Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/01/2021 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 | |
| HB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 1, 2021
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Cronk
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to regional fishery development associations;
and relating to developing fishery management assessments."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
"An Act providing for free hunting and sport fishing licenses
for veterans and active duty members of the military service and
United States Coast Guard who reside in the state; and providing
for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the
Department of Fish and Game; relating to management of invasive
species; relating to invasive species management decals; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 64
SHORT TITLE: FISHERY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC.; ASSESSMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STUTES
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) FSH, FIN
04/01/21 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA PERMAN, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 64 on behalf of
Representative Stutes, prime sponsor.
NICOLE REYNOLDS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 64, answered
questions related to the bill.
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 64, answered
questions related to the bill.
PHIL DOHERTY, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 64, answered
questions related to the bill and explained that SARDFA is set
up much like the provisions in the bill.
MAKENA O'TOOLE, Shellfish Division Chair
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 64.
CHELSEA HAISMAN, Executive Director
Cordova District Fisherman United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 64.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:05:31 AM
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Special Committee on Fisheries
meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Representatives McCabe, Vance,
Story, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Tarr were present at the call to
order. Representative Ortiz (via teleconference) arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Cronk was also present.
HB 64-FISHERY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC.; ASSESSMENTS
10:07:26 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 64, "An Act relating to regional fishery
development associations; and relating to developing fishery
management assessments."
10:08:26 AM
SARA PERMAN, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 64 on behalf of Representative
Stutes, prime sponsor. She explained that HB 64 establishes
regional fishery development associations and allows for the
associated developing fishery management assessments in order to
support the growth of new and developing fisheries. She defined
"new fishery" as "a prospective fishery within a geographical
region that is not currently regulated by the Commercial
Fisheries [Entry] Commission (CFEC)." The definition of
"developing fishery" is "a fishery within a geographic region
where either the optimum yield has not been reached, the
sustained yield has not yet been estimated, the commercial
harvest has only recently developed, or stock assessments are
not conducted."
MS. PERMAN stated that years of declining state revenue and
reduced state budgets have lessened the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game's (ADF&G's) ability to manage established
fisheries and, even less so, new or developing fisheries. She
explained that to adequately manage the state's fisheries ADF&G
usually has to do surveys and assessments of the fishery
resources so it can identify the biomass, the sustained yield,
and so forth. In the case of these new and developing fisheries
the funding isn't there to do these assessments and studies.
MS. PERMAN related that a constituent in Prince William Sound
who has been working with tanner crab brought this bill to the
attention of Representative Stutes. Tanner crab used to be
fished 30-plus years ago, but the fishery closed, she continued.
The biomass is known to still be there as it comes up as bycatch
at times. Getting back a fishery has been pushed for years, but
the funding hasn't been there from ADF&G to research the
biomass. Currently for the first time, [the constituent] has a
"Commissioner's Permit," which is a limited, non-permanent,
essentially a developing fishery, permit. While [the
constituent] can fish in that area ADF&G still doesn't have the
funding to conduct biomass surveys to make an established long-
term permanent fishery. The idea for this bill came up from
working with the constituent and ADF&G.
10:11:11 AM
MS. PERMAN said HB 64 creates a mechanism to fund the management
of new and developing fisheries. It allows for the creation of
regional fishery development associations, which are nonprofit
organizations that represent the fishery stakeholders. These
development associations may elect to levy on themselves an
assessment that would then fund ADF&G studies. These taxes,
called management assessments, are collected on the fishery
resource itself at the time of sale. The buyer collects the tax
and remits that tax quarterly to the Department of Revenue. The
funds sit in the state treasury until appropriated back to the
associations that then work in tandem with ADF&G to create an
annual operating plan consisting of things like stock assessment
surveys and payment to ADF&G for conducting those surveys.
MS. PERMAN noted that this isn't the first time the state has
seen this. Currently there are dive fishery associations in
statute. The Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fish Association
(SARDFA) has been using this model since 1998 to manage its
geoduck, sea urchin, and sea cucumber fisheries. This bill was
developed using those statutes, AS 43.76.150-210.
MS. PERMAN summarized by reiterating that HB 64 gives new and
developing fisheries the mechanisms with which they may fund
themselves and support their own annual operations in order to
become established fisheries. These are known fishery resources
and each of these fisheries is potential revenue for the state.
As the State of Alaska continue to see reduced returns in other
industries, it makes sense to develop and expand these
fisheries, which are revenue and job increasing.
10:13:18 AM
MS. PERMAN provided a sectional analysis of HB 64. She said
Section 1 provides that the ADF&G commissioner will encourage
the development of regional fishery development associations
(RFDAs). These associations must be nonprofit, must represent
the commercial fishermen who harvest the resource in that
fishery, and must have a board of directors that is
representative of the fishermen, the processors, and the
municipality in which the landing for these fisheries occurs.
Section 1 also provides the definitions of "new fishery" and
"developing fishery."
MS. PERMAN explained that Section 2 adds developing fishery
management assessment receipts to the program receipts allowed
to be received by the State of Alaska. These receipts do not go
into the general fund.
MS. PERMAN said Section 3 adds new sections to the fishery tax
and assessments statutes as follows: Sec. 43.76.281 allows for
management assessments to be levied. A tax rate can be anywhere
between 2.5 percent and 30 percent, and is determined by the
RFDA in an election. Sec. 43.76.283 establishes the criteria of
that election to approve, amend, or terminate these assessments.
The election can only be held if the commissioner approves of
the notice of the election, the ballot, and the voting
procedures. Proper notice includes 30-day notice before the
ballots go out and two ballots must be sent out. After the
election is done the ballots must be counted by an auditor and
approved by the commissioner. [Sections 43.76.285 and 43.76.287
establish that] to amend or terminate a pre-existing assessment
the RFDA must submit a petition to the ADF&G commissioner signed
by at least 75 percent of the board of directors in addition to
holding an election in which a majority of voters approve the
amendment or termination. Sec. 43.76.289 establishes the
methodology for collecting the management assessment. The buyer
collects the management assessment at time of sale and remits
that quarterly to the Department of Revenue. If, for example,
there is a direct-to-market fisheries business, that business is
responsible for paying the assessment directly. All of those
funds are deposited into the state treasury and appropriations
will not be from the unrestricted general fund. Sec. 43.76.291
establishes the methodology for funding the RFDAs. The
legislature may make appropriations from [the revenue collected
from] the management assessments. The appropriated funds are to
be spent in accordance with an operations plan that the RFDA
creates in conjunction with ADF&G and, at times, the Department
of Environmental Conservation. That annual operating plan must
specify the activities that will be conducted by the RFDA within
the year. The RFDA must submit an annual, year-end financial
report to ADF&G. Sec. 43.79.299 establishes the definitions.
10:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether these aren't already in the
private sector. For example, he said, there is the Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association, Prince William Sound Regional
Aquaculture Association, and Kodiak Regional Aquaculture
Association. He asked whether this is something different or
whether it is putting the aquaculture associations under
statute. He further asked how it would affect those
associations and the hatcheries they already run.
MS. PERMAN replied that the key differential here is that by
acknowledging these associations in statutes, they are able to
collect a tax that goes to the state to pay for the management
of the fisheries, specifically the management done by ADF&G.
Rather than pulling from the department's budget it is paid for
by the private industry as long as industry elects to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired about the committee having one of
the active aquaculture associations provide invited testimony.
He stated that trying to put something in statute that is
working well in the private sector would be a mistake.
10:19:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that it is apples and
oranges between regional aquaculture associations and regional
fisheries development associations. It's a similar kind of
mechanism that exists for the regional aquaculture associations,
he explained, but is being applied to new and emerging fisheries
that don't yet exist. It has nothing to do with salmon or
salmon enhancement. So, shellfish in Southeast Alaska; pollock
in Southeast Alaska, which is a fishery that doesn't yet exist;
tanner crab in Prince William Sound.
10:20:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired about the number of different
associations that the state is then going to manage in each
region. He asked why the current private associations couldn't
be encouraged to step up by throwing a bit of money at them and
have them handle the emerging fisheries in that region. For
example, Kodiak is focused on salmon but why not have them do
something a little bit bigger. He said it seems to be
reinventing the wheel and putting it into statute and he isn't
sure he likes that.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that the regional
aquaculture associations could be asked whether they are
interested, but said he is fairly certain they would say they
have no interest in managing non-salmon fisheries like, for
example, tanner crab or pollock in Southeast Alaska. He said
the bill would be creating and replicating what worked so
successfully with the Southeast Alaska Dive Fisheries
Association (SARDFA). Fishermen would say there's a new stock
and biomass that they think is a prosecutable fishery, and that
they're willing to tax themselves to pay for the management and
the science of it.
MS. PERMAN stated that she couldn't speak to how many groups
would be interested in it, but that it's not the intent of the
sponsor to limit those groups out of this. She explained that
SARDFA has multiple subcommittees within it that manage its
different fisheries. So, she said, it could be that one general
association manages Prince William Sound, and under that one
association there could be different committees that manage,
say, octopus, sea urchins, tanner crab, and so forth.
CHAIR TARR suggested that perhaps the witnesses providing
invited testimony could speak to this.
10:22:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE drew attention to page 2 of the Department
of Revenue (DOR) fiscal note for HB 64, which states that the
bill "would add a sixth program to the Alaska Department of
Revenue, Tax Division's (Department) roster of seafood
assessment and tax programs, to be managed similarly to the
other five programs." She recalled Ms. Perman mentioning that
HB 64 is out of the need to look at tanner crab. She asked
whether there are other potential fisheries besides the tanner
crab that people have shown an interest in.
MS. PERMAN answered yes; there is the possibility of Prince
William Sound sea urchins, octopus, and skate, based on
conversations with the sponsor's constituents. She said she
couldn't speak for other regions, but wouldn't be surprised to
learn that there are others as well.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that this
mechanism is currently only available to dive fisheries. She
inquired whether in creating this sixth program HB 64 would
provide the mechanism for different fisheries like the crab, sea
urchins, and skate, or whether it would be one per fishery.
MS. PERMAN replied that when created in the 1990s for the dive
fishery, it was a very limited group and only applied to people
doing diving, but they could do geoducks, sea urchins, sea and
cucumbers all under that one type the dive fishery management
associations. She explained that HB 64 would open it up, but
wouldn't create several different groups. It would just expand
the same capacities to essentially the commercial fishermen.
She said she thinks that when the Department of Revenue talks
about six types, it is not referring to dive fishery management
versus commercial developing fishery management, but rather is
referring to the landing tax, the business tax. She suggested
that DOR could speak to this.
CHAIR TARR asked whether Representative Vance would like to have
DOR speak to her question.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE agreed and stated she would like to have an
overarching understanding of the changes of this.
10:25:47 AM
NICOLE REYNOLDS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), responded that the reference in the fiscal note
was to DOR's administration of several different fisheries
related taxes and assessments: fisheries business tax, fisheries
resource landing tax, seafood marketing assessment, salmon
enhancement tax, seafood development tax, and dive fishery
management tax. She noted she might have missed naming one of
the taxes.
10:26:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE drew attention to the questions asked by
the Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA) in its 3/31/21
letter to the committee. She said these questions are relevant
to ensuring that everyone understands the [proposed] process.
She cited the second bullet point in the letter, which states
[original punctuation provided]:
Generally, ADF&G will not open a new fishery until
some science regarding the fishery resource being
developed is conducted. Under this legislation, there
wouldn't be funds for the science until the fishery is
operated and an assessment is being collected. A
typical which comes first the chicken or egg scenario.
For fisheries resources, the science always needs to
come first.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE interpreted the aforementioned as asking,
"How do you foresee that mechanism taking place so that the
fishery, say for instance the tanner crabs, can get started?"
She then drew attention to the third bullet in the letter, which
she summarized as asking, "How do you determine who the
participants in the fishery are to conduct the election for the
assessments when there's no fishery yet?"
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the committee must work out
these questions. She requested Ms. Perman's thoughts on this so
as to be able to answer the public's questions.
MS. PERMAN addressed the first question relating to "chicken
before the egg." She stated she spoke about this with ADF&G
yesterday, and confirmed it is mostly the case that science from
the state comes before opening the fishery. However, she said,
there are times where it was a previous fishery that was already
open, data has existed, now it's closed, and the request is to
reopen it with the data that already exists. Another option
that would be allowed is [for ADF&G] to look at federal data and
be able to say the resource is known to be there, the biomass
exists, and given that evidence [ADF&G] could potentially open a
fishery now without doing further studies. Ms. Perman advised
that this has been talked about within the sponsor's office, and
the sponsor is amenable to changing it so it's not necessarily
new fisheries that don't exist yet, but rather currently
existing developing fisheries so as to not be trying to get a
group going that doesn't have any funding to do studies that
don't exist yet.
MS. PERMAN addressed Representative Vance's second question.
She related that she chatted with the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) and ADF&G and neither flagged this as a real
issue. Given that this is complex, she suggested that Forrest
Bowers be able to speak to the question.
10:29:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested Mr. Bowers to respond to the
question posed by SEAFA about how to determine who participates
in the fishery, since it's a developing fishery, to conduct an
election for the assessment when it is not developed yet.
10:30:06 AM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), responded
first to the question regarding what comes first the science
or the fishery. He explained ADF&G uses multiple data sources
when it considers opening a fishery, one source being past
fishery data. The department can look at catch rates and
fishery performance if a fishery has been open in the past, then
that is compared to current catch rates. This provides
information on relative abundance and how the fishery is doing
now compared to last year or several years in the past. He said
another data source ADF&G can use is to look at other fisheries
for the same species in other parts of the world. For example,
ADF&G recently developed a fishery in Southeast Alaska for
hagfish. The department didn't have a survey for hagfish but
looked at other hagfish fisheries on the West Coast to get an
idea of the catch rates in fisheries that are considered
sustainable. The department also looked at what gear types are
appropriate and what fishing seasons are appropriate and then
authorized a limited fishery for hagfish under a Commissioner's
Permit. The fishery has been closely monitored in-season and
ADF&G has been able to keep that fishery going for five or six
years now. He said that is the type of fishery he envisions
when there is talk about a new fishery. Mr. Bowers related that
the Prince William Sound tanner crab fishery is a fishery that
was open for many years and then closed due to low abundance.
The department has an annual survey for that fishery and this
year ADF&G is planning about 18 days of survey time beginning
June 1, plus a Board of Fisheries harvest strategy is in place.
So, he continued, it is more of an established fishery that has
been closed and recently reopened. Fishing has been going on
there for the last five or six years under a Commissioner's
Permit and has been going pretty well.
MR. BOWERS next responded to the question about how to identify
a prospective pool of fishermen who would vote to form these
associations. He stated that the CFEC permit, the interim use
or limited entry permit, is obviously one identifier, but also
some of those permits allow a person to fish for multiple
species in multiple parts of the state, which he thinks was
maybe part of the concern raised by SEAFA in its comment letter.
He explained that ADF&G couldn't just use the CFEC permit as an
identifier. The department would have to look at other
characteristics of the fishery, such as the species and area
where the harvest is occurring, to identify the potential pool
of fishermen who could vote to authorize and form one of these
associations.
10:33:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether there are many hagfish
fishermen waiting in the wings to form an association.
MR. BOWERS answered that the hagfish fishery is small with only
a couple fishermen participating. He said he doesn't know if
these fishermen are aware of this bill, but they would be
eligible to form an association if they so choose if HB 64
becomes law. He related that the fishermen haven't approached
ADF&G regarding any of the concepts that are in HB 64.
10:34:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the 75 percent
voting threshold in HB 64 is the same as the voting threshold
for SARDFA to make changes to the dive fishery.
MS. PERMAN confirmed that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that some statutory changes
were made over the last nine years to the way the Southeast dive
fishery program functions. He further noted that the bills for
these housekeeping changes were a pain in the neck for both the
legislature and the dive fishermen. He inquired as to whether
those changes are incorporated into HB 64.
MS. PERMAN replied she doesn't know those cleanup pieces of
legislation off the top of her head. She related, however, that
she and Phil Doherty of SARDFA have walked through the bill, and
based on SARDFA's experiences, Mr. Doherty recommended changes
that she thinks the sponsor is amenable to working on with
SARDFA to do some of that cleanup. Notably, she continued, Mr.
Doherty mentioned that for SARDFA the majority of voters must
approve the petition and it is difficult to get a substantial
portion of SARDFA's fishermen to vote in these elections, so a
suggested change would be a majority of ballots returned. This
makes sense, she said, but she isn't entirely sure that the bill
doesn't already cover for that. She said she will mark that
section and reiterated that she thinks the sponsor is amenable
to working with SARDFA and other groups to make sure these are
clean, brought up to current standards, and work for everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested that this be confirmed
as the sponsor holds further conversations. He then recalled
that the cleanup bills fixed administrative headaches that were
enshrined in statute and therefore could only be solved via
statutory change. He asked whether Mr. Bowers recollects what
those issues were so the committee can be aware of them as it
thinks about HB 64.
MR. BOWERS responded that he doesn't have a recollection off the
top of his head. He offered for ADF&G to put those together.
CHAIR TARR stated her understanding that Ms. Perman will be
working on that and suggested that Ms. Perman can also follow up
with Representative Kreiss-Tomkins.
10:38:54 AM
CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony.
10:39:37 AM
PHIL DOHERTY, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association (SARDFA), first addressed Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins' question regarding the cleanup bills. He
related that two years ago, through Representative Ortiz, a
change was made to the voting criteria for the assessment on
SARDFA fisheries. In particular, the sea cucumber fishery
wanted to lower the assessment tax from 5 percent to 3 percent
and eventually 1 percent. The voting structure was set up
legislatively so that the majority of permit holders had to vote
in the positive. It seems easy to think that the majority of
permit holders are going to vote in the positive to lower their
tax. The problem, however, is that there were so many interim
use permits in this fishery and so many divers over the course
of the years that dropped out of the fisheries and lost interest
and don't vote. But if SARDFA didn't receive a ballot by a
permit holder it was considered a no vote. It was difficult to
get enough permit holders to vote. Through Representative Ortiz
it was changed in the regulations to say the majority of ballots
received after an assessment tax vote. Mr. Doherty said he
talked to Ms. Perman the other day about HB 64, and he would
suggest that that is the way it is. He noted that there are
about 350-400 permit holders in the dive fisheries, and stated
it is a lot harder to get some of those latent permit holders
[to vote] than it is when it's a brand new fishery with a half-
dozen fishermen involved.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Chair Tarr,
confirmed that Mr. Doherty's answer was helpful.
10:41:59 AM
MR. DOHERTY next provided invited testimony on HB 64. He said
he has been involved with SARDFA for 16 years, and for 25 years
prior to that he was the area management biologist out of
Ketchikan for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
He said he is therefore familiar with the inner workings of the
dive fisheries and how this association got set up. He stated
that presently SARDFA is neither supporting nor not supporting
HB 64 because the SARDFA board has not yet discussed the bill.
He is before the committee to shed some light on how SARDFA is
set up in relation to HB 64, and the bill is set up a lot along
the lines of how SARDFA is set up. He said it is obvious that
many of SARDFA's sections are included in the bill.
MR. DOHERTY related that SARDFA was set up in 1998 as a private
nonprofit through the legislative body under AS 43.76. The
reason for setting up the association was because in the mid to
late 1980s the dive fisheries started to draw a lot of
attention. The department realized that the area's valuable
resources of sea cucumbers, geoduck clams, and sea urchins might
not be sustainable harvests, and so put on the brakes. The
department worked through the CFEC and the legislature and
imposed a moratorium on the fisheries by 1995, which stayed in
place through 1999. Things got started when the department told
the divers that it didn't have the fiscal wherewithal to
continue these fisheries and needed money from an outside source
and that was the dive fishery. During the moratorium, divers
interested in forming this association got together and set up
an interim working board. They didn't have any money; they did
this because they knew there was a resource out there. The
fisheries got started again in the early 2000s. The CFEC had
come up with the criteria for limiting the fishery, so it was a
limited entry fishery under the regulations of a regional dive
fishery. The divers voted to tax themselves. Each of the three
species sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and geoduck clams is
taxed at a different rate, depending on how much money is needed
to pay ADF&G to do their assessment and management. The divers
vote on the rate. He concluded by noting that HB 64 is set up a
lot like the dive association.
10:45:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted he looked at the bill's text
while Mr. Doherty was testifying and found that the fix referred
to is embodied in the bill the majority of ballots returned.
He said this is great. He asked where, when the dive fisheries
in Southeast were initially created, the initial funding came
from for doing the abundance research, surveys, and science.
MR. DOHERTY replied that at the very beginning in the mid-1980s,
the fisheries drawing the most attention was sea urchins. He
said a California company which did a lot of sea urchin work in
that state heard there were a lot of sea urchin resources up
here. The company worked with ADF&G to come up with a plan for
a test fishery, and through that test fishery the department
would be able to look at the sizes and the density information
and draw some monies from that test fishery. During the test
fishery the divers, most of who were from California, saw that
there were lots of sea cucumbers and geoduck clams in the area.
After the test fisheries were done, the fisheries were started
with a half dozen divers coming to Southeast and harvesting
cucumbers and geoducks at such very low levels that it didn't
raise any red flags for ADF&G. But as more divers came and the
harvest increased the red flags did go up and ADF&G didn't want
to make the same mistake with sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and
geoduck clams as it did with abalone. So the department put the
breaks to the fishery. How did ADF&G get its knowledge about
how to manage the fisheries and how to do the assessment
activities during those years? These fisheries were ongoing,
well defined, well researched, and well managed in British
Columbia, California, and Washington State. The department met
with those biologists and looked at their programs, then set up
its own program much like a well-established program from those
three entities. When first started, these fisheries were worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the early fishermen. In the
last few years of these three dive fisheries the ex-vessel value
just to the fishermen is $12-$15 million. So, it has been a
very successful program over the last 25 years.
10:49:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that the
idea was the test fishery initially, which then provided some of
the initial data. He suggested that at a future hearing ADF&G
could speak to how that chicken and egg relationship worked. He
asked whether the dive fishermen and dive fisheries pay the raw
fish tax to the State of Alaska.
MR. DOHERTY responded that the fishermen in the geoduck clam
fishery charge themselves 7 percent of the ex-vessel value for
the SARFDA fisheries tax. Then, yes, the 3 percent is added on
top of that. So, basically, the fishermen in the geoduck clam
fishery are taxed at 10 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that this fishery is
basically double taxed, unlike every other fishery in Alaska.
This fishery pays the raw fish tax, which goes to the general
fund and maybe ultimately ADF&G, depending on how it is looked
at. Then on top of that the fishermen pay the direct costs of
managing their own fishery. He said he doesn't have a solution,
but urged that the committee keep in mind that any new fishery
created by this process gets stuck with basically paying double
for no particular reason other than happening to come into
existence later on. This feels arbitrary and he doesn't know
how to reconcile that, he continued. It seems that these new
fisheries, once established and paying their own way through the
raw fish tax, could transition out of that structure somehow and
the department absorbs that responsibility. He specified that
he is just flagging this point.
CHAIR TARR invited Mr. Doherty to comment.
MR. DOHERTY stated SARDFA completely agrees with Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins. He said the dive fishery is the only fishery in
the state that pays its own way. The fishery pays ADF&G and
also pays the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC);
the fishery collects all of the paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP). It is time for the state to take a look at this fishery,
he continued, and say that it is a well-established fishery and
the only fishery in the state that the state doesn't pay for and
perhaps correct that mistake.
CHAIR TARR invited Ms. Perman to add any further comments.
MS. PERMAN addressed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' question
about SARDFA and the chicken or the egg. She stated, "It is my
understanding that they had [an] infusion of federal dollars at
the very beginning to get going as well."
10:53:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recounted that he was involved in the
infancy of the sea urchin fishery in Kodiak, as a sea urchin
transporter, "just before it collapsed the first time when the
Japanese emperor died, and they quit eating sea urchins for a
year." He offered his belief that that was before there were
any regulations. He noted that many associations are already
present in Alaska a longliners association, a draggers
association, a troll fish association. He stated he worries
that [the legislature] is creating an association in search of a
fishery, and he thinks creating regulations before there is a
need for them is not appropriate for this body. He asked Mr.
Doherty whether a new emerging dive fishery, say for example
starfish, would fall under SARDFA or would fall under a new
fishery management association created just for it.
MR. DOHERTY answered that the initial legislation didn't create
SARDFA - it created dive fisheries associations. Under that
regulation, he explained, SARDFA became a viable entity using
the generic regulations that were in place. He posed a scenario
of a sunstar fishery starting in Southeast Alaska, and said if
it were a dive fishery it would fall under the purview of
SARDFA. But, he continued, if a sunstar dive fishery started in
Prince William Sound, the fishers would have to carve out their
own association. The regulation is set up by regions within the
state Southeast, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Kodiak.
So, any dive fisheries started in those areas would use the
generic legislation and fill in the blanks like SARDFA did, and
it would be for that particular geographic area, which he
believes is defined in the enabling legislation.
10:57:01 AM
MS. PERMAN, at Chair Tarr's invitation, addressed Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins' question and comment about these developing
fishery associations sustaining a higher level of tax than the
state's current established fisheries. She said the sponsor
also acknowledges that, and it isn't the sponsor's intent that
as they scale up into an established fishery, they continue to
pay their way. The sponsor doesn't want to create a situation
where the current established fisheries are grandfathered in and
from now on the precedent is set that everybody pays for
themselves. The sponsor wants to create a system where they
scale out of it, the sponsor doesn't want them to instantly
become established fisheries and then that funding goes away
entirely because it isn't wanted to find that where [ADF&G] had
funding and it drops off to zero suddenly. The sponsor wants to
find a way to scale away from that over time so then it becomes
ADF&G's purview to manage.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that the aforementioned
makes a lot of sense. He inquired whether there is any idea for
what could be established to create that transition process.
MS. PERMAN replied that the sponsor is still discussing it and
would be happy to work with him on ideas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he will take Ms. Perman up on
that and added that he would like to get ADF&G's perspective.
10:58:33 AM
MAKENA O'TOOLE, Shellfish Division Chair, Cordova District
Fishermen United (CDFU), testified in support of HB 64. He
stated he has been a member of SARDFA since 2010. He thanked
the committee for making time for testimony on HB 64. He
further thanked Representative Stutes, Matt Gruening [staff to
Representative Stutes], and Sam Rabung for their work in taking
a rough idea and shaping it into the bill before the committee.
He said it is a great example of the legislative process at
work. He noted he is a lifelong fisherman and lifelong Cordova
resident, and testified as follows:
The idea for this bill came about after years of
attempting to open new fishing opportunities for un-
utilized species in Prince William Sound. It was
frustrating that we could go 30 years without doing a
real comprehensive survey for tanner crab or go 15
years with no survey at all for golden king crab, and
are currently going on decades since our last
Dungeness survey.
We tried going through all the proper channels of
Board of [Fisheries], but we were always met with the
same response from ADF&G we don't have funding to
manage experimental fisheries. And it's true. In
recent years ADF&G's budget has received major cuts.
Critical management projects for established fisheries
are being cut due to lack of funding.
I submitted proposals for some of these developing
fisheries under Commissioner's Permits and asked to be
assessed 5 percent to cover management costs, only to
find out under current statutes this is legally not an
option. The only solution that ADF&G was able to come
up with was to conduct test fisheries. This is where
ADF&G sells the rights of a public resource to the
highest bidder to generate revenue for the department.
This system is very susceptible to abuse and rides a
dangerous line of producing a culture of sharecropper
fishermen working for the state. It also provides a
very limited and unreliable dataset for stock
assessments.
HB 64 provides an alternative to this system that's
modeled after the SARDFA system. In all my years of
fishing around Alaska and the West Coast, it seems to
be the healthiest example of industry and management
working hand-in-hand on a common goal. This bill will
enable fishermen to form regional development
associations much like SARDFA to assess themselves on
developing fisheries and have the money go directly
back into ... the development and management of that
specific fishery, not just disappearing into the
general fund. It will allow ADF&G to have the budget
and the flexibility to manage these small-scale
fisheries to determine if there is a larger potential.
This bill will not only help fisheries for a new
species that have never been commercially harvested in
certain areas, but will give ADF&G the tools to
resurrect once thriving fisheries that have been long
defunct. Some of the species that this could open
opportunity for just in Prince William Sound are:
tanner crab; golden, red, and blue king crab; sea
urchins; whelk; Dungeness crab; skate; sea cucumber;
spiny dogfish; Pacific octopus; black rockfish; and
improved tanner crab. I might add here that squid in
Southeast is another potential and all species of crab
in Yakutat in Area D could majorly benefit from this.
In this time of statewide budget shortages, the state
has put a very heavy emphasis on developing
mariculture to boost our struggling economy. While I
fully support this, I think we should put an equal
amount of energy into fully utilizing the fishery
resources that we already have. HB 64 gives us tools
to do that and make Alaska's fisheries stronger than
ever.
11:01:50 AM
MR. O'TOOLE spoke to the committee's earlier discussions of test
fisheries, which he allowed have their time and place. However,
he related, ADF&G has put forth a proposal for the next [Board
of Fisheries] cycle that would structure the management of the
tanner crab fishery in Prince William Sound. Under this
proposal, he stated, all the funding would depend on executing
yearly test fisheries where ADF&G sells the rights of the
fishery to a select few lowest bidders. That hasn't worked very
well in the past, he pointed out. People take the contracts and
then realize they bid too much for the right to go fish. They
then don't complete their survey or their fishery, leaving [the
department] with no data to assess the stocks and no funding to
manage the fishery. He said he thinks that doing an assessment
from the entire fishing fleet that's participating in these
developing fisheries is a much more stable way to move forward
toward management.
MR. O'TOOLE then addressed the committee's earlier discussion of
too many fishing organizations. He said he understands that
that could be a concern, but stated that if there were any other
route through an existing organization or through statute, then
he definitely would have tried that.
11:04:08 AM
CHAIR TARR commented on Mr. O'Toole's extensive experience with
this process and said his testimony was very helpful to her.
She asked Mr. O'Toole whether he sees this bill being put to
quick use if it is passed.
MR. O'TOOLE replied that he thinks so. He related that a
fisheries development association [that he is involved with] has
been meeting every week or so for the last three years.
Unfortunately, he continued, it's just an organization in title
alone, there's nothing that can come from it other than
generating ideas. The idea for this bill was heavily tossed
around in that organization. He said he thinks it could be made
a formal thing pretty quickly and start contributing toward
tanner crab specifically, but also move toward opening the other
under-utilized fisheries in the area.
11:05:46 AM
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 64.
11:06:01 AM
CHELSEA HAISMAN, Executive Director, Cordova District Fisherman
United (CDFU), testified in support of HB 64. She stated she
has been working closely with Mr. O'Toole and is speaking in
support of the bill on behalf of CDFU's Shellfish Division. She
continued:
One of the primary challenges our Prince William Sound
fleet has faced in recent years is the lack of options
for diversification in our region's fisheries,
particularly for younger fishermen who face
significant expenses and high permit prices. We are a
heavily salmon dependent region, with some fishermen
engaging in halibut and groundfish fisheries. As part
of the younger generation of commercial fishermen in
the region we grew up hearing the stories of the
heyday of fishing in Prince William Sound crab,
clams, herring but also in the wake of significant
environmental, social, and economic trauma, and we did
not experience these fisheries in the same way as our
parents and grandparents.
After 30 years with many fisheries being closed, we
are seeing many anecdotal reports of a wide variety of
under-utilized species, both the formerly fished and
entirely new fisheries tanner crab, king crab, sea
cucumber, skates as examples. Species that could be
fished in small-scale small fisheries to provide food,
jobs, and expand economic impact in our coastal
communities. We've worked hard in recent years to
establish relationships with Alaska Department of Fish
and Game biologists and voiced our concerns,
questions, and ideas. We've taken these to Board of
[Fisheries]. We do feel like we've made progress in
the last few years to get some of these under-utilized
resources open through Commissioner's Permits and
there is so much more potential to continue this work
into the future.
Unfortunately, funding has continued to be an issue
for adequate management, and without a funding
mechanism in place we lack the surveys necessary to
assess biomass to open many fisheries in the first
place. The ADF&G budget is stretched to the limit as
it is with existing fisheries, leaving little
opportunity to assess or open new fisheries and expand
our coastal economy. Though this idea started with
challenges seen in our own region, we believe it can
provide frameworks that will benefit the entire state
and provide opportunity for fishermen in all regions
to engage with management and ensure that we are
sustainably utilizing Alaska's resources for the
benefit of Alaskans.
11:08:07 AM
CHAIR TARR noted there is talk about the greying of the fleet
and the need to get the next generation of fishers out there.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested Ms. Perman elaborate further
about how the dive fishery groups started with federal funds.
MS. PERMAN replied that that is secondhand knowledge she learned
from Mr. Doherty. She deferred to Mr. Doherty to elaborate.
11:09:14 AM
CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on HB 64.
11:09:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY restated her question for Mr. Doherty.
MR. DOHERTY responded that when transitioning from an open
fishery that wasn't being assessed to the moratorium, the state
and the divers started looking for at least enough funding to
get things started. One funding source was federal money
through U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, called "near shore funds." He
said he doesn't recall the amount, but it was enough to get
things started and get ADF&G up and running to start assessment
work. The State of Alaska also threw in some funds because it
used state personnel and the state research vessel. Divers and
businesses approached Southeast Alaska municipalities like
Ketchikan, Sitka, and Petersburg. The municipalities realized
that this was an opportunity to expand fisheries, so they
provided some funding. As well, funding came from different
companies that wanted to get into the dive fisheries.
11:11:43 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that HB 64 was held over.
11:13:48 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:14
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 64 Sponsor Statement Version B 03.16.2021.pdf |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Version B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Sectional Analysis Version B 03.24.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Fiscal Note - DOR-TAX 3.26.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Fiscal Note - DFG-DCF 3.27.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 Testimony Received by 3.31.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/1/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/20/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 64 |