the state park management plan, as written and which has not yet
been signed, states that because the land is an impermissible
disposal of state land, the hatchery operations would need to
cease and be phased out within a 10-year timeframe. The bill
intervenes in that and removes it from the state park so it will
no longer be an unconstitutional disposal of land.
1:23:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS related that a letter received [by the
committee] states that land parcels A, B, and C are already in
the process of being incorporated into the park. He asked
whether legislation is needed specifically to include those
parcels given they are already being incorporated into the park.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that the parks groups have been
working on that for several years, and parcels B and C are
currently being managed as park lands. However, she pointed
out, the Alaska State Legislature is the only one with the
authority to legislatively designate any land as state park
land, which is the ultimate safeguard for those lands in the
future, and this bill does that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether donations were given to
local organizations or the Homer city or borough to manage these
lands as park lands.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her belief that the group called
Friends of Kachemak Bay has raised the money and has been
working through this process. She said DNR has told the group
that if this bill passes, the money the group raised would be
refunded to them.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether Friends of Kachemak Bay
is currently managing and handling these three parcels.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered that DNR manages the parcels, and
Friends of Kachemak Bay works as a nonprofit that helps in doing
fund raising and trail grooming.
1:26:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to the fourth slide and
inquired about the [road] access in parcel A.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied that parcel A is currently DNR
general use land and is the only parcel that is connected to
East End Road that would add road access into the park. Parcel
A is not currently being managed as park land, so it is a key
piece to add to ease the burden off private property landowners.
She offered her belief that a portion of parcel A has a borough
easement, and an agreement is trying to be found to be able to
utilize that for parking and such.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there is already road
access in the park.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE responded that [road access] is not
currently designated as park land.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether it is envisioned that
there will be [road access in parcel A].
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether [parcel A] is needed to
make this happen or whether it would be an enhancement.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE confirmed that it is needed. She explained
that DNR is trying to work with the Kenai Peninsula Borough to
see if an easement is a possible way to be able to include this
land, but HB 52 makes it a simpler process.
1:28:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM offered his understanding that the 123
acres on which the hatchery sits would be taken out of the park
and 264 acres would be added to the park.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM remarked that that seems like it would be
a better deal.
1:28:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked DNR, ADF&G, and the Citizens
Advisory Board of Kachemak Bay State Park for working through
the bill. She said there has been a lot of consternation over
removing the park land. Coming to this agreement through public
engagement has been beneficial, she continued, and coming to a
compromise with the reverting language will protect the park
land for the future.
1:29:35 PM
MATTHEW WEDEKING, Operations Manager, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation (DPOR), Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), provided background information on the management issues
related to the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery within Kachemak Bay
State Park. He specified that when the Alaska State Legislature
created Kachemak Bay State Park in 1970 these lands were
withdrawn from the public domain and designated as a special
purpose site under Article VIII, Section 7, of the Alaska
Constitution. Kachemak Bay State Park was created to protect
and preserve the land and water for its unique and exceptional
scenic values; it mandated that the land and water be managed as
a scenic park.
MR. WEDEKING explained that the Executive Branch is prohibited
from disposing of legislatively designated lands like those
within Kachemak Bay State Park. An unconstitutional disposal of
legislatively designated land includes leasing these lands or
granting any easements. State land disposal case law has
developed in the last 20 years. Several recent Alaska Supreme
Court cases have led to the Department of Natural Resources, and
specifically the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, to
review the use of state park lands for potential disposal.
These potential disposals are often found, as is this one,
through the development or revision of park management plans.
Once potential disposals are found, DNR moves to address that.
MR. WEDEKING said DNR believes the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery's
operations constitute an unconstitutional disposal of state park
lands. Removing the lands and waters of the Tutka Bay Lagoon
where the hatchery operates from Kachemak Bay State Park would
resolve this disposal problem and thus allow hatchery operations
to continue. Removing these lands and waters from the Kachemak
Bay State Park also resolves a long-standing management issue
for the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, as the
division would no longer be involved in the management of
hatchery operations within the lagoon.
1:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to the map on the fourth
slide and asked why the two pieces of land next to parcel B are
not included in the state park.
MR. WEDEKING offered his understanding that those parcels are
private inholdings that existed prior to the park's creation.
1:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what would happen if HB 52 did not
pass and the status quo remained. She shared her understanding
that the current contractor to the state to operate the hatchery
has until 2030. She further understood that since 1970 the case
law has developed that has created the legal issue that is
trying to be remedied.
MR. WEDEKING replied that the management plan would work to
phase out the hatchery within 10 years. He said he assumes that
during that time [the division] would look for other solutions
as well as continuing to phase out the hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what phasing out the hatchery would
entail; for example, whether it would be closed by 10 years out
or whether it would be incremental growth in phasing it out.
MR. WEDEKING responded that the Executive Branch cannot dispose
of legislatively designated lands, so operation of that hatchery
would have to be ended unless another solution was found.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE specified that not only would the hatchery
have to cease operation, but ADF&G would have to remove all the
buildings and facilities and return the land to its natural
state. Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association's (CIAA's) current
loans would still need to be repaid and would fall back on the
fishermen who paid the enhancement tax; their permits are the
collateral for the loans. It is in everyone's best interest to
continue working on the success of the hatchery so the loans can
be repaid in full and utilize the current operations.
1:36:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether CIAA operates other
hatcheries and whether the loan repayments are specific to each
hatchery; for example, whether the loans for Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery must be paid out of Tutka Bay earnings or whether they
can be repaid with revenue from other fisheries in which CIAA
participates.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to Mr. Samuel Rabung to provide an
answer.
1:36:59 PM
SAMUEL RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), replied that Cook
Inlet Aquaculture Association is responsible for repaying its
loan regardless of which facility the loan was made for. He
explained that the salmon enhancement tax is one of the things
that secures these loans, so commercial fishery permit holders
would be required to continue paying the salmon enhancement tax
until all debt is repaid to the state's revolving loan fund,
regardless of whether any fish are being produced.
1:37:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether CIAA operates other
hatcheries in the region. She further inquired about CIAA's
current debt load on Tutka Bay and the annual payment on that
debt load.
MR. RABUNG responded that CIAA operates other hatcheries,
including the Port Graham and Trail Lakes hatcheries, as well as
a "mothballed" hatchery at Eklutna that is used as a backup. He
said he doesn't have CIAA's debt figures at hand, but believes
it is about $12-$15 million in corporate debt.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about the annual payment to the
state on that debt load of $12-$15 million.
MR. RABUNG guessed that it is about $800,000-$1 million a year.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that the committee will work with the
sponsor on receiving details in this regard.
1:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the administration agrees
with Legislative Legal Service's interpretation that the
language in Version D does not allow for the hatchery or the
land to be sold in the future should the hatchery cease
operation.
1:40:55 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law (DOL), qualified that any of the
policy questions, or anything that might be related to that,
whether it's appropriate or not, is not necessarily his purview.
However, he stated, he has reviewed the [proposed] CS and,
legally, his review is that that was the intention, and it is
carried out through this [proposed] CS.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested Mr. Orman to elaborate further.
MR. ORMAN explained that the policy determinations and decisions
that might have gone into that are not why he is here and not
what he is supposed to talk about. In reviewing the [proposed]
CS and his understanding of the intent of the [proposed] CS, his
reading is that, yes, if the goal is to ensure that nothing will
happen with the land and water that have been carved out except
for the hatchery, and should the hatchery no longer be operated,
then those lands will, pursuant to the "reverter," return to
Kachemak Bay State Park, that is accomplished through Version D.
Regarding DNR's ability once these lands are public domain land,
and DNR's scope, ability, and authority pursuant to and
addressed in Version D, he said he thinks Version D accomplishes
that. Whether it could be different language, he added, or
stronger language, or drafted in a different way, he said he
isn't going to go into that.
1:43:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether Mr. Rabung knows how many
people participate in the fishery and how many fish are caught.
He further asked what the season is on the dipnet fishery.
MR. RABUNG answered that 19 purse seine permits fish in Lower
Cook Inlet in the commercial fishery, and they typically harvest
around 65,000 fish. The personal use fishery is managed by the
Division of Sport Fish, and somewhere around 6,000 fish are
caught per year.
1:45:27 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested that the committee receive answers
regarding the figures for payback.
1:45:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the committee will be
hearing from the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association.
MR. RABUNG shared the details of an email he had just received
from CIAA. He said the email states that the association's
total loan balance as of 1/3/[22] is $15,829,578; of that total
amount $3,666,148 or 23.2 percent is attributed directly to the
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how much money the association is
making each year on that debt payment of $3,666,148.
MR. RABUNG replied that he does not have the information
regarding what portion of the total loan payment is attributable
to the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery. He offered his guess that it
is around 23.2 percent.
1:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery
produces pink salmon, a species that is not the most profitable.
She explained she would like to hear from CIAA to learn whether
its debt load would be impacted if this hatchery wasn't
operational or whether CIAA is still making those payments
because the price of pink salmon is down. She said she is
trying to determine whether CIAA is making headway on that loan
and whether instead of talking about Tutka Bay as one piece,
needing to understand CIAA's whole debt load and productivity
towards that debt load so the Tutka Bay profitability to CIAA
can be determined.
MR. RABUNG responded that if the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery
ceases to operate, that debt will remain on the books and will
have to be repaid. The pink salmon do pay the bills, and while
the price for pinks is lower, the pinks make up for it in
volume. There's not a hatchery program in the state other than
the state's own programs that doesn't have a pink or chum
component to pay for the other fish that are produced chinook,
coho, sockeye. The Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery's pink salmon pay
for the China Poot sockeye fishery. If the hatchery is closed,
not only will the pink salmon cease to be a revenue stream, the
sockeye salmon projects in the Lower Cook Inlet lakes that are
supported by that will also cease to exist. However, the debt
will remain and will have to be paid off through the salmon
enhancement tax, contributions from commercial fishermen, in the
entirety of Cook Inlet as well as through cost recovery
generated through [CIAA's] other facilities. The loans are made
to Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, not to Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery, so the nonprofit corporation is on the hook to pay
back the loans regardless of whether the operation is continued.
1:50:27 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that besides looking at current debt and
debt payment, the committee should also look at the initial
capital investment - what the loan was initially taken out for.
When looking at the long-term return on the overall investment,
he continued, a look must also be taken at what has already been
paid off with the operation.
1:51:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery has been in operation since the start of having the
sockeye [juveniles] there for 4-6 weeks for the China Poot
dipnet fishery.
MR. RABUNG answered that the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery was built
by the State of Alaska and is owned by ADF&G. The department
operated the hatchery until the early 1990s when the operation
was contracted out due to budget efficiency. He recounted that
ADF&G used to have the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement and Development (FRED), and hatcheries were built
and operated all over the state. Over time, however, it was
realized that the private sector was better and more efficient
at operating the hatcheries. So, except for the two sport fish
hatcheries that ADF&G still operates, the department has
contracted out the operation of its state hatcheries to the
private sector, the nonprofits, at no cost to the state. The
department still maintains ownership of the buildings, which
were built with state bonds in the 1970s, bonds that have long
since been paid off.
1:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed from the information included in
the committee packet that from 2004-2011, CIAA suspended pink
salmon operations due to low market prices. He asked whether
the China Poot dipnet fishery continued to operate successfully
during those seven years.
MR. RABUNG replied that the China Poot dipnet fishery is a "put-
and-take" - every year fry are stocked into the lakes. Prior to
2011, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association conducted annual wild
egg takes from Tustumena Lake. Those eggs were flown to the
Trail Lakes Hatchery, incubated to the fry stage, and then
planted into Hazel and Leisure lakes in Lower Cook Inlet to
supply the China Poot fishery. That egg-take ended when a
federal court found that it was an unlawful activity because
Tustumena Lake is within federal land [the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge]. There was a short gap during the search for
an alternative brood source. The entire Resurrection Bay
sockeye fishery is produced by Trail Lakes Hatchery and Bear
Lake, and CIAA wanted to use its brood source from Bear Lake
near Seward. However, ADF&G's genetic policy didn't allow that
stock to be brought into Lower Cook Inlet's lakes, so a Lower
Cook Inlet stock had to be found to be used there. It was
decided to use stock from English Bay Lakes, so 2011 or 2012
became the start of a whole new brood stock, and those eggs were
incubated at Trail Lakes Hatchery. The juveniles were then
taken to Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery and imprinted and released
there so they would come back to Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery as
adults. Now, when those adults come back to Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery, the eggs are collected and taken to Trail Lakes
Hatchery to incubate. A portion of them is brought back to
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery to be released to continue the brood
stock, and the remainder are stocked into the Lower Cook Inlet
lakes and Kirchner Lake on the other side of Cook Inlet.
MR. RABUNG explained that without operation of the Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery, China Poot goes away because there is no site
for the brood stock. Eggs cannot continue to be taken from
English Bay Lakes because the upland owners aren't going to
allow access and Tustumena Lake [is not an option]. During the
time that the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery stopped operating for
pink salmon, CIAA was able to take the sockeye eggs from
Tustumena Lake. The only alternative that has been found for
doing sockeye and doing a brood stock release is at Port Graham
Hatchery, but that hatchery does not have adequate freshwater.
Adult sockeye need freshwater in which to ripen, or mature, so
that their eggs can be collected and be viable. Without
adequate freshwater ripening, sockeye egg-takes cannot be done.
1:57:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE related that she is continuing to have
public engagement on questions about CIAA's operations and about
fishery management, and she is willing to have these discussions
with committee members outside of committee meetings. She
stressed, however, that the hatchery operations, the loans, and
the fisheries management are separate from what HB 52 addresses,
which is simply the legal land disposal issue. The bill would
cure this unconstitutional disposal of land for the long term.
The department's lease agreement with CIAA is up for renewal in
about 10 years, at which time ADF&G could choose to continue the
lease, or to find a different manager, or to have the state
assume the hatchery's operation. There will not be that option
moving forward if this legal land issue is not cured.
1:59:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether a reason for currently
supporting the hatchery is because of the sockeye production.
He further asked about [the relationship between] a viral
disease and sockeye being able to make it into China Poot.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred the questions to Mr. Rabung to
answer.
MR. RABUNG explained that infectious hematopoietic necrosis
virus (IHNV) is an endemic viral disease that is carried in
every stock of sockeye, and therefore ADF&G is very cautious
with its sockeye work. Sockeye are typically kept quarantined
and grown under different conditions than other salmon species.
Sockeye don't make it into China Poot Lake because it is a
barriered system. The sockeye can't get past the falls to ripen
and spawn, which is why it was chosen as a put-and-take fishery.
It doesn't have anything to do with the IHNV issue. The
department has worked hard and been successful in its programs
managing IHNV; ADF&G has very strict quarantine and protocols in
culture. The sockeye are tested before they are a gram in size,
and anything that comes up positive is culled, put in Clorox,
and removed.
2:01:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether Kachemak Bay State Park is
subject to the federal [Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Act] agreements that the state has made.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred the question to DNR to answer.
MR. WEDEKING confirmed that Land and Water Conservation Fund
money has been spent within Kachemak Bay State Park. The
division has been working through its LWCF liaison to identify
the conversion process, which is the process that occurs when
land is removed that was designated with LWCF money and
potentially using the lands that are being acquired as that.
That process is an ongoing and separate process from this
specific bill.
2:03:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE provided closing comments. She pointed out
that this is directly in her backyard. The China Poot dipnet
fishery was her first dipnetting experience as a teenager.
Members of the community directly benefit from the commercial
fishery that the hatchery supports. There is also the ability
to access the incredible park. She said she has toured the
hatchery and the net pens with Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang of
ADF&G and with Mr. Rabung to see firsthand what is being dealt
with in this decision because it is impacting her community in a
big way.
[HB 52 was held over.]