Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2016 08:30 AM House 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 | |
| HB300 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 300
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
fish; authorizing the operation of nonprofit shellfish
hatcheries; relating to application fees for salmon
and shellfish hatchery permits; and providing for an
effective date."
8:36:44 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, relayed that the bill would enable the commissioner
of Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to manage fish stocks
for the purpose of supplying shellfish to an aquatic farm.
The bill was inspired by stakeholder interest and had
support from the industry. He relayed that the bill was
virtually identical to the companion bill on the Senate
side.
FORREST BOWERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, provided background
on the bill. He relayed that there were a number of
shellfish fisheries that had been closed for several years.
There were other depressed shellfish stocks including
abalone, sea cucumber, and other. He remarked that some had
failed to rebuild the populations to a level of harvestable
surplus. Current statutes did not give the authority to
permit shellfish for restocking. The bill was modelled
largely after the existing salmon law for consistency. He
went through a sectional analysis:
Sec. 1
Provides the Alaska Board of Fisheries authority to
direct the department to manage production of enhanced
shellfish stocks, beyond broodstock 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
Rehabilitation Efforts, Enhancement Projects, and
Hatcheries. Provides direction to the commissioner on
issuance of permits for private nonprofit shellfish
stock rehabilitation and fishery enhancement projects
and associated shellfish hatcheries 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
hatchery-produced shellfish, and selection of
broodstock sources. This section describes reporting
requirements and terms for modification or revocation
of a permit.
Sec. 4 Provides the commission authority to issue
special harvest area entry permits to holders of
private nonprofit shellfish rehabilitation,
enhancement or hatchery 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 tax exemption for a nonprofit corporation
holding a shellfish hatchery, rehabilitation, or
enhancement permit.
Sec. 9
Exempts shellfish harvested under a special harvest
area entry permit from certain taxes.
Sec. 10
Establishes an effective date of the fee for salmon
hatchery permits described in sec. 2.
Sec. 11
Authorizes the department to adopt implementing
regulations.
Sec. 12
Establishes an immediate effective date for sec. 12
pursuant to AS 01.10.070(c).
Sec. 13
Establishes an effective date for sec. 9 concomitant
with sec. 2 effective date.
8:43:41 AM
Representative Wilson asked about the support of industry.
She thought fishermen were not excited about it.
Mr. Bowers replied that the department had received broad
support from the United Fisherman of Alaska.
Representative Wilson asked if the department had received
any opposition to the bill.
Mr. Bowers replied that the department had not received any
opposition.
Representative Wilson asked about the opposition in public
testimony.
Mr. Bowers replied that the opposition was concerned about
hatcheries in general.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the sectional analysis. He
asked who the technical experts would be.
Mr. Bowers replied that the panel had not yet been
appointed. It was a group the department would put together
and would describe the number of seats and makeup in
regulations.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the size of the shellfish
industry currently.
Mr. Bowers answered that the shellfish industry was about a
$400 to $500 million commercial fishery.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if nonprofits receiving the
permits, and expanding their business or limiting to only
shellfish.
Mr. Bowers answered that there were currently a couple of
projects in the research stage.
8:48:15 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if new fisheries were anticipated.
Mr. Bowers provided stated that rehabilitation would take
place of some depressed stocks. There were existing
populations at a very depressed level. Enhancement would be
beyond the natural productivity level. He did not know that
there would be additional fisheries.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to a letter in support of
the bill.
Mr. Bowers replied that the group was operating under a
research permit.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the words
rehabilitation and enhancement were mentioned multiple
times in the letter.
Mr. Bowers answered that a hatchery could open, but the
bill was not necessarily about hatcheries.
8:52:19 AM
Representative Kawasaki was confused about the bill. He
wondered if the hatchery was the only new allowance in the
legislation.
Mr. Bowers answered that under the existing permit for
research small scale projects were allowed.
Representative Kawasaki wondered how the science or
research would take place prior to approving a large scale
operation.
Mr. Bowers answered that the department would engage its
research lab, and maintain integrity. The department would
look at the habitat, the dynamics of the stock, the
population level that would be supported, and how the
project would impact other animals.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what a nonprofit meant in the bill.
He asked if it was an entity that made a profit by selling
fish, but did not pay taxes.
Mr. Brooks deferred the question to a colleague.
SAMUEL RABUNG, AQUACULTURE SECTION CHIEF, DIVISION OF
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, answered
that the bill designed to be not for private ownership,
rather the private nonprofit model, the entities were
registered with Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development made up of boards with stakeholders.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about nonprofit or a shellfish
hatchery harvest and sell for a profit.
Mr. Rabung replied that cost recovery was a funding
mechanism, but was not the only one.
8:57:54 AM
Co-Chair Neuman assumed the reports were audited.
Mr. Rabung nodded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the original version of the bill.
He discussed fish or shellfish, and he asked why it had
been removed.
Mr. Rabung answered that it was the exact language in
statute for salmon. The department had overlooked
additional shellfish issues.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked on budget concerns. He asked if
the state was putting money into the project.
Mr. Brooks replied that there was a staff of five that ran
the aquaculture program; the department envisioned using
the existing staff for the project. There was one-time
permit fee of $1,000 and only expected a few permits per
year.
Co-Chair Neuman believed it had been the intent of the
legislature to direct the departments, and he hoped the
state would recoup the costs
Mr. Bowers replied that if they were successful the state
could do cost recovery on test fishing.
Co-Chair Neuman would like to see a mechanism for cost
recovery.
Co-Chair Thompson directed the department to work on the
issue.
Representative Gara wanted to ensure there was no
contamination of wild stocks. He asked if all of the
shellfish would be from the area.
Mr. Bowers answered in the affirmative.
9:02:30 AM
Representative Gara stated that currently one of the
largest marketing of Alaska shellfish was the allure of a
wild product. He asked what the companies would have to do
to market their wild product.
Mr. Bowers answered that it was enhancement or
rehabilitation of wild stocks; similar to that of salmon.
Representative Gara did not know how to analyze the risk.
He did not believe they were wild. There was risk in his
mind that people who want to undermine the sale of wild //
He asked about the danger.
Mr. Rabung answered that the department utilized local
stock.
Representative Gara stated that wild shell fish would be
more concentrated. He asked about more waste contaminate in
the water.
Mr. Rabung replied that the project would be limited to
millions of juveniles and would not result in a waste
issue.
Representative Gara asked about the danger to any other
species. The bill contained a provision about destroying
diseased shellfish.
Mr. Rabung answered that it was standard and had been in
place since 1974. He announced that regulation pathology
required fairly strict quarantine.
9:08:30 AM
Representative Gara asked what the danger would be to
disease of other wild shellfish.
Mr. Rabung replied that the department had discussed the
issue with its pathologist who was not concerned as long as
current regulations were adhered to.
Representative Gara wondered what individuals who were not
champions of the bill would say.
Representative Guttenberg expressed concern about Alaska
wild salmon. He had seen criticisms of hatchery fish from
competing markets. He was concerned how it would impact
wild products. He pointed to a letter in the packet
mentioned the mariculture taskforce - he asked about
criticisms.
Mr. Rabung replied that the governor's mariculture
taskforce had been established but had not yet met; it was
seen as a companion bill.
9:12:28 AM
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the taskforce. He
believed it was probably a good thing to be doing, but he
would like a better picture about expanding the program.
GINNY ECKERT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, ALASKA SEA
GRANT AND PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, thanked the
governor's office and believed the bill served the need.
She spoke to king crab, which were native to Alaska and
were seriously overfished. She stated that the population
had not recovered. She was conducting research to determine
why they had not recovered.
9:16:36 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler was given the gavel.
Representative Kawasaki expressed concern about ensuring
that the stock would not harm the ecology.
Ms. Eckert answered that they were valid concerns. The goal
of the bill was to take stocks from an area as close to the
area where rehabilitation would occur. She stated that if
the native stock was not available, they would go to the
next closest source. She stressed that, with crab,
everything was much more localized with salmon than
shellfish.
Representative Kawasaki asked Ms. Eckert to address the
concern about mixing, because he did not want to introduce
something new that may damage the ecology.
Ms. Eckert replied that there were criticisms of salmon
hatcheries. She stated it was necessary to think about
where the bottleneck occurred. There were not enough adults
to produce the offspring to rehabilitate the stock on its
own.
9:21:46 AM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to overharvesting in the
1980s - he wondered why the solution was not harvesting for
some time. He recognized a commercial fleet depended on it
for money.
Ms. Eckert replied that the industry had been closed since
the early 1980s, but it had not been effective.
Representative Guttenberg addressed the moratorium on the
fisheries. He asked if there had been any research on
something that had replaced the species.
Ms. Eckert did not know that enough about the ecology was
known to know if something had replaced them.
Representative Guttenberg asked if someone had studied the
ecology of the regions. He wondered why the species had not
come back. He wondered if there was a reason that the
species could not live in the areas any longer due to a
habitat change.
Ms. Eckert answered that it was necessary to think about
the bottleneck in the fishery. He stated that habitat was
not limiting, the ocean was compatible for king crab to
live in regions, but overfishing had caused the decrease in
king crab.
Representative Edgmon supported the bill. He believed
concerns had been assuaged by the expert testimony
9:25:58 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, CENTRAL BERING SEA FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), she relayed
that the group was comprised of different stakeholders.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the testifier was in support of
the bill.
Ms. McCarty replied that they strongly supported the bill.
They had been working with the Department of Fish and Game
and believed they were superb guardians of the fisheries
resources of Alaska.
JULIE DECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, WRANGELL (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She spoke to a recent
taskforce established by a governor order.
9:32:21 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Ms. Decker to provide written
testimony if available.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, PIONEER ALASKAN FISHERIES, SELDOVIA (via
teleconference), was worried that the state was using
legislation that was 40 years old. She felt that there was
not enough monitoring in the hatcheries. She shared that
there was one stream that had 90 percent hatchery fish
replacing the wild stocks, and 87 percent were from Prince
William Sound traveling all the way to Kachemak Bay. She
stressed that there were many problems with the hatchery
system, even with the help of pathology and genetics. She
felt that there should be a pilot program, because the
legislation proposed was still in the research phase. She
remarked that the interaction between species. She stated
that in the 1960s, in the Bering Sea, king crab was
introduced; but king crab was now considered an invasive
species. She stressed that the American Fishery Society
must be contacted. She urged the committee to research the
issue further.
9:35:33 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler CLOSED public testimony.
Mr. Brooks appreciated the public testimony and had noted
Ms. Hillstrand's concerns. The department believed it had
the safeguards in place to address concerns.
Representative Wilson believed the testifier had raised
serious issues.
Mr. Bowers answered that the department had heard the
issues in the past. He was not trying to discount them, but
the department believed the safeguards were in place. He
pointed to examples in different regions. He spoke to the
commercial fishery on the Russian side of the Bering Sea,
and that he did not view the project as a failure.
Representative Gara wondered if there were dissenting views
from biologists regarding safety.
Mr. Bowers replied that the same request had been given in
the prior committee. He stated that a small group had
developed the bill. He shared that not all staff biologists
were not consulted on the bill. He felt that there may be
individuals who may be against the bill.
Representative Guttenberg requested a written comment in
reply to Ms. Hillstrand's testimony. He felt that Mr.
Brooks seemed flippant.
Mr. Brooks answered that there was no intent to be
flippant. He stated that he would provide written answers.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to ensure that the bill
would not destroy the ecology of a specific area.
9:42:27 AM
Mr. Rabung replied that, in the event that local stock was
extirpated, no longer existed, or in insufficient numbers
to provide adequate root stock to meet genetic minimum
effective population numbers, the nearest stock to be
sought to be the most compatible.
Vice-Chair Saddler agrees.
Mr. Brooks added that it had been a concern in the Senate.
He announced that the language had been removed to address
the concern.
Representative Edgmon supported the bill and viewed the
legislation as economic development. He did not find any of
the department's comments to be dismissive. He believed the
bill had been vetted. He felt any hiccups or problems along
the way would be noted by the department.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the funding issues. He asked if
there would be federal funds coming in.
Mr. Brooks replied that the program would pay for itself.
He explained that there was a contract that brought in
federal funds for managing crab.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that management would be reduced
in the state because of budget reductions. He felt that the
program would have a good benefit to the state, but noted
the current programs that require funds. He wondered if any
of the funds for the project must be dedicated to
shellfish.
Mr. Brooks replied none of the programs would be displaced
to manage the program. He stated that primary funding for
shellfish management was federal receipts.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that his concern was that it took
department staff, and the department was already extended
thin. He would like to see the funds coming from industry
to support it.
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the three zero fiscal notes.
9:48:54 AM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 300(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED. He wanted to know about
dissenting biologists who were concerned about the safety
of the program. He wanted to ensure that he was not only
hearing one side of the story. Representative Gara WITHDREW
his OBJECTION.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She felt that the people
who had offered concerns, were valid individuals. She
wanted to further understand the process. Representative
Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Saddler stressed that there was never 100
percent unanimity.
Representative Gattis believed everyone was aware of the
"fish wars" but she believed it was important to recognize
the underlying problem.
Co-Chair Neuman also had concerns with the department's
actions. He believed it was incumbent on the department to
visit members to discuss the matter. He stated that the
committee would watch the issue.
9:53:55 AM
Representative Edgmon remarked that the department no
longer had a legislative liaison. He recommended the
department to visit committee offices.
CSHB 300(FSH) was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Fish and Game, one new
zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, and one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN2 (DFG).
9:54:45 AM
AT EASE
9:56:50 AM
RECONVENED