Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/27/2018 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 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB272 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 188-COMM. FISH. ENTRY PERMITS; LOANS; TRUSTS
11:39:52 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 188, "An Act relating to commercial fishing entry
permits; establishing regional fisheries trusts and fisheries
trust regions; relating to commercial fishing entry permits held
and leased by a regional fisheries trust; relating to the duties
of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; and
providing for an effective date."
11:40:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, speaking as prime sponsor of HB
188, pointed out a proposed committee substitute (CS) [Version
L] that was conceptually discussed at a previous committee
hearing on 2/22/18 incorporates changes for issues raised during
committee hearings. He pointed out letters from the Bering Sea
Fishing Corporation and Afognak Corporation in support of the
bill, and one from BBFA. He said his staff would answer
specific questions.
11:41:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 188, labeled 30-LS0389\L, Bullard,
2/22/18 as the working document. There being no objection,
Version L was before the committee.
11:41:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his gratitude to the
Legislative Legal and Research Services attorneys for all their
work and for working through these revisions in a timely and
helpful manner.
11:42:14 AM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins, offered to explain changes between the prior CS for HB
188 as it was at the start of the 2018 legislative session
[Version M] to the proposed CS for HB 188, Version L. He stated
that he would quickly review these changes but offered to
provide more detail if needed.
11:42:48 AM
MR. MAGDANZ indicated he would be working from a document titled
"Summary of Changes, ver U ver L | HB 188 Regional Fisheries
Trusts." He directed attention to the heading after paragraph
one, titled "ver M - Ver L." The first change was to remove
three references to Alaskans entering fisheries or Alaska
communities to improve the constitutionality of the bill.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that [Version L] would add Section 29, which
arose from committee discussions for emergency transfers.
Section 29 of Version L would provide that a regional fisheries
trust must approve the emergency transfer of any permit that has
been temporarily transferred from the fisheries trust. The
emergency transferee must also be qualified under [AS
16.44.080], the provisions covering the original temporary
transferee.
MR. MAGDANZ said the next changes begin on page 13, lines 18-20,
to Section 30, and Section 32 [on page 15, lines 21-26, to
proposed AS 16.43.850 subsections (c) and (d), which would
reword the language to conform with the addition of Section 35.
He directed attention to proposed Section 35 [AS 16.43.844(d)]
on page 16 [lines 29-28]. He explained that the CFEC
commissioners flagged some changes to the prior version which
could have affected how demerit points are assessed to people
who are emergency transferees. The addition of Section 25 would
ensure that the status quo remains the same for individual
permit holders and that the same rules would apply to a
temporary transferee.
11:44:48 AM
MR. MAGDANZ directed attention to proposed Section 36, which was
amended to clarify the original intention.
MR. MAGDANZ directed attention to page 19, lines 6-15, to
proposed Section 39, AS 16.43.960(l). He stated that the
previous version did not reflect the original policy intent in
terms of when a temporary transfer could be revoked in cases in
which the temporary transferee's fishing privileges were
suspended. These changes remedied that issue.
11:45:35 AM
MR. MAGDANZ identified the next two changes to proposed AS
16.44.010(b)(2) and (3) [Section 41], which were in line with
the first change mentioned, to remove references to state
residents because [Version L] would allow the temporary transfer
to be made to anyone. This change deletes a provision that
would allow the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) to audit fisheries trusts and that function
and responsibility would be with the Legislative Audit Division
[Legislative Agencies and Offices]. He explained that the
sponsor continues to work with the DCCED on the regulatory
authority in the bill. As those discussions are ongoing,
Version L, would eliminate one section that referred to specific
regulatory authority because it caused some confusion, he said.
MR. MAGDANZ said the next change would add proposed AS
16.44.050(d) to allow a fisheries trust board to prohibit
certain individuals from receiving temporary transfers from the
fisheries trust. Version L would give a fisheries trust
authority to choose to prohibit temporary transfers to anyone
who already holds a limited entry permit in another fishery or
who has had their fishing privileges suspended by CFEC.
MR. MAGDANZ stated the next change [to proposed AS 16.44.060(b)]
would clarify that only one fisheries trust was eligible to hold
any given type of limited-entry permit. He explained that was
always the sponsor's intention; however, the prior version was
not totally clear on that matter. This language also would
allow fisheries trusts more flexibility in the types of permits
they acquire; he directed attention to the language in AS
16.44.060(c).
11:47:20 AM
MR. MAGDANZ said the next few changes to proposed AS
16.44.060(d) and (e) were non-substantive. The change to
proposed AS 16.44.070(b) referred to an issue raised by
Representative Eastman at the previous hearing, which is that
the six-year cap is a lifetime cap and was not a cap per
fishery.
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the change to proposed AS 16.44.080 [on
page 27, lines 1-23 of Version L] was in response to feedback
from fishermen and gives the fisheries trust greater ability to
ensure that anyone bidding on a permit would be able to safely
and successfully participate in the fishery.
11:47:59 AM
MR. MAGDANZ stated that the change to proposed Section 56 [page
31, beginning on line 23 of Version L] simply clarifies that
fishery trust regions should encompass both land and water area
in the state. The change to proposed Section 56, (a)(1) would
change the date the department should use when drawing fisheries
trust boundaries, he said. The last change was to proposed
Section 56, (b)(2) which states that all fisheries trusts shall
have at least five communities, he said. He explained that the
regional structure does not work very well if the region
consists of only one or two communities.
11:48:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether he could address what
happens when someone applies to multiple fisheries.
MR. MAGDANZ related his understanding that if an individual was
selected as a temporary transferee by a fisheries trust, the
person could not just back out of it at-will; therefore, anyone
should be careful before applying to multiple trusts.
11:49:39 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
11:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, referring to a letter of opposition [not
specifically identified], asked whether the sponsor had
considered any of the ideas expressed.
MR. MAGDANZ responded that the idea described at the end of the
letter is complicated. He was unsure if the sponsor has had
time to fully evaluate if the concerns had merit or value in the
specific recommendations.
11:51:26 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 188.
11:51:55 AM
BEN STEVENS, Director, Hunting and Fishing Task Force, Tanana
Chiefs Conference (TCC), said the TCC was a regional non-profit
and tribal consortium for the 42 villages of Interior Alaska.
He also served on the advisory panel to the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (NPFMC); however, his comments were
limited to his role as director. The fishing industry provides
the most viable opportunities for fishermen to earn a living in
communities along Alaska's coastline. It has been well
substantiated that there has been a huge decline in the number
of limited entry permits held by local fishermen. This decline
represents lost jobs, lost opportunities and economic distress
for fishermen, their families, and the communities.
MR. STEVENS said that the regional fisheries trust program
envisioned in HB 188 would complement efforts already being made
in the western coastal communities of the Bering Sea, as well as
fisheries in the communities in the Gulf of Alaska. The
regional fisheries trust shows significant promise to restore
opportunities to those fishermen who need it the most. He
stated that rural communities stand to benefit greatly from
retention and restoration of access to those fisheries. He
offered TCC support for HB 188 to make this a reality. He
characterized HB 188 as a "no nonsense" bill. He urged members
to move HB 188 out of committee and the legislature as soon as
possible.
11:54:49 AM
NICOLE BORROMEO, Executive Vice President; General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), asked to testify in support
of HB 188. The AFN believes in thriving economic and culturally
vibrant communities in all Alaska, especially in rural coastal
communities of Alaska, she said.
MS. BORROMEO stated that when the full board met on February 13
there was adamant support for this bill because the AFN believes
it is essential to bringing back sustainable economies in rural
coastal communities. These fisheries trust have a real
potential for making a difference in these communities. She
concluded by stating that AFN was firmly behind this bill and
she urged members to move it out of committee today.
11:56:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES closed public testimony on HB 188.
11:56:53 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that the committee has held numerous hearings.
She offered her belief the bill needed some additional work;
however, it was time to move it forward. She directed attention
to the two fiscal notes in members' packets, a zero-fiscal note
from the Division of Banking & Securities, Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED). The fiscal
note from the Division of Economic Development estimated a cost
to the state of approximately $476,200 in the first year and
$400,000 in subsequent years; however, these fiscal notes have
not been updated to proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
231, Version L.
11:57:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 188, labeled 30-LS0389\L [Version L], out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
188(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.