Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/15/2021 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SJR8 | |
| SB79 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 64-SHELLFISH PROJECTS; HATCHERIES; FEES
4:05:01 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 64
"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 shellfish enhancement project
permits; allowing the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to
market aquatic farm products; and providing for an effective
date."
CHAIR REVAK stated SB 64 was previously heard on February 22
with invited testimony and testimony from industry
representatives. The intention today is to hear a recap of the
bill, ascertain if there are further questions and engage the
will of the committee.
4:05:43 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, speaking as the bill sponsor, stated SB 64
provides the legal framework for a large-scale fishery project.
The goal is to nurture young shellfish, such as king crab, razor
clams and geoducks in their earliest formative stages to improve
their odds of survival in the wild.
4:06:15 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, affirmed Senator Stevens' comments
and added that this bill strengthens Alaska's fisheries
portfolio. He noted many stakeholders want this bill to move
forward.
4:06:50 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 64.
4:07:10 PM
FRANCES LEACH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 64. She stated the
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) is the largest commercial
fishing organization in Alaska, composed of 37 multi-gear and
regional commercial fishing groups. She spotlighted significant
points from the 2014 UFA "Alaska Mariculture Initiative"
resolution which correspond to this bill:
• UFA supports environmentally sound programs for
the aquatic farming of shellfish and marine
plants.
• UFA supports large-scale aquatic development
projects which will open the door to renewable
economic development. It will give the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) an opportunity
to promote aquatic farm products and a platform
to grow consumership.
• UFA supports economic development for Alaska. Ms.
Leach described Washington state's financial
success to illustrate Alaska's earnings
potential:
* Largest producer of farmed shellfish in the
United States with an annual sales value over
$100 million.
* Directly and indirectly the industry employees
over 3200 people.
* Industry payroll over $27 million.
* Total economic contribution of $270 million.
MS. LEACH shared the environmental concerns of previous speakers
and agreed scientific studies, due diligence and safe permitting
practices are necessary for sustainable development. She
expressed her belief that these concerns are adequately
addressed in the bill's environmentally friendly protocols, and
the methods to increase a sustainable shellfish harvest are
sufficiently delineated.
Ms. LEACH stated in wrap-up that mariculture production is
proven to ameliorate some environmental challenges, like ocean
acidification. She thanked Senator Stevens for introducing the
bill.
4:09:36 PM
ALAN PARKS, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 64. He stated he fished commercially for 38
years, the bulk of which was community-based with local vessels
and crews that delivered to shore-based processors and markets.
Fishing was his primary source of income. He served as a member
of many local committees, including the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Stellar Sealion Committee and 10 years on the Alaska
Marine Conservation Council.
MR. PARKS requested due diligence of this bill on the following
two points:
First, a forensic audit of all salmon hatcheries prior to
inserting mariculture loan language into the current Fisheries
Enhancement Loan Program. He stated that the language in SB 64
is to be written into the statute that governs salmon
hatcheries, which includes rules governing aquaculture
association formation, how cost recovery is conducted, and
access to the Fisheries Enhancement Loan Program. Mr. Parks
stated that to simply remove salmon and insert crab into the
statute creates concerns about loan and cost recovery. He
brought up the Cook Inlet Aquaculture (CIAA) Association to
illustrate how the Fisheries Enhancement Loan Program works,
with the disclaimer that his intention was not to pick on the
CIAA, but rather, it was the only hatchery for which he had
data.
MR. PARKS stated loans are to be secured with collateral. The
CIAA January 15, 2021 balance sheet had $14 million in assets
and $16 million in debt from the Alaska Fisheries Loan
Enhancement Program. The state leases the Tutka Bay Hatchery for
$25 per year to the CIAA. On the balance sheet, the lease is
valued at $484,000 and infrastructure is valued at $2 million.
He stated the details of the lease were unknown to him, but the
infrastructure included buildings with foundations. The point is
if the CIAA leaves the Tutka Bay Hatchery, it is hard to
determine which property belongs to the CIAA and which belongs
to the state, because 3 out of every 5 fish produced at the
Tutka Bay Hatchery go to the hatchery and 2 go to common
property. He recommended the state do its due diligence prior to
incurring more loans, basically, verify current loan programs
are viable prior to the addition of more loans.
Second, he clarified that he is not opposed to the promotion and
enhancement of crab but urges the legislature to verify the
science is valid prior to the issuance of new mariculture loans.
He stated a cookie-cutter approach to different types of fishery
loans is not good. In other words, verify the mariculture
enhancement science is sound first, then offer loans. Do not
offer loans first, then verify the science.
4:15:01 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked Mr. Parks to email additional testimony, if
any, to [[email protected]].
4:15:35 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, Kachemak
Bay, Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 64. She stated that
the Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries was incorporated in 1964; it
fished crab and shrimp for over 50 years and still does. She
also worked 21 years for the Division of Fisheries
Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Development (FRED) hatchery
program. She said at that time, 120 people worked for FRED whose
purpose was to oversee the statutes.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated the FRED Division no longer exists. ADFG
does not have the capability to provide adequate oversight for a
project of this scale nor is ADFG able to provide stopgap
measures for blunders. She submitted an ADFG internal review
publication which details the noncompliance of salmon hatcheries
in Prince William Sound and resulting problems. She encouraged
committee members to read the internal review and although the
report is a decade old, the internal review is still relevant as
the same issues persist, such as, straying. She warned that
expensive remediation is inevitable when a lack of oversight is
coupled with a potential mariculture experiment that went bad.
With only an attached zero fiscal note, the state has
underestimated the cost of the bill, she said.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated salmon hatchery statutes are underutilized
and cited a mismanaged permit issue as an example of this
problem. Although the Hatchery Committee and the Board of
Fisheries are at work to correct this problem, the Board of
Fisheries is supposed to amend permits. She stated that it is a
struggle to resolve problems because no one will come to the
table and talk it out. She requested a review made up of
impartial people, so group talks lead to sound decisions and not
to rely on an appointee for a balanced point of view.
4:19:15 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 64 after discerning
nobody else wanted to speak.
4:19:51 PM
SAM RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, provided feedback
on today's testimony regarding SB 64, specifically:
• ADFG owns Tukta Lagoon Bay Hatchery. It is not
leased and there is no $25 per month lease fee.
The hatchery is contracted to CIAA at no cost to
the state. The state maintains ownership of the
hatchery while CIAA operates it and pays
associated expenses.
• The internal review was written in 2006. Since
that time, ADFG worked with the operator to
resolve the internal review concerns. This issue
has been resolved in writing.
• All of the hatcheries that operate in the State
of Alaska as private nonprofits have been
individually reviewed; all of these documents are
published and available on the ADFG website. He
stated all hatcheries comply with statutes,
regulations, and policies.
• Straying is a valid concern which is why ADFG
established straying safeguards. He pointed out
that Prince William Sound king salmon releases
began in the mid-1970s. And since the mid-1990s,
the king salmon wild stock returned three of the
fourth highest wild stock returns in the entire
history of Prince William Sound in the last 10
years. So, while straying occurs, it does not
seem to have a significant negative effect on
natural productivity.
MR. RABUNG explained that SB 64 is primarily designed to enable
restoration, rehabilitation, and enhancement and he offered
these definitions:
• Restoration - bringing a depressed stock back to
its normal level of productivity that can be
naturally sustained; re-establishing a depleted
stock or an extirpated stock, so it returns to
its natural productivity.
• Enhancement providing additional harvestable
surplus above what can be naturally produced in
that area. So, if you stop the efforts, it drops
back down to normal levels of productivity. For
example, Kodiak king crab were overfished
coincident with a regime change. Those crab
stocks never recovered. They still exist in low
numbers, too low to have fisheries for well over
30 years. The only action ADFG can take is to
keep the fishery closed.
MR. RABUNG stated this bill gives ADFG another tool to restore,
rehabilitate and enhance stocks. This applies not only to king
crab in Kodiak, but abalone in Southeast, and razor clams in
Cook Inlet, all examples of projects that could be permitted if
this bill were to pass.
4:24:22 PM
GINNY ECKERT, Professor of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
University of Alaska, and Director, Alaska Sea Grant, Juneau,
Alaska, said she provided scientific input to this bill for
years and wanted to pass on some of her scientific work which
addresses concerns. She described her credentials which include
work on The Alaska King Crab Research and Rehabilitation Biology
Program, active for 10 years. The program produced 30 peer
reviewed publications which focus on aspects of king crab
biology. The publications are useful to understand king crab
biology and king crab fishery management in general, but equally
important is to understand potential detrimental impacts of
enhancement.
MS. ECKERT stated much of the programs work has been done in
Kodiak where king crab are not recovering. Outplanting
experiments have yet to produce naturally recurring recruitment.
So, there is evidence that king crab in Kodiak are recruitment
limited and this appears to be true in many other king crab
areas that have crashed. To better understand the lack of
recruitment, further research is needed, and this bill allows
the research to occur. The next phase of the project is to do
larger scale outplanting, but until this bill passes, that
project is on hold.
MS. ECKERT said she hears the environmental concerns. She agreed
restrictions are necessary; not just anything should be placed
in the ocean at any time. She stated that safety protocols and a
review period are written into the bill, both of which address
safety concerns. She stated she is happy to participate in the
process in the future to make sure enhancement is implemented in
a sustainable manner.
4:27:12 PM
CHAIR REVAK thanked the testifiers and asked if members had
questions.
4:27:23 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that he shares Ms. Hillstrand's concerns
pertaining to pink salmon releases, however, he does not see the
connection between pink salmon releases and this shellfish
enhancement bill. He clarified that he does not speak against
Ms. Eckert's testimony, but views pink salmon releases and this
bill as two separate issues that are not directly related.
4:28:18 PM
SENATOR STEVENS harkened back to the robust king crab industry
in Kodiak 50 years ago that has since markedly declined. He
asked Ms. Eckert whether it is possible to restore king crab
fishing in an area like Kodiak.
MS. ECKERT answered that Russia and Norway introduced king crab
in the Barents Sea successfully in the 1960s. She stated that
she was uncertain how Russia and Norway did it, but larvae and
adults were released which resulted in a vibrant king crab
industry in both areas. Based on the successful king crab
fishery in the Barents Sea, it is possible the Kodiak king crab
industry has recovery potential. She emphasized that king crab
were not native to the Barents Sea, and she does not recommend
the release of non-native species into the environment.
4:30:32 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no further questions or comments and solicited
the will of the committee.
4:30:44 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SB 64, work order 32-LS0421\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
4:30:58 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and SB 64 was reported from the
Senate Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR08_UnivAK-Land-Grant_Summary-of-Changes_Version A to B.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR08_UnivAK_Landgrant_BillText_Version B.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR08_UnivAK_LandGrant_Research_Presentation_12March2021.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SB 79 - Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB 79 - Sponsor Statement version A.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB064 Nancy Hillstrand oppose 2.22.21.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 79 RHAK Support Letter Support 3.15.21.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB064 Milo Adkinson Oppose 3.15.21.pdf |
SRES 3/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |