Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/04/2016 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 | |
| SB164 | |
| SB172 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 172-FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE PROJECTS
4:08:05 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the committee back to order and announced
the consideration of SB 172.
4:08:31 PM
FOREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Commercial Fisheries Division,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, said ADF&G
can permit shellfish hatcheries that supply aquaculture, but it
cannot permit hatcheries designed to release shellfish into the
natural environment. He explained that SB 172 establishes a
permitting process for hatcheries designed to enhance existing
shellfish resources. The shellfish industry is interested in
doing this, he said, and people are exploring experimental
shellfish aquaculture throughout Alaska. He noted that the bill
is modeled after Alaska's private, nonprofit salmon hatchery
program.
4:10:26 PM
MR. BOWERS said section 1 of SB 172 gives the Alaska Board of
Fisheries the authority to direct ADF&G on how enhanced
shellfish stocks would be managed in "special harvest areas" for
cost recovery. He explained that there are special harvest areas
for salmon hatchery operators to collect fish to recover their
costs, and section 1 of SB 172 does the same for shellfish
hatcheries. He said that once the brood stock needs are met,
cost recovery could then occur in the special harvest area,
which could be "a cost recovery fishery or an assessment that's
supplied to common property harvesters in the special harvest
area; we do both of those now."
4:11:35 PM
MR. BOWERS explained that section 2 is not directly related to
shellfish enhancement, but it increases the permit application
fee for new private, nonprofit salmon hatcheries from $100 to
$1,000. The existing fee has been in place for about 40 years,
he stated, and the new fee will more accurately reflect the cost
of processing the applications.
SENATOR COGHILL said the increase is a big deal, and he asked if
the application must be renewed annually.
MR. BOWERS replied that the fee is not for renewals; it is for
new projects. There is only one or two every several years. New
hatchery applications involve many staff and require public
hearings, genetic assessments, and pathology work, for example.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if [permittees] can do some of that work.
4:13:26 PM
MR. BOWERS said yes. He moved on to section 3, which is the
heart of SB 172 and provides the details of the permitting
process. It addresses cost recovery for hatcheries, sets the
application fee, allows ADF&G to solicit information from
experts, and requires that a hatchery provide a substantial
benefit to the public and not jeopardize natural stocks. Public
hearings and addressing objections from the public are also
required, he explained.
4:15:16 PM
MR. BOWERS said shellfish brood stocks must come from approved
sources, ideally from native or nearby stocks, and released
shellfish will be common property, except in special cost
recovery harvest areas.
4:16:22 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked about [publishing hearing notices in a
newspaper], and she recalled that legislation was passed
allowing electronic notices.
MR. BOWERS said that was discussed as being somewhat archaic,
but the Department of Law may have wanted that language.
4:17:30 PM
SAM RABUNG, Aquaculture Section Chief, Commercial Fisheries
Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau,
said the bill is verbatim from the salmon statutes, and he did
not make any unnecessary changes.
CHAIR GIESSEL said she was informed that the bill Representative
Costello referred to did not pass.
SENATOR COGHILL said that [allowing electronic notice] may be a
good amendment, and he asked if "designated areas" are proposed
to ADF&G or if they are simply designated by the department.
4:18:18 PM
MR. BOWERS answered that the Board of Fisheries can establish
special harvest areas. They "are also laid out" in the
"comprehensive salmon plan."
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the shellfish industry can propose
special harvest areas.
4:19:08 PM
MR. RABUNG explained that the intent is to harvest the shellfish
that are produced by the hatchery. The hatcheries release stock
to contribute to the common property harvest; however, they are
allowed to harvest a portion of that stock to fund hatchery
operations.
SENATOR COGHILL said that he knows that there are places "that
could or would be proposed, I just didn't know who did the
vetting." He presented a scenario where a person wants to be in
the shellfish industry and tells the state of a good area
"because there's no other shellfish in that area; it's got good
bottom lines in it; the water runs the right way; it's the right
temperature, and Fish and Game says 'well we haven't designated
it, sorry.'"
4:20:37 PM
MR. BOWERS said that scenario could occur, and ADF&G would
evaluate the proposal.
SENATOR MICCICHE said oysters do not reproduce in Alaska, and
"we" purchase spat from the Lower-48. He asked about areas that
are already permitted for oysters and if they can be shipped
around the state for existing aquatic farms.
4:21:22 PM
MR. RABUNG answered that SB 172 addresses indigenous species; it
is for fishery enhancement. Oysters are not indigenous to
Alaska, so farms have to be "under positive control."
MR. BOWERS said there is interest in hatcheries for red king
crab near Kodiak, Sand Point, the Pribilof Islands, and
Southeast Alaska. There is also interest in geoduck, abalone,
and sea cucumber farms in Southeast. The most interest appears
to be in red king crab and sea cucumbers, he added.
4:22:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said ADF&G scientists have opposed geoduck
fisheries for many years, although the legislature has now
allowed it. He asked if some ADF&G scientists oppose SB 172.
MR. BOWERS said, "We look at this as a tool." Each project would
be evaluated, he stated, and he would not be testifying if ADF&G
was opposed to the proposal, but there could certainly be a
number of hurdles to overcome with any given project.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked him to provide ADF&G documentation in
opposition, because he wants to hear from both sides. Geoducks
have been a big issue for years, and "I just want to make sure
we go into this with eyes open and that this isn't a political
decision that's being made."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI then noted that Mr. Bowers has said that
only native species will be used; however, the definition of
"shellfish" in SB 172 includes those that are "authorized to be
imported into the state under a permit issued by the
commissioner." It is a big concern, and he asked if ADF&G would
change the definition of shellfish to exclude nonnative species.
There are horror stories from other states and even in Alaska,
he stated. "All the science in the world supports it at the time
... and it decimates a fishery."
4:25:10 PM
MR. BOWERS said, "We would not object to that."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a prohibition of
genetically modified shellfish in the bill, and he asked if
ADF&G would oppose such a provision.
MR. BOWERS answered that SB 172 does not refer to genetically
modified shellfish, and "I don't think we would object to ...
such a prohibition at all, provided that we could develop a
clear definition of what those organisms would be."
SENATOR COGHILL said if natural stock will be used, "that would
be fair, but if it's going to be enhanced, that could be called
genetically modified."
MR. BOWERS said enhancement relates to increasing abundance or
rehabilitating [stocks], not enhancing organism characteristics.
4:26:41 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said that as long as indigenous stocks are used,
then "the enhancement stays under that category." He said he
wanted it to be clear.
SENATOR MICCICHE said "we" are growing oysters that are imported
and do not reproduce here. There are thousands of acres of them
and we all love them, he added. He questioned disadvantaging
oyster growers by not allowing them to grow spat.
4:27:28 PM
MR. BOWERS answered that spat can be produced in Alaska, and the
existing program permits shellfish hatcheries for the purpose of
supplying shellfish to aquatic farms. He believes there is one
hatchery doing that.
SENATOR MICCICHE questioned why the legislature would not want
to allow nonnative, imported species that were approved by the
[ADF&G] commissioner.
MR. BOWERS noted that SB 172 addresses enhancement of fisheries
by producing shellfish to be released into the wild; it does not
relate to aquatic farms. "We would only be taking brood stock
out of the wild, getting the offspring up to some certain size,
and then releasing them back into the wild for purposes of
enhancing a fishery or rehabilitating a depressed stock," he
explained.
4:29:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about section 6. "You're including
them under the farmed fish definition, and so you would be
banning farmed fishing of shellfish?"
MR. BOWERS said that is correct.
4:29:55 PM
MR. BOWERS said section 3 describes the cost recovery fishery;
section 4 allows the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission to
issue special harvest area permits; section 5 defines the legal
fishing gear for the hatchery, and section 7 provides liability
immunity to nonprofit hatchery operators who donate fish to a
food bank. He said sometimes there is excess brood stock or less
productive stock that hatcheries donate. Section 8 establishes
an Alaska corporate income tax exemption for hatcheries-"that's
the nonprofit part;" section 9 exempts cost recovery fisheries
from business taxes; and sections 10-12 contain standard
implementation language.
4:32:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
4:32:51 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Owner, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries, Kachemak
Bay, Alaska, said Pioneer Alaska Fisheries is a 52-year-old
Alaskan corporation, and she has 21 years of experience with
hatcheries and salmon stream rehabilitation. When the original
legislation was written, she stated, it was an innocent attempt
to rehabilitate depressed salmon fisheries while being mandated
to operate without adversely affecting natural stocks.
Unfortunately, she said, the hatcheries are a drain on state
revenues. Adding shellfish hatcheries will further burden Alaska
budgets, because it will be difficult to have adequate
oversight. She stated that "they're having a hard time with the
pink salmon process, and we have a lot of problems down here in
Lower Cook Inlet with strays and fish going up streams and ...
fish not getting mopped up."
MS. HILLSTRAND recommended analyzing the economics of [shellfish
hatcheries] and looking at the underlying causes of shellfish
depletion. She said that in 1976, Commissioner Carl Rosier
admitted that shellfish were overharvested, and after a
political shift in 1977, "we built hatcheries right on top of
the shellfish nursery here in Kachemak Bay." Pink salmon eat
larvae, so the "innocent" legislation now produces almost 2
billion little pink salmon that are eating "our larvae," so
maybe the state should look at the underlying cause of the
shellfish problem. The state has an ideology, she stated, in
favor of hatcheries, and it does not allow open doors of new
information to come in.
MS. HILLSTRAND said that the controversies that surround this
issue show that there really needs to be an open-door situation
for new scientific information in order to prevent mistakes that
will impact Alaska's natural stock. She explained that the
American Fisheries Society has seven points "that they talk
about," and one includes opening the door for science. There are
underlying costs that people are not aware of, she stated. She
asked if all comprehensive measures have been taken to
comprehend, mitigate, and correct underlying causes of localized
depletions of Alaska's shellfish. She does not believe that has
been done; "I think we're actually adding a problem on top of
it." She recommended oversight because the commissioner cannot
do all of these jobs. She said there needs to be an independent,
neutral council, and she suggested using the American Fisheries
Society, "because they seem to have their pulse on what's going
on with hatcheries ... and are more up-to-date than the State of
Alaska." An independent, unbiased group that can bring in the
new science would provide the third leg of the stool, she
stated. She said that some ADF&G staff are not allowed to
discuss hatcheries, unless they agree "with it." She said she is
hoping that SB 172 will not go forward until a cost analysis is
done on existing hatcheries. A report by ISER [Institute of
Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, AK] shows some of the
costs that the state has had to contribute, but a McDowell
[Group] report does not show those costs, she said, which makes
it look like hatcheries are free.
MS. HILLSTRAND said the wording of SB 172 seems to allow the
movement of crab or other shellfish around the state with the
commissioner's blessings. She said that is dangerous and should
not be allowed. She added that there is no definition of
"enhancement," "restoration," or "rehabilitation" in statute,
and these words need to be defined.
4:38:27 PM
MS. HILLSTRAND summarized that there needs to be a debate
pertaining to hatcheries so that Alaska's wild stocks can be
protected.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that Ms. Hillstrand's written testimony is
available online.
4:39:13 PM
STEVE RYKACZEWSKI, Oyster Farmer, Homer, Alaska, said he was
thrilled that Governor Bill Walker recently established the
Alaska Mariculture Taskforce. He said he has just seen SB 172
and is still trying to understand it. The bill only addresses
enhancement, and that is not his focus, he explained. He said
the Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association constructed a
remote setting facility four years ago in response to a West
Coast shortage of oyster seed. A remote setting facility is
where the larvae continue their growth after they are hatched in
a hatchery, he explained. He believes it is the only Alaska
facility producing oyster seed. Two days ago, ADF&G issued a
"fish resource permit," allowing the experimental hatching of
oysters in his existing facility. "If we're successful, we could
become an oyster hatchery in the near future," he said. He noted
that SB 172 might not apply, but it states that the application
fee for a new facility would be $1,000, and "our budget is a
shoestring and we count, literally, every nickel." A $100 fee
seems more reasonable, he said, instead of increasing it by ten-
fold. A diversified mariculture can ultimately provide state
revenue, but "please don't hamstring our efforts at this stage."
4:42:27 PM
CHERYL RYKACZEWSKI, Secretary, Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture
Association, Homer, Alaska, said the association is a nonprofit
organization supporting mariculture in Southcentral Alaska. The
group is 25-years old and the goal has long been to hatch oyster
larvae from Alaskan oyster brood stock, which would come from
local oyster farms, she stated. Currently, the oysters reared in
the group's remote setting facility are placed in Alaska oyster
farms, but the larvae come from Oregon. She noted that her
perspective is from an oyster farming viewpoint, and she is not
sure that SB 172 addresses that; however, allowing and
encouraging shellfish hatcheries in Alaska will help the
shellfish industry grow. Keeping the permit application fees low
will help sustain that growth during its early stages, she
opined.
4:43:59 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that public testimony would be left
open. She asked Mr. Bowers if the bill applies to oysters.
MR. BOWERS answered that the bill does not cover oyster farming
operations, which are permitted under separate statutes. This
bill addresses the enhancement of wild stocks in Alaska only. It
is analogous to the state's efforts in enhancing the five
species of salmon that are native to Alaska, and SB 172 could
enhance king crab, sea cucumbers, or geoduck clams, for example.
4:45:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Bowers to address Ms.
Hillstrand's questions and concerns about costs, monitoring,
definitions, and impacts on other species.
MR. BOWERS said Ms. Hillstrand's concerns about independent
oversight are addressed in section 3. "We specifically describe
a mechanism for that where the commissioner would be required to
consult with outside experts ... and they would advise the
commissioner on permit issuance," he told the committee.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked where that language was.
MR. BOWERS said lines 22-24 on page 2 address the concerns
expressed by Ms. Hillstrand. "We also specifically address the
location where brood stock would be taken in relation to their
release site," he stated, desiring that brood stock come from an
area close to where the fish are released. He pointed out that
ADF&G is not taking salmon from Bristol Bay and releasing them
in Southeast Alaska. There may be bays off Kodiak Island where
crab no longer exist or there are too few to collect brood
stock, so ADF&G might take crab from other parts of the island.
4:48:13 PM
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G is going to try to get the brood stock
from the geographic area that it is trying to enhance.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to verify the bill section. "I see it
starting on line 11 on page 3; it's a pretty extensive
description." She noted a provision on surplus shellfish on line
28.
4:48:53 PM
MR. BOWERS said that page 5, lines 8-13, states that brood stock
will be native to the area where the shellfish will be released.
Brood stock from other areas would need approval, and "that is
something we would evaluate." It would not be permitted
automatically, he said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if stock could come from Kodiak and
transplanted to Southeast Alaska.
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G "would go through this review process." He
noted that the department is working on a genetics policy for
shellfish, and it will be a companion to SB 172 because of the
interest in shellfish enhancement. He then said, "I can't say
that we would permit that particular example."
4:50:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that he can only read what is in
front of him, and on page 5, lines 11-13, it reads:
(b) Where feasible, shellfish taken by a hatchery
operator shall first be taken from stocks native to
the area in which the shellfish will be released, and
then, upon department approval, from other areas, as
necessary.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the language seems to
allow taking a shellfish from Cook Inlet and transplanting it to
Southeast. He asked if Mr. Bowers would support deleting the
second half of [subsection (b)].
MR. BOWERS said ADF&G would not have any objection to that.
4:51:09 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the testifiers and asked them to submit
answers to the questions posed by the committee. She said she
will hold SB 172 and take it up in a couple of weeks after she
consults with Senator Wielechowski regarding amendments.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB164 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164-F&G-CO-2-2-16.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164-Fiscal Note-DPS-1-29-2016.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB172 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172- Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-DFG-CF-2-5-16.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-UFA Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-AKCRRAB Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-AFDF Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-PVOA Support.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Comment-Nancy Hillstrand.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Supporting Document-SEAFA.pdf |
SRES 3/4/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |