Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/07/2017 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 | |
| HB76 | |
| HB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 128-SHELLFISH ENHANCE. PROJECTS; HATCHERIES
11:26:37 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "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 providing for
an effective date."
11:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 128, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement, which read as
follows [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 HB 128 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
Alaska Department of Fish & Game 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 sets the application fee for a
shellfish enhancement project at $1,000 and amends the
application fee for a salmon hatchery permit,
increasing the fee from $100 to $1,000.
HB 128 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 manner.
11:31:04 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.
11:31:32 AM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained
the difference between mariculture and shellfish fishery
enhancement projects. The later refers to wild stock
enhancement for common property fisheries. The mariculture
projects are related to existing shellfish spawn programs.
Overlap is inherent in certain aspects of the two projects.
11:32:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked about the genetic dynamics
of shellfish enhancement and the management that the department
would anticipate; similar to the consideration given wild salmon
enhancement.
MR. BOWERS responded that a policy is in place and requires that
baseline work be performed to gain an understanding of the local
stocks, genetic make-up and distribution, as well as the drift
zone distribution that the shellfish, as broadcast spawners,
would effect. Genetic concerns would also need to be addressed.
11:34:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked if there is a strict definition
that the department follows to identify enhancement versus
rehabilitation of stocks.
MR. BOWERS acknowledged that the terms are often discussed in a
seemingly interchangeable manner. However, when referring to
rehabilitation the effort being made is to rebuild a wild stock
to its natural reproductive potential. Enhancement means to
identify a stock that is already at healthy levels and increase
its production significantly beyond what would otherwise occur
in the wild, thus, providing additional harvest opportunity.
11:37:18 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, Representative, Central Bering Sea Fisherman's
Association (CBSFA), said, located on St. Paul Island, CBSFA is
the smallest of the six community development quota (CDQ)
program groups in the western region of Alaska. The mission of
the CDQ program is to support economic development in coastal
communities, particularly in the area of fisheries. As such,
CBSFA, holds a considerable quota in the federal crab program in
the Bering Sea, and has been a participant in the Alaska King
Crab Research, Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB) program
since its inception in 2006, which has a mission to rehabilitate
the stocks of the Gulf of Alaska red king crab and the Bering
Sea/Pribilof Island blue king crab. The program has depended on
hatchery production of juvenile crab, produced under a research
permit, and no other type of permit is currently available to
allow the production of larger amounts of enhancement stocks for
a fishery that has dwindled to the point of being unfishable for
the last 25 years. She stressed the need for passage of HB 128
in order to take the next step in the CBSFA mission;
rehabilitate of king crab stocks. Without the legislation,
there is no means for facilities to produce juvenile crab to
serve the purposes of that mission.
GINNY ECKERT, PhD, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks
(UAF), stated support for HB 128, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Steering Committee of the Alaska King Crab
Research, Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB) program
would like to express appreciation and support for
House Bill 128.
The AKCRRAB program is a coalition of university,
federal and stakeholder groups, formed in 2006 with
the goals of adding to the scientific understanding of
crab life history and ecology, as well as the eventual
rehabilitation of depressed king crab stocks in
Alaska. AKCRRAB is developing scientifically sound
strategies for hatching, rearing and outplanting king
crab in Alaska, in order to help restore populations
to self-sustainable levels.
In phase one, from 2006 to 2011, AKCRRAB researchers
made significant accomplishments in developing and
improving methods of hatchery rearing of larval and
juvenile king crab from wild-caught brood stock, to
the point where large-scale production is feasible.
Parallel field and laboratory studies of crab ecology
and population genetics were also conducted during
this time.
In the second and current phase, hatchery studies have
been complemented by studies essential to
understanding optimal release strategies, appropriate
habitat, and potential impact on existing ecosystems.
This research is providing the science necessary for
informing the responsible release of hatchery-reared
animals. Increased knowledge will allow scientists and
managers to assess the feasibility of ecologically
sound rehabilitation of depressed stocks, with
potentially substantial benefits to Alaska.
In the third and final phase, AKCRRAB intends to
evolve from the current, research-oriented coalition,
to a formal entity focused on transitioning hatchery
techniques and outplanting technologies to communities
and industry as part of statewide efforts to help
rehabilitate depleted king crab stocks. As phase three
develops, the program will require support and
guidance from the State of Alaska, as the transition
from feasibility to implementation will need to be
guided with a new regulatory structure.
House Bill 128, similar to last year's House Bill 300,
is a response to the need for new regulations for
shellfish culture. The AKCRRAB Steering Committee is
pleased that the Legislature is addressing this need.
We intend to participate fully in further discussions
and hearings on this important legislation. The
AKCRRAB Steering Committee stands ready to interact
with Committee members and staff as needed. Please let
us know how we can be of help.
11:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about successful case
studies of shellfish enhancement occurring elsewhere in the
world.
DR. ECKERT said that the enhancement of European lobster in
Norway has proven successful.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS queried whether there are examples
specific to king crab.
DR. ECKERT responded that the Russians introduced king crab into
the Barents Sea and created a vibrant fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the Barents Sea program
represented an introduction of a species to an area versus
restoration or enhancement of an existing stock. He asked
whether there are any biologic, genetic, or other scientific
concerns around shellfish species propagation that the committee
should be made aware of, in consideration of the proposed
legislation.
DR. ECKERT answered that genetics are always a consideration in
a hatchery, and every effort is made to expand the genetic
diversity of the pool of animals being reared. It is an
essential step that Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
regulates. The bill stipulates that the adult/parent brood
stock will be taken from the area to which they are native, in
order to not disrupt the local gene pool.
MS. MCCARTY added that genetics is a focus and concern in the
development of the king crab enhancement project being conducted
by AKCRRAB, and the department has been integral to the effort.
An entire research section has been dedicated to that purpose
alone.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that the report on the
scope of the work being conducted speaks loudly to the diligence
that is being brought to the subject at hand, and he stated
support for the bill.
11:47:39 AM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation (AFDF), states support for HB 128, paraphrasing from
a prepared statement, which read, in part, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
AFDF is the Client for seafood sustainability
certification programs such as the Marine Stewardship
Council (MSC) and the Alaska Responsible Fisheries
Management (RFM) program. As the Client and
facilitator for these certification programs, AFDF has
a unique viewpoint on this issue. As a part of these
certifications, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's
(ADF&G) management of the salmon fishery (including
salmon enhancement) is reviewed every year by
independent third-party experts to determine whether
it meets internationally accepted standards for
sustainably managed fisheries. Alaska salmon maintains
the Alaska RFM certification, because ADF&G's
management incorporates a precautionary approach that
prioritizes wild fish and minimizes adverse impacts to
wild stocks. ADF&G has extensive enhancement policies
which protect wild stocks (e.g. genetics, marking, and
disease). Given these policies, AFDF and independent
third-parties experts have confidence that ADF&G is
fulfilling its constitutional mandate to manage the
State's fishery resources for sustainability. AFDF is
confident that ADF&G would manage shellfish
enhancement with the same priority to wild stocks,
therefore, AFDF support HB 128 which will give ADF&G
the authority and regulatory framework to manage
shellfish enhancement.
11:49:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked where the primary
perspective shellfish enhancement activity in Alaska might take
place, and with which species.
MS. DECKER answered that the two groups furthest along on the
research side for enhancement are the programs undertaken by the
AKCRRAB, on king crab, and the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association, for sea cucumber.
11:50:53 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc., stated
opposition to HB 128, paraphrasing from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Please be very cautious with this bill so all facts
and figures are on the table. Present salmon
legislation is 42 years old. These multiple statutes
and regulations are obsolete in many ways because they
do not reflect what we have learned over these 4
decades of time.
In the 1976 ADFG Annual Report, the then Commissioner
admitted that we had been over harvesting crab and
shrimp. The harvest levels take populations over the
thresholds of sustainability to withstand other
mortality factors like predation, female male size
restraints, etc.
Another danger especially with our budget as it is.
Monitoring is scanty and there is no money to perform
sustainably. All oversight rests on one man...the ADFG
commissioner. There needs to be an unbiased oversight
Board that can see all angles of this biological
introduction into our ecosystems.
Before we "just add fish"...Preliminary information is
required. We first need information on all interacting
limiting mortality factors of wild shellfish in their
nursery grounds. For instance
? what are the predators in these near shore
nurseries?
? have we identified and mapped the critical shellfish
nurseries in Alaska?
? are there introduced magnitudes of hatchery pink
salmon in these nurseries?
? do the introduced magnitudes of hatchery fish draw
in or cause a "swamping" of additional depredation
creating a predator pit on shellfish larvae and mega
lops?
There has been concern in California that hatchery
coho held some responsibility in the crash of their
Dungeness crab fishery in San Francisco.
The Barents Sea had an introduction of King Crab that
created competition with traditional fisheries.
11:53:19 AM
TONI MARSH, President, OceansAlaska, stated support for HB 128,
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 128 creates a regulatory framework with which ADF&G
can manage shellfish fishery enhancement, restoration
and shellfish hatcheries. This will allow interested
stakeholders to either continue or begin enhancement
and/or restoration of certain species. OceansAlaska
supports HB 128 as it will diversify economic
development, sustain cultural legacy and increase
environmental stewardship through:
1. Enhancement of traditional and economically
important shellfish species.
2. Enhancement of shellfish species integral to marine
ecosystems and habitat restoration.
3. Enhancement of shellfish species that are vital to
climate change and pollution mitigation.
Thank you for your support of HB 128 and the
mariculture industry.
11:54:27 AM
JOHN KISER, Owner, Rocky Bay Oysters, stated support for HB 128
with reserved concern regarding the private mariculture
operations as opposed to the state run hatcheries. Cost
recovery operations should not come into conflict with the
individual farming businesses, which can be accomplished via
regulation of the species allowed to be grown.
11:55:53 AM
MILO ATKINSON, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),
encouraged the committee to focus on maintaining oversight and
protection of wild stocks, by reinforcing the need for diligence
with ADF&G. He reiterated the need to be clear about the
difference between enhancement and mariculture. As previously
noted, the potential exists for negative effects to occur
regarding interbreeding of hatchery reared and wild stocks, as
well as possible overharvest of wild stocks when reared stocks
are taken. Unlike salmon, the potential for damage is much
higher, he opined, and said strong oversight will need to be
practiced by the department.
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony.
11:58:53 AM
MARY HAKALA, Staff, Representative Dan Ortiz, Alaska State
Legislature, provided the sectional analysis, paraphrasing from
a prepared statement, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1
Provides the Alaska Board of Fisheries authority to
direct the department to manage production of enhanced
shellfish stocks, beyond brood stock needs, for cost
recovery harvest.
Sec. 2
Increases the permit application fee for new private
nonprofit salmon hatcheries from $100 to $1,000.
Sec. 3
Adds a new Chapter 12 to Title 16, "Shellfish Stock
Enhancement Projects". Provides direction to the
commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game on
issuance of permits for private nonprofit shellfish
fishery enhancement projects and establishes a $1,000
permit application fee. This section directs the
commissioner to consult with technical experts in the
relevant areas before permit issuance. This section
provides for a hearing prior to issuance of a permit
and describes certain permit terms including cost
recovery fisheries, harvest, sale, and release of
enhancement project produced shellfish, and selection
of brood stock sources. This section describes
reporting requirements and terms for modification or
revocation of a permit. It specifies that shellfish
produced under an approved enhancement project are a
common property resource, with provision for special
harvest areas by permit holders.
Sec. 4
Provides Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
authority to issue special harvest area entry permits
to holders of private nonprofit shellfish
rehabilitation, or enhancement project permits.
Sec. 5
Defines legal fishing gear for special harvest area
entry permit holders.
Sec. 6
Exempts shellfish raised in a private nonprofit
shellfish project from the farmed fish definition.
Sec. 7 and 8
Establish state corporate income tax exemption for a
nonprofit corporation holding a shellfish fishery
enhancement permit.
Sec. 9
Exempts shellfish harvested under a special harvest
area entry permit from seafood development taxes.
Sec. 10
Establishes an effective date for the salmon hatchery
permit application fee described in sec. 2.
Sec. 11
Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to adopt
implementing regulations.
Sec. 12
Establishes an immediate effective date for sec. 11
pursuant to AS 01.10.070(c).
Sec. 13
Establishes an effective date for sec. 8 concomitant
with sec. 2, Chapter 55, SLA 2013
12:01:38 PM
MS. HAKALA referred to the bill, page 2, Subsection (e), lines
28-30, and the language which reads:
The commissioner may not issue a permit under this
section unless the commissioner determines that the
action would result in substantial public benefits and
would not jeopardize natural stocks.
MS. HAKALA pointed out that additional language [page 4, lines
13-19] establishes a course of action for permit termination
should the commissioner find that an operation is not proceeding
in the best public interest. Thus, the bill ensures that the
department has teeth to maintain accountability among permit
holders, she stressed.
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 128 as held.