03/09/2010 10:15 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB46 | |
| HB365 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
March 9, 2010
10:21 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation
to collect and make available to the public certain information
relating to water pollution; prohibiting certain mixing zones in
freshwater spawning waters; and requiring a public comment
period for certain sewage system or treatment works
modifications."
- TABLED
HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to sharing records regarding fish purchased by
fish processors with certain federal agencies, to requirements
to obtain and maintain a fisheries business license, and to
payment of industry fees required of fish processors; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Directing the Legislative Council to contract for an assessment
of environmental and socioeconomic consequences of large-scale
mineral extraction in the Bristol Bay area watershed.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) FSH, RES
03/31/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/31/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/28/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
01/28/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/10 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/09/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 365
SHORT TITLE: FISH PROCESSOR FEES, LICENSES, RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) FSH, RES
03/09/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HB 46.
LYNN KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 46.
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Fairbanks)
Department of Law (DOL)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 46.
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman/Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
BRAD HANES, Commercial Fisherman
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
BRYAN BENKMAN, Commercial Fisherman; Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
SETH WYMAN, Commercial Fisherman; Board Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
SVEN STROUSE(ph), Commercial Fisherman; Board Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Mt. Vernon, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
RANDY STEWART, Vice President
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Mt. Vernon, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
DAN CASTLE, President
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS); Board Member
Southeast Revitalization Association (SRA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
BOB THORSTENSON, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
NIK NEBL, Commercial Fisherman; Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
BRUCE WALLACE, Commercial Fisherman
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
GARY HAYNES, Commercial Fisherman
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
SCOTT MCALLISTER, Commercial Fishermen
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
JERRY MCCUNE, Representative
United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
MITCH EIDE, Commercial Fisherman; Board Member
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 365.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:21:16 AM
CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:21 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Edgmon, Buch, Kawasaki, Munoz, and
Keller. Representatives Millett and Johnson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
10:21:25 AM
HB 46-MIXING ZONES/SEWAGE SYSTEMS
10:21:38 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act requiring the Department of
Environmental Conservation to collect and make available to the
public certain information relating to water pollution;
prohibiting certain mixing zones in freshwater spawning waters;
and requiring a public comment period for certain sewage system
or treatment works modifications." He then noted that public
testimony on HB 46 was closed.
10:23:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, informed
the committee that the bill asks three questions: Should
citizens have the right to know Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) information on freshwater pollution without
having to file a Freedom of Information Act request? Should
pollution above the state toxic standards be allowed to be
discharged on freshwater spawning beds as mixing zones? Should
neighbors have the right to a public hearing if a commercially
operated sewage lagoon is going to be expanded over 50 percent
in their neighborhood? Representative Seaton stated that the
biggest of these questions is regarding mixing zones, and
explained that mixing zones are areas where the state allows
toxic pollutants to be discharged. He pointed out that the bill
restricts this discharge in a spawning area; in fact, this is a
return to the law previous to 2002, when mines "were permitted
under those situations." For example, the Donlin Creek [mine]
was required to move its mixing zone upstream, away from a
spawning area. He noted that HB 46 will ensure that there is an
exemption for problems with turbidity from placer mining
operations, and the bill does not affect other permits for in-
stream crossings.
10:25:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled that amendments have been
discussed at previous hearings. He moved to adopt Amendment 1.
CHAIR EDGMON objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 24, following "for a":
Insert "commercially operated"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the amendment eliminates the
question of whether a sewage lagoon is a disposal site on
private property.
10:26:03 AM
CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:26:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 2.
CHAIR EDGMON objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:26:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained Amendment 2, which read as
follows:
Page 3, following line 21
Insert:
(4) "useful life" means the anticipated time in which
a facility can continue to be operated without
replacement or major renovation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the amendment adds clarity
to the intent of the statute.
10:26:44 AM
CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
10:26:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 3.
CHAIR EDGMON objected for the purpose of discussion.
10:26:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained Amendment 3 which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 5
After "authorization" delete "."
Insert:
", or for an area where spawning was ongoing at the
time of initial authorization, if that authorization
occurred more than five years prior to the effective
date of the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the amendment provides clarity for
rural villages that have sewage outfalls which have not been
officially permitted.
10:27:47 AM
CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
10:28:01 AM
CHAIR EDGMON called for discussion on HB 46, as amended.
10:28:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT maintained her concern about the effect
of changing mixing zone requirements on small, undeveloped
communities. In addition, the fiscal note indicates the
addition of staff, and she opined that DEC is "doing a good job
with the statutes as they stand on mixing zones." She said she
will not be able to support the bill in its present form.
10:30:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the remaining question was
whether the committee believes it is good public policy to
discharge toxics above the state standards for aquatic life on
freshwater spawning areas. He clarified the spawning areas are
nesting areas for the named species, such as salmon, when the
salmon are not actively laying eggs. Furthermore, there have
been no mine permits denied because of this accommodation.
Representative Seaton opined not protecting spawning grounds is
"trading away our renewable resources and our fisheries
resources on which all our communities depend." The bill does
not prevent mixing zones in rivers, but makes modifications so
that a mixing zone does not occur in a spawning area.
10:31:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed her belief that the legislation
elevates one resource over another for development. She said,
"In my walk around the state, have seen that [miners] are doing
the upmost to protect all resources equally." She concluded
that the bill may not allow permitting for some mines and is
"over-reaching."
10:32:50 AM
CHAIR EDGMON pointed out that HB 46 has safeguards to exempt
municipalities and placer mines, and asked Representative Seaton
to speak about the exemptions.
10:33:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON provided the example of the Donlin Creek
mine, which applied for a permit prior to the change in law.
The mine was required to move its mixing zone 1,400 feet to a
"boulder patch area" that was not in a spawning area. After
this change, the mine received its permit. Furthermore, the
bill exempts artificial settling ponds or channels that are
later "invaded by one of the fish species," so they may not be
reclassified as spawning areas. In addition, the bill
accommodates turbidity caused by placer mines. He restated the
intent of the bill is to prevent pollution, above the level that
the state sets as safe for aquatic life, from being discharged
in spawning areas.
10:36:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled testimony from DEC indicating
that regulations already prohibit mixing zones in spawning areas
"with the time element." He stated that the above information,
along with the "unknowns" surrounding the bill's impact on
municipalities, prevent him from supporting the bill.
10:37:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that comments from the
municipalities and villages have indicated that one of the
amendments adopted "took care of that problem that DEC had
identified, that there were some things that they hadn't
permitted." Therefore, unpermitted discharges that are normal
in some parts of rural Alaska are taken care of. However, after
the useful life of facilities is past, the replacement should be
"at a level of what we want to see for Alaska."
10:38:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed HB 46 also affects lakes and
resident fish, such as Arctic char and other species. The bill
is very broad, and she cited the difficulty of permitting the
tailings disposal plan for the Kensington Mine in Juneau that
occurred over the discovery of an introduced trout species.
Although the Kensington Mine did not require a mixing zone, she
maintained her concern about adding uncertainty to the
permitting process. She asked for a response regarding the
aforementioned issue and on the influence of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) on this legislation.
10:40:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concurred that the Kensington Mine did not
require a mixing zone. Although freshwater fish in lakes are
included in the language of the bill, he pointed out that HB 46
does not cover broadcast spawners, but only species that spawn
in redds, or nests. He acknowledged that the CWA requires
public process for its tri-annual review; however, public
process for adopting standards is set "as appropriate" by 33
United States Code (USC) 1313(c)(1). He assured the committee
that the idea that the state can, or cannot, disallow mixing
zones is not the issue as proven by the statute that was enacted
affecting the cruise line industry. The bill does not change
the toxic standards, but merely disallows the ability to exceed
the established standards on spawning grounds.
10:43:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ opined legislation affecting the cruise
ship industry has proven to be a very onerous and unscientific
method of regulating water quality. She maintained her concern
that legislating water quality without the regulation process
leads to unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that in 2002, the
Murkowski administration eliminated the standard that prevented
mixing zones from being part of spawning areas, and this bill
reinstates the previous standard.
10:44:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether salmon always spawn in the
same area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that spawning areas are
identified by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and
are not extremely variable. The fish tend to return to the same
area that has gravel and upwelling waters.
10:45:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON further asked whether water temperature
is a factor.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that water temperature varies
year to year, and with salmon, ADF&G has surveys that indicate
the established spawning areas. Some species, such as pink
salmon, are more mobile and may invade a new area.
10:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON observed that ADF&G may determine that
there has not been an invasion because the fish have been in a
certain area years before. He said, " ... to get to the point
of my questioning, are we talking about eliminating a mixing
zone, anywhere on a river that's a potential spawning zone,
based upon the invasion ...? Are we basically excluding any
place that could ever potentially be a spawning zone in a
river?"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said no. An application for discharge
will require findings to determine whether the area is a
spawning area and the permit will be granted, or not, based on
that finding.
10:48:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed his belief that the legislation
leaves open to interpretation "is it a spawning zone, was it a
spawning zone, is it going to be a spawning zone?" His primary
concern is that this bill eliminates basically any habitat that
could potentially be a spawning zone.
10:49:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that when a permit is
considered, ADF&G determines whether the area is a spawning
area.
10:49:31 AM
LYNN KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), clarified that the cruise ship
law did not affect the water quality standards, but addressed
effluent levels. However, HB 46 does make changes to the water
quality standard, because the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) views the mixing zone regulations as a part of the water
quality standards. She then deferred to testimony from the
Department of Law (DOL) on the EPA process.
10:50:37 AM
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department of Law
(DOL), advised the committee the bill would require EPA approval
through a process governed by federal regulations. He directed
attention to his written response to "Mixing Zone Bill
Questions, Our File No. 665-09-0019," dated 2/11/10, and
provided in the committee packet.
10:51:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the letter response and
pointed out that Section 303(c)(2)(B), which is cited in the
letter, is specific to toxic pollutants and does not apply to
the mixing zone requirements. Furthermore, Sections (c)(3) and
(4) pertain to EPA's approval and disapproval process; thus,
although it would be good to put these things in findings,
pollutants, mixings zones, and the EPA process are different
topics.
10:52:03 AM
MR. LEONARD disagreed, and said that anytime DEC promulgates any
water quality standard it does go through the same federal
approval process. The applicable requirements of the CWA are
Sections 303(c)(1) and (c)(2)(A), and are not limited to toxins,
but apply to any water quality standard.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined the new existing standards have not
been approved by EPA; however, the standards in the bill have
been approved.
10:53:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ observed Mr. Leonard's letter indicates an
analysis occurs before a change is made. She read from page 3
[original punctuation provided]:
Federal regulations require that a state seeking EPA
approval of a proposed revision to a water quality
standard submit the following information: analyses
conducted to support the standard; an explanation of
the scientific basis for the standard; and
certification by the Attorney General or other legal
authority this it was duly adopted. ... the sponsor
of a bill proposing a change to an existing standard
should make the first two items available to the
committees considering the bill, and to the public,
before the bill is enacted.
10:54:07 AM
MR. LEONARD further explained that these requirements can be
found in federal regulation 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Section 131.6. The regulation lists what the state is required
to submit to EPA in support of a water quality standard project
and there is a separate regulation for governance of public
hearings. Mr. Leonard advised these requirements "would be
triggered by this bill, just as they are triggered every time
DEC promulgates water quality standards as regulations."
10:54:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the water quality
standards are in place and the new ones are those being applied
for; furthermore, the prohibition on the pollution of mixing
zones in spawning streams has been in place before. The
authority [for this] has been previously adopted in state law.
10:55:38 AM
CHAIR EDGMON noted he represents a fishing district that has
concerns about a nonrenewable resource encroaching on its
valuable fishery, and stated his support for the bill. He
opined the bill warrants passage to another committee to
continue the discussion during this legislative session.
10:57:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH moved to report HB 46 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
10:57:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He said that the committee
should not move a bill in order for more discussion, but only if
the committee feels it is good policy and should become law.
During a 90-day session, committees must start making policy
decisions, instead of the tendency to "move every bill to
finance, or every bill to judiciary, or every bill to
resources."
10:58:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she would not vote for the bill
because she did not think there is a current deficiency in water
regulations; in fact, the legislation is far-reaching with
unknown implications to EPA and water quality standards. Alaska
already has a burden of federal policies on resource extraction;
furthermore, DEC has "done a great job."
10:59:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the committee table the
legislation because of the need for further information.
11:00:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected and maintained his motion to move
the bill.
11:00:30 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 11:00 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.
11:02:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to table the bill.
11:03:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected.
11:03:46 AM
CHAIR EDGMON offered the floor to Representative Buch.
11:03:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said that HB 46 is restorative legislation.
11:04:36 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Munoz,
Keller, and Millett voted in favor of tabling HB 46.
Representatives Edgmon, Kawasaki, and Buch voted against it.
Therefore, HB 46 was tabled in the House Special Committee on
Fisheries by a vote of 4-3.
HB 365-FISH PROCESSOR FEES, LICENSES, RECORDS
11:05:44 AM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 365, "An Act relating to sharing records
regarding fish purchased by fish processors with certain federal
agencies, to requirements to obtain and maintain a fisheries
business license, and to payment of industry fees required of
fish processors; and providing for an effective date."
11:05:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT informed the committee HB 365 is a
continuation of a fishery capacity reduction program enacted by
the legislature in 2002, commonly known as the "buyback"
program. She read from a letter submitted by the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) dated 3/2/10, a copy of which
was provided in the committee packet [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 365 is simply an accounting procedure modification
to make the program operate more efficiently and allow
the lender to monitor the capacity of the reduction
loan repayment. It does not change the program
established in 2002 in any way....
HB 365 will allow the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) access to confidential state records
and reports through an exception to AS 16.05.815(a).
This is not an unusual request since a dozen other
exceptions have been granted in statute, including
NMFS but for purposes of fishery management and
enforcement. This legislation is necessary since it
is the State of Alaska that maintains the fish ticket
harvest data and fish processor annual reports. This
exception will provide assurance to NMFS that they are
receiving the proper repayment of their loan....
The original legislation in 2002 was supported by the
Alaska fishing community and had overwhelming
legislative support in both the House and Senate, as
did the 2006 modification. This support stemmed from
the fact that the program was initiated by fishermen
for fishermen, it is a voluntary program (no one will
be forced to sell their limited entry permit), the
program requires a majority vote of all the fishermen
to implement the loan agreement, the fishery
association will have access to federal funds of $21
million through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, there is little State
expense or administration, the State maintains all its
responsibility to manage its fisheries in the future
should conservation or economic conditions change, and
the program has had a history of legislative support.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the committee to consider the bill
in order to continue to sustain a healthy and vibrant fishery in
Southeast.
11:08:02 AM
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
explained the program is available to any fishery throughout the
state; thus, Southeast seiners developed an association to seek
federal funding for a buyback loan that will be repaid by the
fishermen. He stressed that this is a voluntary program, and
only works in regions where the fishermen "come together and
want to do this." In the last decade, the seiners in Southeast
have only been fishing about one-half of their permits because
of high costs and low prices for fish. He opined the program
gives the remaining fishermen an opportunity to "take the chance
with the future and to buy out the permits not fished which
would enable them, those remaining, to improve their economic
condition in the future."
11:10:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked about the permanence of the
program, given market changes and state constitutional issues.
11:11:40 AM
MR. HOMAN advised that one of the features allows the state to
maintain its responsibility to the fishery; in fact, the Limited
Entry Act states that if changes occur, the state has the
opportunity to analyze a fishery through an "optimum number
study." Furthermore, if a fishery becomes too exclusive, the
state may issue more permits into that fishery. As a protection
for the fishermen, modification legislation enacted in 2006
directed that the proceeds from the new permits would be used to
pay off any loan balance.
11:13:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that the 2006 legislation
does not "trump the constitution, which says that ... we have
rights to the resources that are owned by the people..."
Although in support of the buyback program, he cautioned that
only a state constitutional amendment will guarantee the
permanence of the program. However, passage of a constitutional
amendment may create "privileged groups," in fact, some
fisheries are close to this situation already, and opening the
fishery may cause a "false economy," subject to lawsuits.
Representative Johnson warned that the state may be caught in
the middle, and he asked that the record reflect his intention
to protect the resource by the guarantee of limited entry,
although "the courts are going to end up deciding, probably."
11:15:36 AM
MR. HOMAN agreed that issues over limited entry may be
determined by the courts; however, he did not anticipate that
the changes in the fishery that would cause this to happen are
coming. He opined that if the statutes were changed, and new
permits were not allowed, the court would "see that as an
overreaching limitation."
11:16:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON applauded the association in Southeast
that has brought this legislation forward; however, a law must
work throughout the state, and he asked, "If you took this model
and put it in Bristol Bay, or ... put it in Cook Inlet, what
would it look like?"
11:17:46 AM
MR. HOMAN explained that the program is available to other
regions if they form a fishery association, under state statute,
and seek a comprehensive group of fishermen to work with the
federal government. In addition, there are other methods
available, such as assessing themselves upfront and collecting
money to buy permits back. He assured the committee the program
is available now to other regions, if there are unused permits,
as an opportunity to reduce the fleet.
11:19:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON restated his support of the program;
however, he would like to see further assurance of permanence.
11:20:35 AM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony.
11:20:49 AM
BRAD HANES, commercial fisherman, informed the committee he was
a fourth generation purse seiner, beginning his fishing career
when he was 18 years old. He spoke in support of the bill, even
though it meant "putting a tax on myself."
11:21:59 AM
BRYAN BENKMAN, commercial fisherman; member, Southeast Alaska
Seiners Association (SEAS), informed the committee he has been
fishing in Southeast since 1973. He recalled that the fishery
was overcapitalized in the '80s and '90s, but in the last decade
the number of fisherman has dropped, making this a good time to
pursue the buyback. He supported the opportunity to stabilize
the fishery.
11:23:44 AM
SETH WYMAN, commercial fisherman; board member, SEAS, stated he
and his organization support HB 365, and that members of the
association are willing to tax themselves to make the fishery
stable and more beneficial to the industry.
11:24:56 AM
SVEN STROUSE(ph), commercial fisherman; board member, SEAS, also
stated support for HB 365 on behalf of the association, saying
that the legislation will maintain the economic viability of the
fishery for the future.
11:25:53 AM
RANDY STEWART, Vice President, SEAS, said he was representing
himself and the association. He assured the committee that the
bill will not cause the cost of permits to rise, or restrict
access to the fishery; in fact, in 1977, when he began fishing,
a newcomer still needed help with financing to enter the
fishery. Mr. Stewart recalled that the implementation of
limited entry provided stability to the fishery. The value of
the permit is a small portion of the cost to enter a fishery, as
the cost of becoming a commercial fisherman is too high for any
young person on his/her own. Potential investors will look at
the stability of the industry prior to making an investment or
loan, and the possibility of 170-200 returning permits is a
destabilizing factor. Mr. Stewart expressed his personal
interest in an industry that is not exclusive, but is profitable
and would attract buyers to purchase permits that come on the
market. He concluded that the bill will provide a stabilizing
influence.
11:29:12 AM
DAN CASTLE, President, SEAS; board member, Southeast
Revitalization Association (SRA), stated he was representing
himself, SEAS, and SRA. He related that SRA was tasked with
building this program 10 years ago by securing money and
extinguishing latent permits. He described the development of
the program, and opined HB 365 simply provides a collection
vehicle to collect the money from the fishermen and repay the
loan. Mr. Castle urged the committee to move the bill.
11:31:36 AM
BOB THORSTENSON, Executive Director, SEAS, stated that he was
speaking on behalf of himself and his constituents. He stressed
the importance of the bill and that it was written over an
entire decade. Regarding the permanence issue, he cautioned
that the bill addresses this in the best way possible without "a
series of optimum number studies." He shared Representative
Johnson's desire to deal with the optimum number of permits in a
different manner; however, this risk will be taken by the
fishermen, as the language in the 2006 legislation says the
state "may" use the resulting funds from reissued permits to
reimburse the association. Mr. Thorstenson recalled that the
first round to purchase permits retired 35 permits with a
percentage of non-resident permit holders at about 80 percent.
He predicted that after consolidation, Petersburg will hold
about 22 percent of the permits. He pointed out the state
legislature began this process in 2002, and the association has
worked for eight and one-half years to secure the twenty-one
million dollar loan.
11:34:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the processors supported the
buyback program in 2002.
11:34:42 AM
MR. THORSTENSON said yes. In fact, in 2003, letters of support
were received from every major processor. He understood the
concern of the processing sector about the recent price
fluctuations; however, those are cyclical swings. He expressed
his belief that a larger fleet does not mean more fish will be
caught. He advised that there was full support to pursue this
program recently.
11:36:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ further asked whether the buyback program
will have any effect on existing active permits.
MR. THORSTENSON said no active permits will be removed in
Southeast unless they are offered for sale. The legislation
also pertains to other regions.
11:38:10 AM
NIK NEBL, commercial fisherman; member, SEAS, said he was
representing himself and the association. He observed that the
state, through the commercial fishing loan fund, provided access
to the fishing industry for those with a desire to be fishermen.
Mr. Nebl obtained a commercial loan from 1984-1994, through the
"ups and downs" of the industry, until he became a permit
holder. He expressed his hope that this legislation will
stabilize the industry for newcomers, and help families keep
fishing.
11:39:54 AM
BRUCE WALLACE, commercial fisherman, stated he has been a
fisherman since 1970, and he purchased a limited entry permit at
the inception of the program in 1976. His experience in the
industry is broad, and he has found that most aspects of a
fishery cannot have certainty. Fish products can be enhanced
and well-managed, but these factors do not control the biology
of a fishery. On the other hand, there is some ability to
control the market. Mr. Wallace advised that the bill closes a
promise that was made in the limited entry law over a decade
ago, before the target goal of 300 permits in Southeast was
artificially inflated by legal action. After a decade of
effort, the fleet "stayed with it" and has reached closure. He
asked for the committee's support of the bill.
11:43:02 AM
GARY HAYNES, commercial fisherman, said that he is a lifelong
resident of Ketchikan. Mr. Haynes recalled lobbying for the
Limited Entry Act in 1974, which he thought was a stabilizing
measure for the industry then. He has been running his boat
since 1976, and feels strongly that HB 365 is another great tool
for stabilization, as was limited entry.
11:44:18 AM
SCOTT MCALLISTER, commercial fishermen, agreed with Mr. Wallace
that this legislation "closes a deal that was kind of, was
implied in the original Limited Entry Act." His understanding
was that the act provided for optimum and maximum numbers of
permits. This left open the possibility for buyback; however,
the bill preserves the commerce in commercial fishing, which is
in competition with all of the other elements and aspects of
fishing in the state. He concluded that the bill ensures the
balance and stability of commercial fishing in the future, with
the possibility of achieving the optimum number of permits
within a fishery "and hav[ing] a future, stable, commercial
future for the participants in that fishery."
11:46:35 AM
JERRY MCCUNE, representative, United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA),
stated UFA supports the bill. In his role on the restructuring
panel on the Board of Fisheries, and working on the legislation
in 2000, he heard from fishermen that they supported the bill
because it is voluntary. No one can be forced out of the
fishery; therefore, UFA supports the action by SEAS and the vote
of the fishermen. He expressed his hope that the program is
successful.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what length of time is used to
determine that a permit is latent.
MR. MCCUNE advised that a permit must be renewed every two
years, and a permit holder who has not fished in four years
would be considered latent.
CHAIR EDGMON observed the chairman of the CFEC is indicating his
agreement with Mr. McCune's answer.
11:49:23 AM
MITCH EIDE, commercial fisherman; board member, SEAS, said he
was a lifelong Petersburg resident representing himself and the
association. He stated that the younger fishermen are willing
to pay a tax for 25 years because this legislation is important
for the future stability of the fishery. Mr. Eide urged the
committee to pass the bill.
11:50:12 AM
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony, and stated that the bill
would be held [HB 365 was held over.]
11:50:27 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR 15 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--AK Miners Assc Ltr 2.15.2010.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HB 365--Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--UFA Ltr..PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--SE AK Seiners Assoc Ltr..PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB365--CFEC Info on SE Seiners.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--AS 16.40.250.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--Capacity Reduction Summary-SE Revitalization Assn.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--Sec. 121 US Public Law 109-479 2007.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 46--Munoz, Johnson, et al to AG.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB 46--AG to Munoz, Johnson, et al.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 46 |
| HB365-DFG-CFEC-03-05-10 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--SE Fishermen's Alliance Ltr.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--CFEC Ltr..PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HB 365--Sectional Analysis.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HCR15-LEG-COU-3-8-2010 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--United Fishermen of Alaska Letter.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--BBEDC Letter of Support.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--Trident Seafoods Ltr..pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--BBNC Ltr.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HB365-REV-TAX-03-08-10 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HB 365 |
| HCR 15--Peter Pan Ltr.pdf |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--BBNA Ltr.PDF |
HFSH 3/9/2010 10:15:00 AM |
HCR 15 |