Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/16/2016 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 | |
| SB172 | |
| SB163 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 172-FISH/SHELLFISH HATCHERY/ENHANCE. PROJECTS
3:31:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 172 [version 29-
GS2653\A was before the committee].
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt CSSB 172, version 29-GS2653\E.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for discussion purposes and invited her
staff to explain the changes.
3:32:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
3:32:37 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
AKIS GIALOPSOS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee, Juneau, Alaska, explained the changes in
the E version. Aside from four changes at the request of one
member of the committee, the remainder of the changes were at
the request of the department, he said.
The first change is a title change that reflects:
1. The title is changed to reflect the following changes:
"An Act relating to management of stocks of shellfish;
authorizing certain nonprofit organizations to engage in
shellfish stock rehabilitation efforts, carry out shellfish
enhancement projects, and operate shellfish hatcheries; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits; and providing
for an effective date."
2. Page 2, Lines 13-14, inserts a new title for the new chapter
12: "Shellfish Stock Rehabilitation Efforts, Enhancement
Projects, and Hatcheries."
3. Page 2, Lines 15-19, reflect language changes to include
shellfish stock rehabilitation and enhancement projects in the
section; along with existing language that included hatcheries.
4. Page 2, Lines 22-24, changes the language by removing
"hatchery permit" and replacing it with "a permit issued under
this section." Also removes "a hatchery" and replaces it with "a
facility."
5. Page 2, Lines 28-30, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
6. Page 3, Lines 6-10, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Adds the terms proposed stock rehabilitation effort
and enhancement project (line 7) to the paragraph. Adds the
words "the capacity of the facility" (line 9) to the paragraph.
7. Page 3, Lines 15-16, removes the words "a hatchery operator"
and replaces them with "a permit issued under this chapter."
8. Page 3, Lines 17-20, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
3:35:16 PM
9. Page 3, Lines 21-22, adds a new paragraph prohibiting a
permit holder from procuring or placing genetically modified
shellfish into the water of the state. (From a committee member)
10. Page 3, Lines 23-31, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
11. Page 4, Lines 1-3, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Removes the words "operators of other hatcheries,"
replacing them with "other permit holder."
12. Page 4, Lines 4-8, restructures the wording of the
paragraphs without substantive changes.
13. Page 4, Lines 21-22, removes the word "hatchery," replacing
it with "permit holder." Also replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199"
with "this chapter." (Allegedly a bill drafting conformity.}
3:36:19 PM
SENATOR STOLTZE asked if there is another potential motive out
there.
MR. GIALOPSOS answered that he meant nothing by "allegedly."
14. Page 4, Line 25, removes the words "hatchery operator,"
replacing it with "permit holder."
15. Page 4, Line 29, replaces the words "hatchery operators"
with "permit holders."
16. Page 4, Line 31, replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199" with
"this chapter."
17. Page 5, Lines 4-5, replaces "in the planning, construction,
or operation of shellfish hatcheries" with "as to stock
rehabilitation efforts, enhancement projects, or the planning,
construction, and operation of facilities."
18. Page 5, Line 7/Page 5, Line 8 replaces "AS 16.12.010-
16.12.199" with "this chapter."
19. Page 5, Lines 12-13, restructures the wording of the
paragraph. Removes the words "and then, upon department
approval, from other areas, as necessary." (From a committee
member)
20. Page 5, Line 15, replaces "shellfish hatchery operator" with
"permit holder."
21. Page 5, Line 16, replaces "another hatchery operating under
a permit issued under AS 16.12.010-16.12.199" with "another
permit holder under this chapter."
22. Page 5, Line 18-19, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
23. Page 5, Lines 20-22, restructures the wording of the
paragraph without substantive changes.
24. Page 5, Lines 23-23, replaces "a hatchery permit holder may
harvest shellfish for a facility" with "a permit holder may
harvest shellfish for a stock rehabilitation effort, an
enhancement project, or a hatchery."
25. Page 5, Lines 30-31/Page 6, Lines 1-2 replaces "a hatchery
permit holder" with "a permit holder;" replaces "membership of
the hatchery permit holder's board" with "permit holders board;"
replaces "established for that facility through the common
property fishery" with "established for stock rehabilitation, an
enhancement project, or a hatchery through the common property
fishery."
26. Page 6, Line 11, replaces "hatchery" with "permit holder."
27. Page 6, Line 13, replaces "hatchery" with "permit holder."
28. Page 7, Line 4, replaces "hatchery permit holder" with
"permit holder."
29. Page 7, Line 8, replaces "shellfish hatchery" with "permit
holder's stock rehabilitation effort, enhancement project, or
hatchery."
30. Page 7, Lines 19-20, replaces "hatchery permit holder who
operates a facility" with "permit holder who is rehabilitating
stock, carrying out an enhancement project, or operating a
facility."
31. Page 7, Lines 30-31/Page 8, Line 1, removes the definition
of "facility" from subsection (g)."
32. Page 8, Line 3, replaces the title "Inspection of hatchery"
with "Inspection by the department."
33. Page 8, Lines 3-7, includes the terms stock rehabilitation
facility and enhancement project facility to be inspected along
with hatcheries by the Department of Fish and Game.
34. Page 8, Lines 8-9, restructures the wording of the paragraph
without substantive changes.
35. Page 8, Lines 10-19, reformats the paragraph to be
enumerated.
3:40:48 PM
36. Page 8, Line 19, removes the word "hatchery," inserts the
words "by the permit holder."
37. Page 8, Lines 25-26, inserts a definition of "facility."
NOTE: This definition is different than the one removed in
change 31.
38. Page 8, Lines 27-31, inserts a definition of "genetically
modified shellfish." (by a committee member)
39. Page 9, Line 4, the definition of "shellfish" is modified to
remove the words "or that is authorized to be imported into the
state under a permit issued by the commissioner." (From a
committee member)
40. Page 9, Lines 5-6, inserts a definition of "stock
rehabilitation."
41. Page 9, Lines 8-14, reformats Section 4(a) to constitute two
new paragraphs. Replaces "AS 16.12.010-16.12.199 for shellfish,"
with "(2) nonprofit organizations holding a permit under AS
16.12 for a shellfish stock rehabilitation effort, a shellfish
enhancement project, or a shellfish hatchery."
42. Page 10, Line 1, inserts the words "or other facility."
3:42:05 PM
43. Page 10, Lines 19-30, inserts a new Section 9 to comport
with the repeal and reenactment language of sec. 2, ch.55, SLA
2013, related to Section 8 (Page 10, Lines 4-18).
44. Page 11, Line 10, removes the words "may proceed to."
45. Page 11, Lines 15-16, inserts a new Section 14, instituting
an effective date for the new Section 9 (Page 10, Lines 19-30).
CHAIR GIESSEL asked Senator Wielechowski if he wished to speak
to any changes he had offered. He indicated no. She invited
department forward to give them their rationale.
3:43:41 PM
FORREST BOWERS, Deputy Director, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau,
Alaska, said they appreciate the changes the committee made to
SB 172. The public seemed to be confused about the bill's focus.
The first draft focused on hatcheries, and these changes add a
definition of "stock rehabilitation and enhancement projects,"
which could be a component of an enhancement project, because
that is what the bill is supposed to be about, not hatcheries
exclusively.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if they checked to see if there were
any differing written opinions within the department about the
appropriateness of this legislation.
MR. BOWERS answered yes; they checked, but they didn't find any
written documentation of objections to SB 172. Some department
staff may not feel that hatcheries are an appropriate tool to
use in fisheries management, but it is statutorily authorized
and directed to use them. The department owns and operates two
hatcheries through the Division of Sport Fish and owns more.
3:46:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the department's concerns were
over cost or invasive species.
MR. BOWERS answered he hadn't heard any concerns related to this
bill directly, but as discussions about shellfish enhancement
and rehabilitation have developed over the years, they were
primarily related to how to manage enhanced shellfish stocks
under the current fisheries structure.
He explained that shellfish, crab specifically, can't be marked
the way salmon are marked, because of the biology of crab they
would mix with wild stocks in many cases.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection and finding no further
objections, announced that work draft E was adopted. She
continued public testimony.
CHRIS MIERZEJEK, Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development
Association (APICDA), Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 172. He
has been a resident of rural Alaska for 20 years and that APICDA
is one of the community development quota (CDQ) groups. SB 172
is a good start in creating a regulatory framework that will
provide communities with economic benefits to explore
mariculture activities.
3:50:39 PM
HEATHER MCCARTY, Lobbyist, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association (CBSFA), Kodiak, Alaska, said she is also co-chair
of the Steering Committee for Alaska King Crab Research,
Rehabilitation and Biology (AKCRRAB). They support SB 172 as
well as the CS. The other AKCRRAB co-chair is Dr. Ginny Eckert,
who is a biologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in
Juneau. She said that ABSFA has been involved with AKCRRAB for
seven or eight years as a coalition of industry and scientists
and agencies to develop techniques to raise king crab in
hatcheries for the purpose of rehabilitating Red King Crab in
the Kodiak area and Pribilof Island Blue King Crab in the Bering
Sea. They are doing it because other efforts to bring back
those stocks have not been successful.
3:53:01 PM
JEFF STEPHAN, United Fishermen's Marketing Association (UFMA),
Kodiak, Alaska, said he is also on the AKCRRAB Steering
Committee. He supported the changes in CSSB 172. He said the
original intention in forming this organization was to try to
add some money to ADF&G's effort to better understand and
promote research on crab and bring the University in a little
bit more. One objective was to develop some local graduate
students and try to keep them in Alaska that would be
knowledgeable about king crab biology. They have worked very
closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) for many years.
This initiative began back in 1996 with an international
symposium in Kodiak that included the countries of Norway,
Chile, Eastern Canada, Japan, and Argentina, that laid out how
to proceed with their research and enhancement activities. They
followed up about 10 years later with another international
conference that brought people in from Russia along with the
other countries he mentioned.
MR. STEPHAN said they absolutely support the standards,
customary genetic practices, and protective measures required by
the ADF&G. They do a very good job, and this bill allows these
studies to move forward in a little bit more of a formal manner.
3:56:46 PM
GINNY ECKERT, Professor of Fisheries, University of Alaska
Fairbanks at Lena Point, Juneau, Alaska, supported SB 172. She
is also the science director for the AKCRRAB program and is an
expert in shellfish ecology. She has been working in Alaska
since 2000 and on king crab rehabilitation since 2007. She
thanked the department and the committee for their efforts with
this bill.
Responding to the questions about the rationale for this work at
the last hearing, she said seven out of 10 red king crab stocks
are closed to fishing in Alaska and many have been closed since
the 1980s. There has been a clear lack of recovery for many
decades. Their evidence and research indicates that recruitment
is limited and these enhancement efforts may be successful.
These efforts could be very important to small coastal
communities, not only to rehabilitate commercial fisheries, but
also for sport and subsistence purposes.
MS. ECKERT said other shellfish species have explored
enhancement, but there is also need in the areas of sea
cucumbers and other mollusks. She was available to answer
questions about those as she is familiar with the efforts.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he is generally supportive of the
bill, but his only concern is about unintended impacts to the
ecosystem by placing new species with different genetic
compositions in it. He asked if she shared that concern.
MS. ECKERT replied yes. The bill states that the stocks to be
rehabilitated are ones that should be native stocks to the area,
and they definitely support that. It's very clear about not
bringing anything in from outside the state and definitely
nothing genetically modified. The work she has done to date has
only been conducted in areas where there are no natural stocks.
It is reasonable to be concerned about natural stocks.
She explained that they have also been working closely to ensure
that there is genetic diversity among the released animals. The
department regulates this activity.
4:00:31 PM
From a scientific perspective, she said king crabs, and
shellfish in general, are very different from salmon. It's very
likely that there is the idea that a certain number of animals
are going to thrive and a certain number aren't. They will do
their best to replicate that in hatchery environments and not
modify the genetic composition, but the reality is that through
overfishing and other processes the genetic composition is
changing anyhow. So there is an impact from recovering from
overfishing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked her to what she attributes the crash
in red and blue king crab stocks.
MS. ECKERT answered that king crab are vulnerable to overfishing
and the historical fishing rates were really high. Also, quite a
few foreign fleets participated. A lot more is known now about
fishing rates. There are theories about trawling catching king
crab as bycatch, so it wasn't necessarily directed fisheries
that were leading to the crash. King crab aggregate together and
that makes them particularly vulnerable to overfishing - through
directed and undirected fishing, she added.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the bill ties the department's hands
from using adjacent stock where there was a complete regional
failure of a species that essentially has no stock remaining for
rehabilitation.
MS. ECKERT answered that the bill has language on "Brood stock
sources" on page 5, line 9 that says "(a) The department shall
approve the source and number of shellfish taken for use as
brood stock¼ (b) Where feasible, a permit holder shall first
take shellfish from stocks native to the area in which the
shellfish will be released."
She thought that language left the department open to be able to
look to the closest possible source and allows rehabilitation of
the stocks of the kind crab she is familiar with.
4:03:57 PM
JEFF HETRICK, Director, Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery,
Seward, Alaska, supported SB 172. He said the hatchery is
operated by the Chugach Regional Resources Commission. He said
he is also a member of AKCRRAB that is largely responsible for
this legislation. It is needed because for the last 15 years
they have been doing strictly experimental work under the
Fisheries Resource Permit and the Commission's permit. The
department has been very cooperative in allowing them to do some
of these projects. They have worked with developing the
technology for raising razor clams, cockles, butter clams, and
little neck clams, and do some small out-stocking experiments to
see how they grow - trying to figure out what the bottleneck is
for production.
He added that a lot of shellfish stocks are decimated as well as
the crab stocks and there is no commercial fishery on hard
clams. Most subsistence and personal use fisheries are declining
to the point where people don't bother doing it. These efforts
are not guaranteed to work, but this bill allows enhancement
projects on a larger scale that could make a difference. They
would go from stocking numbers of 5 or 10 thousand to a half
million.
MR. HETRICK said AKCRRAB has worked hand in hand with ADF&G for
years. It has very strict pathology and genetic requirements and
"provides more than adequate oversight." If this bill is passed
it will reduce the department's costs for managing these
projects. He has a notebook full of permits for last year, which
is four inches thick, because of the way the current Fisheries
Resource Permit Program is administered.
4:07:50 PM
JAMES AGULAR, owner, Eagle Shellfish Farm, Cordova, Alaska,
supported CSSB 172, version \E. It's a good starting point for
economic development in the coastal communities, he said, but he
has one problem with it: Section 7(c) the donations to food
banks. Mollusks are shellfish and sometimes have paralytic
shellfish poisoning (PSP), and this section allows giving
shellfish to anybody without it being tested by the DEC for any
toxin.
4:09:39 PM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation, Juneau, Alaska, supported CSSB 172. She said their
non-profit membership is comprised of fishermen, processors, and
support sector businesses, and it has been around since 1978.
Their mission is to identify common problems and opportunities
across the state in the seafood industry and help develop
solutions primarily using research and development. Their aim is
to balance economic opportunities with sustainability
principles.
She said that CSSB 172 plays a role in the development of
Mariculture in Alaska. Her organization has been spearheading a
project called the "Alaska Mariculture Initiative" to expedite
the development of mariculture in the state with the vision of
growing a billion dollar industry in 30 years.
This also reinforces the Governor's recent Administrative Order
(AO) that establishes the Alaska Mariculture Task Force with the
intent to recommend a comprehensive plan for going about this
development.
4:11:49 PM
MS. DECKER stated the SB 172 creates the regulatory framework
that will allow for this type of shellfish enhancement. She
pointed out that her organization is a client for different
sustainability certifications, both MSC and Alaska's RFM
program. In that role she very clearly understands the
importance of ADF&G's strict rules about hatcheries and their
management. It comes into play in the sustainability
certification process, and it's one of the things that actually
really protects the mariculture industry.
4:12:53 PM
ANGEL DROBNICA, Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development
Association (APICDA), Kodiak, Alaska, supported SB 172 and the
CS. Under the program the association is charged with increasing
fishing related economic development opportunities for their
members. Mariculture is a tremendous opportunity for western
Alaska, not only for business and revenue generation, but for
potentially increasing access to subsistence fisheries,
workforce development and training, and research to better
understand the impacts of climatic-related ocean changes, and
building resiliency in adapting to those changes.
She said APICDA is a member of Alaska Fisheries Development
Foundation, which spearheaded the Alaska Mariculture initiative,
and they have also been involved in the AKCRRAB program. The
coalition has achieved great success in achieving a better
understanding of the life history and ecology of red and blue
king crab. They hope this research will eventually lead to the
rehabilitation of depressed king crab stocks in Alaska and
result in restored commercial and subsistence harvest for the
fisheries-dependent communities in the Pribilof Islands.
MS. DROBNICA said SB 172 will fill a current gap that exists for
permitting and regulating restoration efforts and will provide a
very important framework for future mariculture development. SB
172 is consistent with the initiative and the governor's task
force.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked her and finding no further comments,
closed public testimony on SB 172. She mentioned a suggested
amendment in Section 7 to address paralytic shellfish poison
(PSP).
4:16:04 PM
SAM RAYBUNG, Aquatic Director, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, explained that the concern related
to PSP is new. This bill does not have a provision for testing
for PSP as all commercially-sold organisms are tested. It is an
oversight and he had no objection to putting it in.
SENATOR STOLTZE said he wanted to hear from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on that regulation.
4:17:40 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, said he needed to talk to
his food and safety people, but he thought they would want to
make sure the product is tested, because of the safety of the
people that would be consuming, but also the reputation of the
product. This comes up from time to time when people want to
donate food. He preferred to strike the language and work it
out.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the statute provides immunity from
liability if the shellfish is "apparently fit for human
consumption." He understands there is no way to tell whether PSP
is present in shellfish or not without testing.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that it sounds like the suggested
language may be broader than PSP concerns. Testing takes time to
accomplish; he didn't know a way of determining it in the field.
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that "fit for human consumption" is the
language before them, and they are exempt from having a DEC
permit. She asked if it was detrimental to remove the absolution
from liability.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he would have to talk to his people and
get a full answer for her. His job is to protect the public, and
PSP is a high concern.
SENATOR MICCICHE said Section 7's only function is for providing
immunity. If they wanted to donate, they could first have a
sample tested and then donate afterwards. He supported removing
Section 7.
4:21:29 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO remarked that this section contemplates
removing the language that is underlined. But they could instead
remove the word "apparently" so that it would read "fit for
human consumption." That would then require anyone donating
shellfish to have it tested. Later in the bill it says the
department would be allowed to promulgate regulations. Her
suggestion does not affect the first part of the section,
because those individuals who are donating the salmon have a
permit.
CHAIR GIESSEL said if they removed Section 7 it only removes the
shellfish language. It leaves the statute in place for salmon.
SENATOR STOLTZE stated that the food banks requested the general
immunities provision decades ago, and not having that would
stifle the willingness to participate.
CHAIR GIESSEL reiterate that removing Section 7 only removes
shellfish.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked which types of shellfish they are
worried about. Are they worried about crab?
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that he would have to talk with
experts. More than one particular species can get PSP.
CHAIR GIESSEL recapped that a conceptual amendment was suggested
of striking Section 7, and ADF&G had no concern. DEC is
equivocal at this point simply because the experts aren't in the
room. Removing is not detrimental to the bill in terms of
hatcheries.
SENATOR MICCICHE added that it also returns the original
language. He moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to strike Section 7.
CHAIR GIESSEL added an additional conceptual amendment to
correct a drafting error on page 2, line 17, that would delete
"or a designee", because that phrase appears nowhere else in
this piece of legislation. All of the authority rests with the
commissioner.
CHAIR GIESSEL announce that without objection conceptual
Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
4:26:48 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to report CSSB 172, version 29-GS2653\E,
as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached zero fiscal note. There were no objections and CSSB
172(RES) was reported from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB172-Version E.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-Explanation of Changes-Version E.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 ver A.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal letter.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB172-DFG-CF-2-5-16.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 172 |
| SB163-Version H.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Explanation of Changes-Version H.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 ver A.PDF |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Fiscal Note DEC-WQ-12-30-15.PDF |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Fiscal Note-DNR-MLR-02-15-2016.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Comments-Bristol Bay Businesses.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB 163-Comments-Sealaska Corporation.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| CS SB163- Nunamta Aulukestai comments-3-16-16.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163-Various Written Comments.pdf |
SRES 3/16/2016 3:30:00 PM |
SB 163 |