Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/08/2024 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 | |
| HB359 | |
| HB393 | |
| HB195 | |
| HB251 | |
| HB329 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 329 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 349 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
1:15:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
195(FSH).]
1:16:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 195 via a PowerPoint presentation,
titled, "HB 195: East Side of Cook Inlet Set Net Fleet Reduction
Act" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
1:16:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:16 p.m. to 1:18 p.m.
1:18:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE displayed a map of the Upper Cook Inlet
management area on slide 2, which showed the multiple management
areas in Cook Inlet. He stated that the proposed legislation
would seek to adjust the number of nets in the water in the area
just past Nikiski for 60 miles, which includes both the Kenai
and Kasilof Rivers. He stated that this would be done by
reducing the permits, with the ideal number being 79 to 106
permits, as seen on slide 3. He noted that there are around 440
permits registered in this district. He noted that the fishery
has been closed for the past few years because there are too
many nets in the water.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to slide 4 and discussed the
program that the proposed legislation would implement. He
stated that a framework would be created to allow for a buyback
program. To do this there would need to be a permit holder
vote. He noted that if the vote opts for the program, it would
be a voluntary program. He pointed out the value of the permits
in the buyback would be determined by the money raised, divided
by the number of permits. He stated that the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) would handle much of the
buyback program.
1:22:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE moved to slide 5 and stated that this
issue has been ongoing, but legislation has not moved in the
past because there has been a question of the funding. He noted
that the proposed legislation would not require the use of state
funds, as the user group and CFEC has sought funding from
federal grants, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fishing Capacity Reduction Program, and
private sourcing. He moved to slide 6 and summarized HB 195.
1:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE presented the sectional analysis for HB
195 [copy included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which establishes that
this legislation may be known as the East Side of Cook
Inlet Set Net Fleet Reduction Act.
Section 2 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding new Legislative findings and intent
relating to the bill.
Section 3 Amends AS 16.43.200 by adding 2 new
subsections:
(c) Establishes an area of the Upper Subdistrict
of the Cook Inlet Central District as a distinct
administrative area separate from the Cook Inlet
Central District on December 31, 2024. This area
is made up of the statistical areas identified on
January 1, 2024, as 244-21, 24422, 244- 31, 244-32,
244-41 and 244-42.
(d) Provides that an individual who has a set net
permit for the Cook Inlet Central District on
December 31, 2024, is not entitled to set net in the
administrative area created under this section as
of January 1, 2024 unless the permit has been
reassigned to that new administrative area.
Section 4 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which provides how the
commission will determine whether an individual who
holds a set net entry permit in the Cook Inlet Central
District on January 1, 2024 is reassigned an entry
permit for the administrative area established under
AS 16.43.200(c) (added by sec. 3 of the bill) or the
portion of the Cook Inlet Central District that was
not assigned into the administrative area established
under AS 16.43.200(c).
Section 5 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which defines the
appeals process in the new administrative area. This
section provides that a provisional license will be
issued pending resolution of an appeal and the
provisional permit holder may cast a provisional
ballot in the election established under section 6.
[email protected]
Section 6 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires on April
1, 2025, an election be conducted by the commission
among persons holding permits in the new
administrative area, to affirm support or opposition
to a buy-back program. Requires the commission provide
public notice of the election, hold public meetings
concerning the election, and clarify the details of
the buy-back program to those participating in the
election.
Section 7 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which establishes the
set net entry permit buy-back program for certain
permits fished in the administrative area established
under AS 16.43.200(c) (added by sec. 3 of the bill).
This section will only take effect if approved in an
election by the set net entry permit holders in the
administrative area established under AS 16.43.200(c).
If it is approved, the buyback program will become law
30 days following notification of the Lt. Governor
(see secs. 9 and 11). Sets qualifications for
participation in the program and allows the commission
to determine the amount for which to buy back an entry
permit by dividing the money allotted by the qualified
applicants. It also requires that the purchased
permits be cancelled and not re-issued and specifies
other details of the buy-back program.
Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires the
commission to provide a written report to the
Legislature on the status of the program not later
than January 15, 2031.
Section 9 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which requires the
chair of the commission to notify the Lieutenant
Governor and the Revisor of Statutes of the outcome of
the election held under section 6.
Section 10 Repeals sections 1, 2, 7 and 8 on June 30,
2031.
Section 11 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section which provides that
secs. 1, 2, 7, and 8 take effect only if notice is
provided under section 9 that the buy-back program
established under section 7 was approved.
Section 12 Effective Date Clause. Section 4 of the
bill takes effect January 1, 2025.
Section 13 Effective Date Clause. Provides if
sections 1, 2, 7 and, 8, take effect under section 11,
they take effect 30 days following the date of the
notice provided in section 9 that the buy-back program
was approved.
Section 14 Effective Date Clause. Except as provided
in sections 12 and 13, the bill takes effect July 1,
2024.
1:30:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Section 7 and questioned how
the buyback amount would be determined. He expressed the
understanding that whatever money is available would be divided
out on a prorated basis to the qualified and self-nominating
applicants.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE expressed agreement with the
explanation. In response to a follow-up question, he stated
that the proposed legislation would not create a fund, rather it
would create the framework for a buyback program. He discussed
the original version of the bill, which would have created a
lottery system for the buyback. He stated that the price in
that version of the bill was $260,000 per permit. He expressed
the opinion that the change made by the previous committee of
referral has made the language vague. Because of the change, he
explained that the amount of money the program receives would be
divided by participants; therefore, a fund would not be created.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the proposed legislation
would not appropriate money to buyback permits, but it would set
up the process to do this. He questioned where the funds would
come from.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE explained that in working through
versions of the bill over the years, the state's federal
delegation has made requests, and there has been "an expression
of support for funding a buyback using federal funds." He added
that these funds currently do not exist. He expressed the
opinion that the framework would need to be created before
funding would be put forth. He noted that there has been
federal disaster relief funding for this fishery. In response
to a follow-up question on private sourcing, he stated that this
would be from conservation groups to preserve habitat and the
spawning capacity for Chinook salmon.
1:36:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS voiced the belief that the issue is
complex, with a long history. She expressed the understanding
that the amount of sockeye salmon returning up the river would
support a commercial fishery; however, there is a severe limit
in fishing because of the low numbers of Chinook salmon returns.
She expressed the understanding that the proposed legislation
would reduce the number of permit holders by around three
quarters. She added that CFEC would be directing this permit
reduction.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE responded that this summary is mostly
correct. He stated that the proposed legislation would make a
policy decision, but the decisions of who can fish and where
they can fish would be management decisions. He added that the
legislature granted the authority for others to make the
management decisions. He continued that the management has
decided to prioritize the Chinook salmon fishery and return, and
there has been discussion on whether this is the correct
management decision. He noted the optimization study by CFEC
and pointed out that in the past there had been a management
decision which resulted in over permitting these areas. He
stated that the policy call for the legislature is whether it
should help reduce the number of permits through a buyback. In
response to a follow-up, he confirmed Representative Mears's
understanding of the issue. He added that if the permits are
bought back, there would be no guarantee that the remaining
permit holders would be allowed to fish.
1:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER discussed supply and demand in relation
to the management of the fishery. He suggested that supply has
been delegated to the Board of Fish to determine, while the
demand side would be determined by CFEC with the number of
permits. He questioned whether there has been an attempt to
manage the supply side, as opposed to the proposed legislation
addressing the demand side.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that the Board of Fish is
prioritizing the return of Chinook salmon in the effected
rivers, while commercial fishing in the area is targeting
sockeye salmon. He added that sockeye have been returning in
record numbers. He commented that this has been referred to as
"fish wars" on the Kenai River. He described some of the
strategies that have been applied to gear reduction concerning
the length and depth of nets. He noted that a study was done to
see if the gear reduction effected the Chinook salmon; however,
up to this point data has shown that Chinook have not been
effected by gear reduction. He noted that Chinook salmon levels
in the Kenai River is reaching a dire status.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the optimum number
study is defined in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE deferred to CFEC.
1:45:17 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, expressed agreement that the issue is complex.
CHAIR MCKAY warned the committee to not go into the details of
fishery management, as this would be outside of the scope of HB
195.
COMMISSIONER HAIGHT referred to the report, titled "Findings and
Results from a Modified Optimum Numbers Study on the Cook Inlet
Eastside Set Gillnet Fishery," [copy included in the committee
packet]. He pointed to page 14 and discussed the sockeye return
in the Kenai River, noting that the runs dramatically increased
in the 1980s. He stated that because of this the Board of Fish
began requiring registration in subdistricts; therefore, the
mobility of these harvesters became limited. He noted that the
sockeye harvest has fallen over the last several years. He
referred to the chart on page 25 and pointed out that the time
harvesters can fish has also decreased. He explained that
management in the area is now being determined by the
combination of Chinook salmon conservation and shorter fishing
periods. He stated that the information on the optimum number
of permits is summarized on page 31, but a definitive optimum
number has not been given. The main variables on the optimum
number are price and volume, as seen on the chart. He noted
that the volume of the resource is "fine," but because of
management changes and Chinook salmon, the amount of fish that
can be harvested has declined. On the chart, he pointed out
where certain prices and certain volumes intersect to create the
range of the number of permits that could make a minimal profit.
He expressed uncertainty whether the proposed buyback would
increase the harvest, noting that "it looks like a pretty dismal
situation for these folks."
1:49:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER commented that from his understanding as a
subsistence fisherman in Kotzebue, the supply is the demand. He
noted that escapement is what limits the areas that can be
fished. He concurred that this issue is very complicated.
1:50:40 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 195 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 251 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Ver A.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Ver U.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Explanation of Changes between Version A and Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 251 RES Hearing Request 4.2.2024.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| HB 195 Sponsor Statement v B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| CSHB 195B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB0195B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 Summary of Changes from v. A to B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB 195 Sectional Analysis v. B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| CSHB 195 Sponsor Presentation.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB 329 Sponsor Statement v.D.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 329 |
| CSHB 329B.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 - Sectional Analysis v.D.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 329 |
| HB 195 Supporting Document - CFEC Optimum Numbers Study.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |