Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2018 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| HB128 | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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."
9:45:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted the history of the bill in
committee.
9:46:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, introduced himself.
9:46:51 AM
MARY HAKALA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, introduced
herself.
Representative Ortiz stated that the bill dealt with
shellfish enhancement projects, and set up the regulatory
framework for the mariculture industry. He announced that
the bill was a priority for the Mariculture Task Force that
had worked for two years to present a cohesive, well-
considered plan to move mariculture forward in the state.
He shared that the bill was an important component of the
plan, and was excited about the economic opportunities
presented within the bill. He thanked Senator Stevens for
being a cosponsor of the bill, and for carrying mirror
legislation in the Senate.
Senator Olson queried any opposition to the fee.
Representative Ortiz stated that the increase in the fee
was due to an unchanged fee in the past. He stated that he
had not heard concern about the fee increase from the
industry. He felt that there would not be a restriction in
accessing the funds.
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the bill addressed any
for-profit organizations. Representative Ortiz replied that
the enhancement organizations had been historically
nonprofit organizations. He asserted that he was not
opposed to profit-based organizations in the industry.
9:50:42 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered how the nonprofit and for profit
organizations interact through the cycle of a biological
species. Ms. Hakala stressed that the bill related to only
nonprofit organizations, and mirrored the salmon
enhancement statutes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there were some questions
from Department of Fish and Game (DFG). She remarked that
there would be questions about the cost recovery fishery in
the bill. She asked for a contemplation about crabs. She
noted that there were different creatures that reproduced
differently, and were different than the salmon
enhancement.
9:54:29 AM
SAM RABUNG, CHIEF, STATEWIDE AQUACULTURE PLANNING AND
PERMITTING, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, introduced
himself.
Senator von Imhof remarked that she was concerned about
when it was appropriate for the state to insert itself into
a commercially viable profit cycle. She noted that there
was a point in this industry where there was not commercial
viability, so perhaps a kickstart was a requirement. She
wondered why no commercial entity would insert itself into
the niche that the state sought to fill. Mr. Rabung replied
that the bill was modeled after the salmon fishery
enhancement bill, which had been law since 1974. The model
was developed because the fisheries resources of the state
were owned by all the people of the state. He shared that
allowing enhancement programs be for profit allowed an
ownership aspect. He stated that the for profit aspect came
in during harvest, therefore anything produced by the
programs were available for all of the common property
fisheries of the state. He noted that the nonprofit
corporations must pay taxes, and operated similarly to a
for profit with the exception of the ability to pay
dividends.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered whether the nonprofit
corporation employed an Alaskan workforce. Mr. Rabung
replied in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche noted that the bill set a regulatory
framework for some species that were either challenged in
production or were new commercially. He queried the
function of the bill. Mr. Rabung replied that the bill
enabled several models of fisheries enhancement.
Senator Micciche asserted that the reason for the bill
allowed for the regulation of the new species. Mr. Rabung
agreed.
10:01:35 AM
AT EASE
10:03:36 AM
RECONVENED
10:03:43 AM
Senator Stevens queried similarities in other parts of the
world. Mr. Rabung replied that there were similar behaviors
in other parts of the world, but Alaska was very unique. He
noted that Alaska had high sideboards in the salmon
enhancement program. Alaska was restricted to using local
genetically appropriate stocks for each projects. He
furthered that there was no breeding. He remarked that
there were other very stringent health policies. He
stressed that there was no empirical evidence of any harm
to natural production to salmon from the salmon fishery
enhancement program. He stressed that there was an ability
to maintain sustainability certifications.
10:05:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried feedback about invasive species
in Alaskan waters.
Senator Micciche asked about monitoring of the health and
disease in the raising process prior to release. Mr. Rabung
replied that there was a stringent fish health policy. He
stated that it specifically dealt with practices and
disease prevention, and monitoring for all species. The
species must be inspected and approved before release. He
noted that there were pathology labs in Juneau and
Anchorage that processed every sample.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced the current discussion for the
children in the audience.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the species who would be in the
enhancement project.
10:11:33 AM
GINNY ECKERT, PROFESSOR COLLEGE OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, (UAF) replied
that the bill applied to shellfish. She stated that the
definition was in the bill as a species of crustacean
mollusk or other invertebrate in any stage of its life
cycle that was indigenous to state waters, and excluded any
invasive species. She stated that any species of crab and
clam would fall into that category.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how to prioritize approval toward
a species that might be closed to harvesting in Alaskan
waters. Mr. Rabung replied that it was designed to be a
user-driven project. He stressed that the department would
not take action until there was an application. He noted
that there would be guidance about the appropriate review
process, which was the same as salmon.
Vice-Chair Bishop queried the work of Ms. Eckert. Ms.
Eckert replied that she worked as faculty at the
university. She explained that faculty taught classes,
conducted research, and provided service. She shared that
she had done research on king crab, and their early life
history to determine rehabilitation.
10:15:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was a predator problem
on shellfish. She remarked that there was an attempt to get
national attention especially about abalone. She noted that
the otters were causing an unsustainability. Ms. Eckert
replied shared that she had conducted research on sea otter
diets, and the complex ecological interactions. She
remarked that there had to be an examination of where to do
the enhancement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the review process
would include a geographic location of the application. Mr.
Rabung replied that each project would be assessed locally.
The projects were intended to enhance localized fisheries,
and would be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Senator Micciche noted that there were public opportunities
in the process. Mr. Rabung responded that there was no
ownership of the resource until harvest.
Senator Micciche stressed that it was heartbreaking when
batches were required to be destroyed.
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal notes.
10:23:33 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT HB 128 from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 128 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Fish and Game, one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Fish and Game, and one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
10:23:46 AM
AT EASE
10:26:05 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 121 - Additional Document - Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 3.10.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Support Document - Federal memo to state plans 02.23.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Supporting Document-OSHA Fact Sheet 3.6.17.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121-DOLWD Response to SFIN 4.11.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 121 |