Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/24/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 || HB282 | |
| Overview: Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development | |
| Overview: Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |
| Overview: Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making capital
appropriations and supplemental appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
1:36:09 PM
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1:36:33 PM
MICAELA FOWLER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development: House Finance
FY2023 Overview," dated February 24, 2022 (copy on file).
She reviewed the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED) mission to promote a healthy
economy, strong communities, and protect consumers in
Alaska (on slide 2). She addressed the DCCED structure on
slide 3. The department had six core and seven corporate
entities. She stated the department was very diverse and
busy. Additionally, DCCED housed the Alaska Railroad
Corporation, which was exempt from the Executive Budget Act
and would not be included in the presentation.
Representative Wool asked why Ms. Fowler's name appeared
twice on the organizational chart. He asked if she was
moving into the deputy commissioner position.
Ms. Fowler replied that the deputy commissioner position
became vacant in July of 2021, and she had been in acting
status for the position. She was still the administrative
services director.
1:38:58 PM
Ms. Fowler briefly reviewed the FY 23 governor amended
budget on slide 4. She relayed that the department's FY 23
budget looked substantially similar to the previous year.
The most dramatic difference was the significant increase
in federal authority in the last couple of years. She
highlighted that DCCED had been the passthrough agency for
considerable funds including Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act and American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funds to local governments. The department had also
established several grant programs that were provided for
by the legislature through the appropriations process. She
noted the presentation included a slide to provide updates
on some of the items.
Ms. Fowler addressed a DCCED budget lookback on slide 5.
She drew attention to a small increase in the department's
FY 20 management plan budget in designated general funds
(DGF) where the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(AOGCC) was transferred from the Department of
Administration (DOA). She highlighted substantial decreases
in the department's undesignated general fund (UGF)
allocation over the years. In FY 15 the department had $40
million in UGF and was down to slightly under $10 million
in FY 23. Some of the difference was due to the reduction
in staff and activity. Additionally, the department had
previously housed a tourism program, which had been moved
to a grant operated by the Alaska Travel Industry
Association (ATIA).
1:41:07 PM
Ms. Fowler turned to slide 6 and noted that the
department's new Commissioner Julie Sande had started on
the first day of session. She discussed changes in the FY
23 budget for the commissioner's office. The one remaining
position from the economic development component was
transferred into the commissioner's office. She detailed
that the previous year, the budget had transferred two
positions from economic development to the Office of the
Governor as the governor's office was taking on more of the
state's economic development activities. The administration
also recognized there was value in the advocacy for
economic development coming out of the governor's office.
She explained that the change the previous year had left
one remaining position in the component. She noted the
position had been naturally absorbed by the commissioner's
office in order to have direction from the commissioner on
economic activities and to assist where the need was
greatest. She elaborated that economic development worked
closely with the Office of the Governor. The change in the
budget completed the transition by moving the position and
associated funding to the commissioner's office component.
She noted there was technically a decrement in the economic
development component. There was not a separate slide
included in the presentation because the change eliminated
the need for a separate economic development component.
1:43:22 PM
Ms. Fowler stated that divisions addressed on slides 7
through 9 did not have any changes in the FY 23 budget. The
only exception was the unallocated rate adjustment included
on slide 7 reflected the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) new process of allocating rates across departments.
The item would be included in every department's budget.
She turned to slide 8 and noted there were not changes in
the budgets for the AOGCC or the Alcohol and Marijuana
Control Office (AMCO). The majority of agencies within
DCCED were funded through fees, taxes, or other non-UGF
fund sources. She highlighted flat budgets for FY 23 for
the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), and
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
Ms. Fowler moved to slide 10 and addressed the Division of
Community and Regional Affairs. She detailed that the
division had received numerous multiyear programs,
especially related to COVID-19 relief for small businesses
in the last several years. She relayed that the increased
volume in grants had required an increase in grant support
for the division. The department had funding available for
a grants administrator 2 position; therefore, there was no
increase in funding or authority necessary. The position
would be added to support ongoing grant activities.
Ms. Fowler pointed out that the reversal of the FY 22 grant
to Alaska Legal Services from the Civil Legal Services Fund
appeared in the department's budget annually. She
elaborated it included backing out the calculation from the
past year and replacing it with a calculation from the
Civil Legal Services Fund for the immediately preceding
fiscal year. The third operating budget change shown on
slide 10 was a grant from the Civil Legal Services Fund
with a portion of court filing fees. Additionally, there
was a $400,000 grant to Alaska Legal Services funded with
UGF. She noted that because the item had been included in
the budget the previous year it was not included on slide
10.
1:46:30 PM
Ms. Fowler turned to slide 11 pertaining to the Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (CBPL).
She relayed that the department had been spending
significantly more time speaking about CBPL recently. She
highlighted some of the struggles the division had in the
past 1.5 years related to the pandemic and professional
licensing. She reported the division had a 50 percent staff
turnover in the past year and its professional licensing
vacancy rate had been up to 32 percent. The absence of
experienced licensing examiners and nationwide recruitment
challenges had been felt acutely in Alaska.
Ms. Fowler understood that many committee members had heard
frustration and concern directly from constituents about
the need to get licensed in order for people to get to
work. The department was working to address the issues with
continuous recruitment in Anchorage and Juneau.
Additionally, DCCED had been streamlining communications
through a communications intake center to ensure licensing
examiners could devote their time to processing and issuing
license applications. The department continued to work hard
to identify other ways to improve the situation. She stated
there was no option off the table when it came to better
serving the public and ensuring staff felt supported. She
asked legislators to let the department know if they had
any suggestions.
1:48:48 PM
Ms. Fowler continued to discuss CBPL on slide 12 and
reported there were numerous changes in the division's
operating budget. The first change was revenue replacement
for professional licensing fees in order to hold the fees
stable throughout FY 23. The change assisted with the
economic recovery from COVID-19 and recognized financial
struggles felt by the private sector. Additionally, it
provided the department with an opportunity to assess the
fee setting process and determine what could be improved
and how to stabilize fees for licensees. She relayed that
professional fee setting changed based on the costs for
each professional licensing program. The department did
everything it could to avoid large increases, but sometimes
they occurred when a program had an exceptional
investigative cost. For example, for a program like the
Direct Entry Midwives with relatively few licensees, a
high-cost investigation resulted in dramatic cost increases
for licensees.
Representative Rasmussen asked about the qualifications of
the executive administrator for the real estate commission.
She looked at a line item request for the certified
appraisers. She wondered how the person was competent in
the "appraisal world" because the real estate commission
and board of appraisers were very different.
Ms. Fowler agreed the real estate appraisers and the real
estate commission were very different. The intent was to
have some increase in training and oversight on the complex
federal regulations that sometimes crossed over. She
explained the change was intended to rectify the fact that
the two programs had been staffed by one person with no
coverage or cross training in the event of a vacancy. She
explained there was a pretty dramatic impact to licensees
if a vacancy occurred because the programs were not simple,
and it was not possible "to pull somebody off of the street
and have them instantly understand these licensing programs
and be able to be an effective administrator." She offered
to follow up with the position description.
Representative Rasmussen agreed it was an important
position. She knew that if the state lost compliance after
a certain period of time, specifically with the board of
appraisers, it could risk the state's federal funding from
the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and Veterans
Administration (VA). She was not sure that the commission
and board would be best served with one person. She was
interested in having more conversations with the department
to discuss how to best serve the people. She had heard a
general theme from many different types of licensees that
the amount of time it took for license applications to be
approved was a barrier. She believed the process needed to
be expedited due to the shortage of workers. She suggested
the idea of a temporary license followed up by a board
review. She would appreciate more clarification on the
position.
1:53:45 PM
Representative Wool stated the number of professions
requiring licensing kept increasing nationally. He had
heard from some people who thought there were too many
license requirements. He recalled a barbers and
hairdressers license required for a hair procedure that
some had "chuckled at." He asked if new professions had
been added to the list. He asked if the department had to
just license who it was told by the legislature.
Ms. Fowler answered there were 22 programs licensed through
CBPL and 21 boards. She elaborated that the programs and
boards may oversee a multitude of license types. She
confirmed they were established by the legislature in
statute.
Representative Wool referenced licensing fees and
investigation fees and Ms. Fowler's example of the Direct
Entry Midwives that had few licensees and high
investigative costs resulting in a high license fee. He had
heard of a similar type of burden for veterinarians
especially related to violations of the Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program (PDMP). He asked if CBPL would ever put
forth the concept of bringing all investigative fees under
one cost and dividing it so that one board did not get hit
with high costs due to low membership.
1:56:59 PM
Ms. Fowler answered that the discussions had been ongoing.
Prior legislators had considered bills to make the change
mentioned by Representative Wool, but the bills had not
passed the legislature to date. She explained there were
many dynamics that occurred when all of the license types
were pooled together. There were winners and losers to
every proposal in terms of allocating investigative costs.
She stated there had been dynamic and engaging
conversations on the topic that had taken place on and off
the record. The department was always willing to engage in
the conversations. The department had shared some of its
fee setting tools with LFD in the past in order for LFD to
run different scenarios showing the impact.
Representative LeBon asked how important the $1.5 million
in revenue replacement was to the division's day-to-day
operations related to licensing activities. He asked if the
funds would merely make the department more comfortable or
if they were fairly important for the agency's activities.
Ms. Fowler turned to slide 13 and answered that the $1.5
million had been included in the governor's original
request. The amount was reduced by $400,000 in the
governor's amended budget because the department had
completed the fee assessment. She explained the purpose was
not to provide additional resources to the department for
processing applications more quickly. She detailed that the
department was very focused on recruitment and streamlining
efforts, in addition to what the department could do
administratively to speed up some of the processes. The
$1.1 million in the FY 23 budget would stop any fee
increases on individual licensees in FY 23. She elaborated
that the funds would give DCCED the opportunity to not
increase fees while evaluating what it could do better and
what tools were needed to better serve the public and
provide licenses more quickly.
Representative LeBon stated his understanding that the
funding would help the department carry out its mission of
renewing and providing licensing as quickly as possible,
while also offering relief to Alaska businesses and
individuals.
Ms. Fowler agreed.
Representative Josephson looked at slide 12 and asked if
the $1.1 million in revenue replacement funding was
intended to go through the governor's budget or the
governor's office.
2:01:08 PM
Ms. Fowler clarified that the funds would go through CBPL
within the DCCED budget, not the governor's office.
Ms. Fowler turned to insurance operations on slide 14. She
detailed that the Division of Insurance was responsible for
licensing and compliance of insurers and insurance products
in Alaska. The division had lapsed $88.6 million in FY 21
through its fees and insurance premium taxes. She reported
the division's operating costs at $8.9 million. She relayed
the division was a strong generator of UGF funding. The
department was requesting $1 million in authority as a
multiyear increment in the supplemental budget. She
explained the division had two actuarial positions at a
range 25 with a starting salary of about $103,000. She
elaborated the division had consistently had recruitment
challenges in filling the positions.
Ms. Fowler expounded that the actuaries within the division
reviewed the filings received from insurance companies for
all types of insurance. The positions were crucial to
ensuring the state was appropriately regulating the
insurance industry. She explained that because the
positions had been vacant, the division had been using
contractual actuarial services, which were much more
expensive than performing the work in-house. The department
was exploring what options existed to have better luck in
filling the positions, including evaluating the pay and how
additional flexibility could be added for the positions.
The department was requesting additional authority to
complete the needed actuarial work. She pointed out that
the 1332 waiver would be up for review the following year.
She informed the committee the actuarial support was
particularly important to ensure the department could
evaluate the best path forward regarding the 1332 waiver.
Representative Johnson asked about the actuarial support
position. She asked for verification it would be a contract
with an outside firm.
Ms. Fowler replied affirmatively.
Representative Johnson asked if the state had contracts
with other actuarial firms. She thought the actuarial work
could be consolidated.
2:05:23 PM
Ms. Fowler clarified that the Division of Insurance always
had some contracted actuarial support in addition to the
two positions. To her knowledge, the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) and DOA both had contracts with
actuarial firms. She did not know whether the Department of
Revenue had actuarial contracts.
Representative Johnson asked if the budget funded two
vacant [actuarial] positions in addition to $1 million for
an outside contract.
Ms. Fowler agreed. She detailed that when the positions
were filled, the department hoped to reduce the use of
contracted actuarial services. She clarified that all of
the funds were generated through the Division of Insurance
and would lapse to UGF if they were not utilized.
Ms. Fowler continued to discuss budget changes for the
Division of Insurance on slide 14. The department was
deleting a secretary position that had been vacant for over
a year. The job duties had been absorbed by other positions
where they were more appropriately located or were no
longer necessary due to information technology
improvements. Additionally, DCCED was moving toward more
professional class employees with fewer secretary
positions. She noted the federal receipt language for the
Reinsurance Program was included in the budget annually.
Ms. Fowler discussed the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
budget on slide 15. She highlighted that the reversal of
the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) funding and language to
add PCE payments back in showed up in the department's
budget on an annual basis. She explained there was no
change to the way PCE was funded or how the funds were
being used. The funding waterfall was followed in the FY 23
budget. She clarified there was a net zero change to PCE.
2:08:18 PM
Ms. Fowler turned to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) change on slide 16. The ASMI budget included a
request to extend $7 million in trade promotion funding in
alignment with federal funding timelines. She noted the
increment had been included as an FY 22 appropriation only.
She clarified there was no request for an increased
appropriation.
Representative LeBon stated that a couple of days earlier
the committee had talked a bit about the $90 million in
grants to tourism and other businesses to offset revenue
loss. He asked for a status update on the disbursement of
the funding and how much funding remained.
Ms. Fowler turned to slide 17 showing ARPA projects
allocated to DCCED. She explained that the Tourism and
Other Business program had been operated as a net loss
program with all other sources of relief funding deleted
from an application. She detailed that about half of the
funding had been allocated in grants to businesses
throughout Alaska in round one. The department understood
the need was greater than $90 million, but the program had
been restricted in a way that prevented the funds from
being fully allocated. The department was working hard on a
round two program and would announce the program dates the
following day. Similar to the round one program, there
would be a 30-day application window. She clarified it was
not a first come, first served program. She shared that the
previous week, Commissioner Sande had announced at the
Southeast Conference that the round two program would be
based on gross revenues rather than net revenues in order
to diminish some of the impact of different accounting
practices on a business's ability to qualify. The goal was
to provide an easier method for businesses to demonstrate
the impact of COVID-19 and their losses.
Representative Josephson looked at slide 17 and asked about
grants to local governments with significant revenue loss.
He stated it had been a major focus by the House Finance
Committee the previous year. He thought people in Southeast
and the Denali Borough were desperate for revenue. He asked
why none of the funds had been expended.
Ms. Fowler answered that the application period for the
local government program had been in November 2021. She
explained that the funds had been fully allocated and if
she had pulled the data one week later it would not show
that none of the spending had been obligated. She would
provide the committee with a list of the 44 communities
that had applied for and qualified for the grant funding.
She clarified that the grant funding had been fully
allocated but did not yet show up as obligated on the
slide.
2:13:11 PM
Ms. Fowler highlighted that the application period for
round two of the grants to nonprofits program had closed on
February 17. The review process was underway and DCCED
anticipated making final awards by the end of March. The
department was currently soliciting applications for round
two of the grants to electric utilities program. She noted
that DCCED had not received as many applications for the
program as it had anticipated.
Representative Rasmussen asked for a list of the nonprofits
and local governments. She stated it would be helpful
during the committee's budget deliberation process to know
where the extra assistance was coming from the department.
Ms. Fowler replied that she would provide the information.
Representative Josephson looked at the last line on slide
17. He observed that most of the funds were restricted. He
asked if it was because they were an RPL or direct grants
from the governor.
2:14:59 PM
Ms. Fowler answered that when the legislature had passed
the budget, DCCED did not know what funding would go
directly from the federal government to different types of
local governments. She explained that a considerable amount
of the funding ended up going directly from the federal
government to communities rather than through the
department; therefore, the department restricted funding
the communities received not through the state's process.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Fowler for the presentation.
2:15:52 PM
AT EASE
2:16:44 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY and VETERANS AFFAIRS
2:17:19 PM
CRAIG CHRISTENSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "FY2023 Operating Budget Overview,"
dated February 24, 2022 (copy on file). He began with an
organizational chart on slide 3. He highlighted that
Commissioner Torrence Saxe was also the adjutant general of
the National Guard. He directed attention to the left side
of the organizational chart outlined in a dotted black box
showing the organized militia. He explained that the
adjutant general operated as the commander of the Alaska
organized militia. Commissioner Saxe's roll as the
commissioner of the Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs (DMVA) applied to the other boxes on slide 3
outside of the dotted black box.
Mr. Christenson continued to review slide 3. The Alaska
Aerospace Corporation fell administratively under DMVA, but
not operationally. He clarified that the corporation did
not take any general funds and was funded entirely within
its organization. Other areas within the department
included Alaska Public Safety Communication Services,
Veterans Affairs, Alaska Military Youth Academy,
Administrative Services, and Homeland Security and
Emergency Management. He pointed out that Air Guard
Facilities Maintenance and the Army Guard Facilities
Maintenance were state employees in a state division with
the sole purpose of supporting the Army and Air National
Guard. The employees provided maintenance and construction
of new facilities and other related work. He explained that
although the Air and Army National Guard were not utilizing
general funds, the guard had contracted with the state for
facilities maintenance. He relayed that several of the
proposals his colleague would review referenced back to the
topic.
2:19:46 PM
BOB ERNISSE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, addressed slide 4 showing a
high level budget comparison between the FY 19 authorized
and FY 23 governor's request. He reported the department's
overall UGF budget had remained flat or decreased, with one
notable exception. He highlighted the UGF increase from the
addition of the Alaska Land Mobile Radio System (ALMR) and
the State of Alaska Telecommunication System (SATS)
transferred to DMVA from the Department of Administration
(DOA) in FY 21. The department's budget returned to
historical levels in FY 23 due to the transfer of the
Alaska Public Safety Communications Services (formerly
known as ALMR and SATS) back to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS). He would review the topic in further detail.
Mr. Ernisse moved to slide 5 showing an operating budget
change summary pertaining to the Alaska Public Safety
Communications Services (APSCS). The administration found
the system better aligned with DPS's mission to ensure
public safety. He relayed that APSCS was already collocated
within DPS. The transfer was a net zero budget impact. He
added that 24 positions would be transferred to DPS.
2:21:21 PM
Mr. Ernisse turned to slide 6 and discussed the proposal to
provide funding for the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF).
He stated that the funding would help increase community
emergency capacity and resiliency, while helping to engage
remote communities utilizing the volunteer force. The
department was requesting one full-time administrative
assistant II position to help manage the ASDF budget and
would assist in state active duty activations for ASDF and
the National Guard.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the proposed position was in
Bethel. He recalled there had been a proposal to put "some
folks" in Bethel several years earlier. He asked if it was
the same thing.
Mr. Ernisse answered that a proposal several years back had
put some non-permanent positions in a couple of different
locations around the state. The current proposal was
similar in its request for funding for ASDF; however, the
non-permanent positions had been aimed at helping with
recruitment in those areas, whereas the current proposal
was for administrative work associated with the funding.
Mr. Ernisse turned to slide 7 showing a reduction of
$36,000 in general funds from the commissioner's office
budget. The reductions were in nonmandatory travel
associated with meetings. The department had learned over
the past several years that every meeting did not need to
be held in person. The commissioner's office would utilize
Microsoft Teams or Zoom for those meetings in the future.
Mr. Ernisse moved to slide 8 and explained the department
was requesting a funding swap of $176,000 general funds for
$176,000 in federal receipts associated with the Alaska
Military Youth Academy (AMYA). He detailed that through the
Master Cooperative Agreement with the National Guard, the
department had found it was able to request additional
reimbursement for utility costs. The department was
requesting to pay split the costs between federal authority
and general funds at 75/25 respectively (instead of paying
for the costs with general funds only).
2:23:51 PM
Representative LeBon believed the program was located at
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER). He asked if the
shared funding opportunity was long-term.
Mr. Ernisse confirmed it would be a long-term funding swap.
Mr. Ernisse moved to slide 9 and discussed the swap of
$263,000 in general funds for $263,000 in interagency
receipts associated with AMYA. He explained that DMVA
received a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
grant through the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) for reimbursement of costs associated
with the dining staff operations. The proposal would align
personal services expenditures with the amount billed to
DEED for the grant.
2:25:10 PM
Mr. Ernisse turned to a request for additional authority to
cover the new United States Property and Fiscal Office
(USPFO) building on JBER (on slide 10). He explained that
all costs associated with the building were 100 percent
federally reimbursed. The additional authority would be
used to cover operations and maintenance costs such as
utilities, snowplows, lawn care, work orders, and other
related items.
Mr. Ernisse addressed a request for $500,000 in federal
authority to fulfill furniture requirements associated with
building maintenance and lifecycle requirements throughout
Army National Guard buildings (on slide 11). He explained
that the state procurement process provided a more
economical way to provide furniture for the buildings. The
request was 100 percent federally funded. He highlighted
that the $500,000 represented roughly 5 percent of the
National Guard's furniture inventory.
Mr. Ernisse discussed the request for a maintenance
generalist position within the Army Guard Facility
Maintenance component on slide 12. The position would
provide maintenance repairs and new installations at DMVA
facilities located on JBER and was 100 percent federally
funded. For example, the position would work on buildings
like the new USPFO discussed on a previous slide.
Mr. Ernisse advanced to a request on slide 13 for a
building maintenance specialist within the Army Guard
Facilities Maintenance. The position would oversee project
management including oversight and construction,
maintenance, repairs, modifications, and demolition
projects for state and federally supported facilities. The
position would be 100 percent federally funded. Slide 14
included a request for two environmental program
specialists due to a new need to manage various water
resource programs. The positions would also be responsible
for environmental training plans and the management of
initial, interim, and long-term spills of hazardous waste
[by the Alaska Army National Guard or their facilities].
Mr. Ernisse highlighted a request for a planner 3 position
within the Army Guard Facilities Maintenance component on
slide 15. The position was needed for the management of
facilities within the facilities maintenance component and
would help alleviate some of the supervisory needs within
the division.
2:27:58 PM
Mr. Ernisse reviewed a request of $21,600 general funds on
slide 16. The request would allow the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management to deploy operational and
response staff to a potential disaster incident in order to
assess the situation. He noted that if the event was later
declared a state or federal disaster, the travel expenses
would be reimbursed, and the funding would not be used.
Slide 17 showed a technical change decreasing unused excess
authority in the Alaska Aerospace Corporation budget. Slide
18 was a technical change decreasing excess authority for
the Alaska Aerospace Corporation's Facilities Maintenance
Office.
Co-Chair Foster stated that some of his communities had
been interested in some of the old national guard buildings
that were no longer in use or were utilized for storage. He
thought it sounded like a combination of needing to work
with the federal government and the state office handling
public facilities. He wondered if the department had any
comments or thoughts on the topic. He elaborated that
sometimes communities wanted to be able to use the
facilities for youth activities or as a community building.
Mr. Christensen answered that the divesture program for
armories had been ongoing for a number of years. He
reported that 37 armories had been divested. There were an
additional 29 with real property and 9 land only properties
that were still in the process of divestment. He explained
that each of the armories could be very different depending
on if the building was built, funded, and owned by a
federal or state source and if the building was located on
federal or state land. The department had a program and
employee responsible for digging into each individual
armory. He relayed that the goal in the divestment process
was for the buildings to go back to the community. He
elaborated that who the building was offered to and how it
was offered differed based on the specifics associated with
the specific building. The department had spoken with Co-
Chair Foster's staff recently on the topic. He offered to
follow up with further detail on any specific buildings
committee members may be interested in.
2:31:23 PM
Co-Chair Foster appreciated the department's assistance. He
thought there had been good progress with 37 armories
divested thus far. He looked at the request on slide 14 for
environmental program specialists related to hazardous
waste work. He remarked that St. Lawrence Island had some
concerns about hazardous waste, which may be more of a
federal issue. He asked if the positions may be affiliated
with the effort to do anything on the island.
Mr. Christensen responded that the answer was yes if the
St. Lawrence Island environmental concerns were associated
with one of the armories the department was divesting. He
stated that the positions or existing similar positions
would be engaged in the work. He clarified that if the
environmental issue was separate from the National Guard or
National Guard armory, it would not be covered by the
positions.
Representative Wool asked if there had been talk the
previous year about repurposing some of the armories for
Space Force.
Mr. Christensen replied that he did not recollect the
discussion and he did not believe any of the current
buildings would be purposed for Space Force.
Representative Wool asked if the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation components on slides 17 and 18 were for the
rocket launch facility in Kodiak. He asked if the facility
was under DMVA.
Mr. Christensen replied affirmatively. He explained that
the Alaska Aerospace Corporation administratively fell
under DMVA. He clarified the corporation did not fall
operationally under DMVA; it was a separate quasi-
corporation. The entity did have state employees, but the
corporation reimbursed the state for the funding. The
corporation did not use any state general funds. He
elaborated that the launch complex was located on Kodiak
and it provided both commercial and Department of Defense
launch services.
Representative Wool asked if the Alaska Aerospace
Corporation was housed under DMVA because of the defense
link with certain launches.
Mr. Christensen agreed.
Representative LeBon thanked the department for pursuing
funding partnerships with federal agencies like the USDA
and others to help its budget.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the presenters.
2:35:44 PM
AT EASE
2:37:47 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH and GAME
2:38:26 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Alaska
Department of Fish and Game: FY2023 Budget Overview," dated
February 24, 2022 (copy on file). He began with a review of
the past year on slide 2. He relayed the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) continued to provide a return on investment
of over $11 billion on a general fund investment of about
$70 million. He stated that nearly all commercial fisheries
were conducted, allowing commercial fishermen to fish their
permits and thereby make a living and contribute to the
state and local economies through collected fish taxes. He
shared that some commercial fisheries were closed due to
stock conservation concerns, but none closed due to COVID-
19. He read the remaining bullet points on slide 2:
• Sport and personal use fisheries operated, allowing
anglers an opportunity to fill their freezers, feed
their families, and get outside.
• Subsistence fisheries and hunts occurred, allowing
subsistence harvesters opportunities to feed their
communities and pass on traditions.
• Hunts occurred throughout Alaska giving Alaskans
opportunities to hunt, fill their freezers and pass on
traditions.
• Charter fishing and guided hunting operated, providing
needed recreational opportunities and economic boosts
to the state and local economies.
• Area offices remained open to serve the public.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang provided a brief overview of the
department's FY 23 budget on slide 3:
• The Department will be able to continue to provide an
excellent return on investment as we have in the past
under the Governor's proposed budget.
• The department does not anticipate any reduction in
services as a result of the proposed budget.
• The department was able to use alternative funding
sources and cost efficiencies to reduce our General
Fund needs.
• The proposed budget includes $33 million to new
fisheries, wildlife, and resource projects.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to a chart showing a DFG
operating budget comparison on slide 4. He highlighted that
the department's budget had crept up after FY 21 and was
about $20 million higher than in FY 19. He noted a bit of
that amount was comprised of undesignated general funds
(UGF), but DFG had successfully found federal funding to
increase revenue and address budget shortfalls or UGF
reductions.
2:40:23 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to slide 5 and discussed
DFG's fund source breakdown. The department's budget was
primarily comprised of federal receipts and "other" funds
including the Fish and Game Fund, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
interagency receipts, capital improvement projects, and
statutory designated program receipts. The department
received slightly less than 25 percent of its funding from
UGF and designated general funds (DGF).
Commissioner Vincent-Lang moved to FY 23 budget highlights
on slide 6. The department would take a reduction in
Southeast Alaska administrative services. He detailed the
position had been funded to deal with publications. The
department had 14 or 15 publications specialists. He
explained the UGF portion of the position would be reduced,
but the position would be maintained. The department hoped
to find an alternative fund source hopefully through the
Pacific Salmon Treaty to pay for the federal reporting
requirements. The second item on slide 6 was the transfer
of authority from Sport Fisheries for agency mission
alignment. He expounded that the Pacific Salmon Treaty
currently funded two major components including a juvenile
salmon assessment program and adult salmon assessment
program. The department decided to combine the two programs
under the Division of Commercial Fisheries in order to
optimize the use of personnel and other things moving
forward. By doing so, the department was able to put a new
program through the Pacific Salmon Treaty in the water on
the Alsek River without any increase in the number of
people.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed the third budget change
under the Division of Commercial Fisheries on slide 6. The
budget proposed the reversal of a one-time $800,000
increment of UGF for Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) receipts. The last item on slide 6 fell under the
Division of Sport Fish and showed the transfer authority
from Sport Fisheries to the Division of Commercial
Fisheries for agency mission alignment (the reverse of the
increment previously discussed). He underscored that the
change would not impact sport fishing. He clarified it was
a research program and the same information went into all
fisheries including sport, commercial, and subsistence.
2:42:49 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to slide 8 and addressed a
budget highlight within the Habitat Section. The department
had realized it could charge certain permitting fees to the
federal government through highway projects and other
things. He reported DFG had reduced the Habitat Section
budget by $25,000 UGF and would renegotiate with the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
increase RSA (reimbursable services agreement) fees that
could be passed on to the federal government for permits.
He reviewed two highlights within the Subsistence Section.
The department had located additional federal funding and
would replace state funding to continue important
subsistence research across the state. The department had
also found $550,000 in federal funding for subsistence
research in Interior Alaska, primarily in the Yukon
Kuskokwim region and had submitted an associated budget
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster referred to the topic of subsistence. He
asked what DFG was doing with regard to help reverse the
depleted chum and chinook stock on the Yukon Kuskokwim. He
referenced the subsistence research funds of $550,000 and
asked if there was any possibility regarding hatcheries or
other ideas to try to reverse the decline.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the department had
been surprised by the failure of the chum run in the Yukon
Kuskokwim River in the past year. He reported that all
indications had pointed toward positive chum numbers for
subsistence fishing and potentially commercial
opportunities. Due to the low numbers, DFG had closed the
Yukon and Kuskokwim River drainages and had gone down to
the near shore marine waters to ensure escapement numbers
were met. He relayed that king salmon had been at a lower
level for some time. He explained that DFG was trying to
piece together what could have caused the failure. He
stated there could be pieces in fresh water; however, all
indications pointed toward a shift in the ocean. The
department did not know what that shift was, but crab had
decreased in the Bristol Bay region as well. He explained
that crab and many of the salmon species, especially chum,
were inhabiting the same waters. He stated it could be due
to resource competition and salmon and crab may be the
losers in the "warm blob" that occurred in the region. He
detailed that cod and sablefish could be out-competing them
and eating juveniles.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang relayed that the department had
used some funds out of the salmon treaty to begin piecing
together involvement in some of the International Year of
the Salmon research projects. The department was trying to
understand what was happening in the ocean in relation to
how chemistry and zooplankton conditions may be changing
and how it was impacting salmon productivity. The
department had also secured approximately $1 million
through Congress for research on the Yukon River. He
elaborated that DFG was looking at ichthyophonus studies
for king salmon in the Yukon River, as well as some
additional radio telemetry studies. The department was
discovering fish passing at the pilot station sonar site,
but the fish were not showing up at the Canadian border
where there were passage requirements into Canada. He
explained the work would all be aimed towards understanding
where the fish were going and would hopefully lead to new
sonar site on the river.
2:47:03 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed Co-Chair Foster's
question about the rehabilitation of the salmon runs. He
explained it was a very complex question, especially
pertaining to the Yukon. He detailed there were three fish
runs including a summer chum run, a fall chum run, and a
king run. He elaborated that the fall chum and king runs
were covered by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The department
had passage obligations with Canada and whatever the state
did with the two runs required discussion and approval from
Canada. He noted that the summer chum run was Alaska based
and did not have the same constraints. With part of some
new federal money, DFG had started the evaluation of what
it could do for the rehabilitation of the salmon runs in
terms of hatchery production. The first step was to
complete the comprehensive salmon plan that had been on the
books for about four or five years sitting on the
sidelines.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang shared that the department had
also engaged the Yukon workgroup under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty to determine what it could do or could not do in
terms of enhancement or rehabilitation of the runs. The
department had recently begun discussions on potentially
partnering with Canada to get some additional king salmon
production on the Canadian side of the border, which would
benefit all users going up the river. He explained that
additional production in the Tanana would only benefit the
lower and middle river. He remarked on the complexity of
the situation.
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding of the complexity
of the situation and the need to work with Canada on the
issue. He asked if the department would use the $550,000 in
federal funds [on slide 8] to begin evaluating the
possibility of using hatcheries. Alternatively, he wondered
if the study would be generalized or more specific in
nature.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the $550,000 would
be used to update the subsistence use surveys throughout
the Yukon River drainage. The department was using a
different pot of money from Congress to look at evaluations
of rehabilitation or enhancement runs.
2:49:38 PM
Representative Wool referenced Commissioner Vincent-Lang's
mention of the warm water blob in addition to numerous
other possible causes for diminishing fish runs in the
Yukon River. He asked where rising ocean temperature
factored in. He stated certain species were migrating
further north to find colder water. He considered the
predator/prey equation. He wondered how much of the issue
pertained to ocean temperature.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that a couple of things
happened when the ocean temperature rose. He detailed that
the zooplankton composition changed and became less
nutritious to salmon. Additionally, the energetic needs of
salmon increased as water warmed. The combination of the
two factors led to a lower survival rate, returning to the
river systems because the ocean was not hospitable, and
returning smaller at age. All of the factors were being
witnessed. He reported that species competing with salmon
in the ocean were somewhat winning the battle. He
elaborated that sablefish were more successful in the
conditions. He believed the same thing had happened with
crab. He remarked that there had been declines in chum
salmon in the past. He relayed there had been a chum salmon
collapse in the Yukon almost 15 years back. He highlighted
that in the next several years there were high escapements;
therefore, if ocean conditions changed, DFG was optimistic
the situation would turn around. He noted there was
information being collected currently in the Bering Sea and
North Gulf indicating that the temperature regime was
shifting back.
2:51:56 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang reviewed slide 9 and discussed
legislative priorities. He began with the department's
priority of the Sport Fish Hatchery Facility Account
surcharge (HB 80). He relayed that 15 years back, the
department had built two sport fish hatcheries with bonds,
which were repaid with surcharges on sportfishing licenses.
He explained that the surcharge had gone away when the
bonds were paid off. The department was proposing a smaller
surcharge on sport fishing licenses to pay for the
maintenance associated with the two hatcheries located in
Fairbanks and Anchorage. Additionally, about $500,000 of
the funding had previously gone to Southeast (because it
did not receive any benefits from the two hatcheries) to
pay for Crystal Lake operations and Juneau stocking
programs. He explained that without a surcharge, the items
were in jeopardy. The state would have to pay for the two
hatcheries one way or another and he did not want to take
funds from research and management programs across the
state. He preferred the surcharge. He reported that
sportfish and angler groups across the state were generally
in support of the proposal.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang highlighted the department's
second legislative priority shown at the bottom of slide 9.
The department supported the passage of HB 79, a saltwater
sportfishing operator/guide licensing bill. He remarked
that both bills (HB 80 and HB 79) had passed the House and
were sitting in the Senate. He highlighted the importance
of the program [under HB 79] because DFG had obligations
under the Halibut Act and Pacific Salmon Treaty to report
on halibut and king salmon harvest numbers. The department
was currently doing the work with [federal] Dingle-Johnson
dollars and was looking for additional federal funding. He
highlighted support from the saltwater charter industry and
was trying to get the legislation through the Senate.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that the job of managing fisheries
resources was difficult. He believed one way to enhance the
management was trying to achieve increasingly accurate data
collection. He asked about how the department currently
tried to discern the resource take in the sportfishing
industry. He stated his understanding of the attempt to
capture information through creel census and a voluntary
end of the year report by license owners. He asked if his
understanding was accurate.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered there were two ways the
department estimated sport harvest. The first was the
charter sector through the logbook program. The program was
being converted to an electronic format in order to receive
information in a more timely and efficient manner. The
second method used unguided anglers. He noted the second
method was harder to capture. He explained that the
department conducted creel surveys on the dock; the method
did not get every angler, but it reached enough to be able
to extrapolate the total harvest. He noted that the
department needed to be on the dock to estimate the
composition of the catches. He elaborated that in
Southeast, DFG needed to know how much of the catches were
from local hatchery stocks versus catches covered under the
treaty. He stated that hatchery stocks were add-ons under
the treaty. The department did a creel survey to estimate
the numbers and fish sampling to estimate the genetic
composition. He relayed the department was beginning to
experiment with some new technology and was beta testing an
iPhone app that would include a reporting requirement. He
detailed the app would allow users to report a harvest.
2:56:28 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked where the effort stood. He wondered
if it would be in the interest of better management to have
a system where a sportfish license required license holders
to record their catch on the day of the catch.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered it was the direction the
department was moving. He noted the department did not want
to move too fast. He highlighted there were groups in other
states experimenting that had much better cell coverage
than Alaska. He explained the DFG app would allow a user to
record at the time of catch and the information would
upload once the user was in cell range. He offered to share
the beta app link with committee members.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if a move towards that type of
system would be cost burdensome on users. He wondered if
the software would be part of the license acquisition
process. He asked if it would greatly increase license
costs for instate anglers.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the app would be
free to users.
2:58:04 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to slide 10 and discussed
issues/challenges facing the department. The first item on
the list was the reduced marine survivals of salmon. He
stated the situation was a "huge unknown." He detailed that
the department had a pretty good understanding of what was
happening across freshwater throughout the state as it was
relatively much easier to sample fish in freshwater than it
was out in the ocean. The department had come to the
realization it would not be able to do the work on its own;
it did not have the capacity or ship capacity. The
department was partnering with different groups to try to
get a handle on what was happening in the ocean.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang shared that he currently had two
or three staff on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) boat in the Gulf of Alaska
participating in the International Year of the Salmon
research. Additionally, two Alaskans would be going out on
a Russian vessel to do research in the western gulf. The
department was also finding non-UGF money sources through
the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the North Pacific Research
Board. He explained that if the state did not have an
understanding about what was happening in the ocean, it
would be very restricted in how to better understand what
was happening with the salmon.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang shared that DFG had started to
research in the near-shore marine environment to determine
what was happening with chum salmon, especially north of
the Yukon. The department had a couple of proposals to
extend the research into the southern Bering Sea and the
north Gulf of Alaska to gain a better understanding. The
second issue listed on slide 10 was increasing federal
intrusion into state management authority. He understood
the state would have differences with the federal
government; however, when the federal government stepped in
and managed a river, there were numerous state users who
were displaced for a variety of economic and social
reasons. He stated it cut off the users' access to the
resource. He stressed the need to find a middle ground. He
underscored that if there was enough resource, it was
necessary to find a way to get people with customary and
traditional practices living in urban areas out to rural
areas to fish and hunt.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed the third bullet point
on slide 10: COVID-19 and its impacts, e.g., lost license
revenue to Fish and Game Fund. He detailed that the
Division of Sportfish had taken a hit because of non-
resident license sales during the pandemic. He reported
that DFG had adjusted the sportfish budget to address the
issue and was more highly dependent on Dingle-Johnson
dollars. Additionally, the department had transferred some
remaining revenue left in the surcharge bill after bonds
were paid off. He believed the division was making its way
out of the impact.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang relayed the department was seeing
impacts associated with implementation of the Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He stated
the impacts across the state were huge. He used the killing
of a polar bear as an example. He stated that the take of a
polar bear was not what most people would think. He stated,
"it was the fact that a polar bear might be on the
landscape and through a computer model you might fly over
it and that results in a take." He stated the department
was trying to bring some reality in order to have
conservation of iconic species and to protect and rebuild
their stocks without unnecessarily impacting the state's
economic stream. He relayed that urban wildlife management
issues were becoming increasingly complex. He noted the
problem of wildlife coming into urban areas. He referenced
an issue in Haines where 60 bears had been shot a couple of
years back. He stated the department needed to do the right
thing instead of having people take issues into their own
hands.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed the last bullet point
on slide 10: Hatchery-wild salmon stock interactions. He
explained there was currently a large debate about whether
hatchery stock was impacting salmon productivity in the
ocean. The department had several studies underway looking
at whether wild stocks were being impacted and whether or
not there was food competition. He relayed that the studies
should be finished up within the next year or two. The
department expected a return of about 70 million sockeye to
Bristol Bay in the coming season. He highlighted that 1
percent survived in the ocean, meaning 7 billion sockeye
were put out into the ocean. He noted the number of
hatchery fish production was nowhere near that number. He
concluded there was a complex issue in interaction that
needed better understanding.
3:03:12 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed slide 11 related to un-
reimbursed fiscal impacts due to COVID-19 in FY 21. The
Fish and Game Fund had lost about $2.7 million in revenue
from sportfish licenses and stamps. Additionally, there had
been a loss of about $1 million from commercial crew member
licenses. He believed the sportfish licenses would bump
back up, especially with the cruise industry returning. He
stated that hopefully the commercial crew member licenses
would bounce back up as well.
Representative Edgmon looked at slide 10. He noted that
Commissioner Vincent-Lang and one other commissioner were
the remaining Tier I commissioners. He remarked there was a
lot of coming and going of staff. He highlighted how
fortunate the committee was to have Commissioner Vincent-
Lang sitting alone at the table presenting. He could not
think of another agency that had the commissioner come
forward to present their budget because they did not have
the background Commissioner Vincent-Lang had. He commended
the commissioner for his breadth of understanding on
wildlife management in addition to fisheries. He wondered
why the loss of senior staff was not listed as an issue on
slide 10. He stated it had always been an issue with the
department. He wondered if the problem was mitigated and no
longer a benchmark.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang agreed. He replied there were two
issues facing the agency: 1) maintaining an interest in
fishing and hunting and 2) recruitment and retention of
staff. He remarked that the state did a lot of recruiting
people to keep them interested in hunting and fishing. He
confirmed that retention and recruitment of staff was
becoming an increasing challenge. He shared that the
governor's cabinet had recently discussed what could be
done to address recruitment and retention issues. He stated
the issue was impacting each of the departments in a
different way. He communicated that DFG had lost three area
biologists in the Cordova office because they could not
afford housing. The department was looking at different
ways to keep offices especially rural offices open
throughout the state. He underscored that the rural offices
were critical to maintaining interaction between people and
users. The department was looking at how to keep employees
out in the rural areas including the idea of building
houses and giving housing allowances. He pointed out that
the federal government was doing those things. He assured
the committee that the issue was on his mind. He was
thinking about different ways to address the problem in
order to have the capable workforce the department needed.
3:06:40 PM
Representative Edgmon understood the issue of recruitment
and retention was multifaceted. He was concerned that 16
years after the Defined Benefit plan was annulled in 2006,
the state was starting to see the downstream impacts. He
recognized that housing and other issues contributed to the
situation. He referenced the Pitman-Robertson funds and
asked about the ability to secure increased federal funds
with the supplanting of increased UGF.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that with the Biden
administration there were many people interested in buying
guns and ammunition. The department had just received its
recent apportionment of Pittman-Robertson funds, which had
increased by almost $18 million. He believed the
legislature would see a supplemental request to deal with
the issue. He remarked that the Division of Wildlife
Director Eddie Grasser was very successful at raising money
through license tags and a variety of other things. The
department was able to match the federal funding for a
single year, but in the future, how the department matched
the funds would be a challenge.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification there would be
an opportunity in the current budget to get some of the
federal funding.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the challenge with
Pittman-Robertson funds was the concern about building up
the department's operating budget based on periodic events
and increases due to people buying guns out of fear that
guns would be restricted. He elaborated that after about
four or five years the department had seen it was not
happening; therefore, the legislature had granted DFG the
ability to move money out of capital into the core
operating budget. The department was reluctant to increase
the operational side with a one-time funding source because
it did not know whether the [federal] funding would
increase or decrease over time. He stated it would be
looked at as a capital piece for the upcoming year. He
reported that currently, with the Fish and Game Fund on the
wildlife side, the department was blessed to have
sufficient matching funds for a single year. He added that
over time, the department would look at how to build the
program into the operating budget if it was sustainable
over time.
3:10:02 PM
Representative Thompson asked about the issue of bycatch
with salmon and halibut.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that bycatch was a
complex issue. He believed there was a lot of confusion
over what bycatch was and was not. He explained that
bycatch occurred in the ocean and included prohibited
species or fish that were illegal to retain. He clarified
that bycatch was not the intercept of salmon in a mixed
stock fishery, as was taking place along the Alaska
Peninsula. The department was trying to figure out what was
going on in the Bering Sea because there had been a crash
in the crab and chum salmon fisheries.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang considered whether bycatch was
causing the declines or if it was only one piece of the
puzzle. The department had started looking at the stock
composition of the bycatch in terms of salmon and was
trying to determine how much of the issue was related to
the missing fish in the Yukon River. He stated it was a
piece of the puzzle, but based on the initial evidence, it
was not the major contributor that caused the collapse. The
department was looking at what could be done to reduce
bycatch because no one wanted to throw fish over the side.
He relayed that the governor had created a bycatch
taskforce and he believed the governor would announce the
addition of two new inter-river users to the taskforce. The
taskforce would consider what could be done to address
bycatch and how it impacted local users.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang thanked the committee for its
support, and he looked forward to working with members.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the commissioner for the
presentation.
HB 281 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 282 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY23 DMVA Op Budget Overview HFC 02222.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| ADFG FY23 HFIN Presentation 2.24.22.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 02.24.2022 HFC - DCCED Budget Overview 2.24.22.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DCCED HFC 02.24.2022 Meeting Followup.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DCCED Overview 22422 LGLR Grant Distribution List.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DCCED Overview 22422 Nonprofit Grantees by Region and Amount.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2022 1:30:00 PM |