Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/29/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB52 | |
| Presentation(s): Update on Commercial Fishing Industry in Alaska & Impact of Covid-19 to the Industry | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 52-TUTKA BAY HATCHERY
10:09:16 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 52, "An Act providing that operation of the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery in Kachemak Bay is compatible with the
functions of Kachemak Bay State Park; and providing for an
effective date."
10:09:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 52, Version 32-LS0327\I, Bullard, 4/29/21
("Version I"), as the working document.
10:10:04 AM
CHAIR TARR objected for purposes of discussion.
10:10:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, as the prime sponsor, introduced HB 52.
She noted that while the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery is in the
district of Representative Stutes, the hatchery directly affects
her own district. She explained that last fall the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation ("State Parks") came out with a
management plan that said the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery was
incompatible with [Kachemak Bay State Park]. It is a land
allocation issue, a legal issue. The original bill simply
stated that the hatchery would be compatible with the park; it
was temporary holding language to work with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), and State Parks to find the best way to save the
hatchery. The proposed CS, Version I, is the language that has
been received to do a land exchange. The bill seeks to save
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery while respecting Kachemak Bay State
Park. Slides and maps have been provided to the committee to
show the land that DNR has found to make an exchange of equal
value and to keep the hatchery within DNR. She deferred to Mr.
Jake Almeida to present the technical changes made by the
proposed CS.
10:12:49 AM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sara Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor of
HB 52, presented the proposed committee substitute, Version I,
for the bill. He said the original version of the bill sought
to make Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery a compatible use within
Kachemak Bay State Park. He explained that the rules for
general state land within DNR's purview and state park land are
much different. More can be done on general state land, such as
selling or trading, while state park land has protections.
MR. ALMEIDA stated that Version I is simply five pages of the
coordinate changes. Version I would move the hatchery and
lagoon land into general state land that would still be under
DNR's purview, and an interagency land management agreement
(ILMA) would then be done with ADF&G to allow ADF&G to legally
oversee the hatchery even though it is on DNR land. In return
to make up for the value of the lost land within the state park,
DNR would receive parcels A, B, and C, the general state land
depicted in yellow on the map, to be incorporated into Kachemak
Bay State Park. Parcels B and C are on the bay overlooking the
water. As state park land, Parcel A will become eligible to
have the road completed if funding is received, which the
Kachemak Bay Citizens Advisory Commission has been asking for.
10:15:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested Mr. Almeida to clarify
what part of Kachemak Bay is being illustrated in the map.
MR. ALMEIDA replied that in the committee packet the coordinates
are shown for the hatchery and the lagoon that would be moved to
general state land. What would be changed are the parcels
highlighted in yellow, which would become state park land.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS presumed slide 2 is a different
part of the general Kachemak Bay state area. He asked what part
of Kachemak Bay is depicted by slide 2.
MR. ALMEIDA deferred to Mr. Matt Wedeking of DNR to answer the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS added that while he sees Eastland
Creek he doesn't know where the creek is within Kachemak Bay and
would like to know generally what is being talked about.
10:17:02 AM
MATT WEDEKING, Operations Manager, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded
that parcels A, B, and C are located on the Homer side of the
bay a couple miles up from the city of Homer going along East
End Road.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that
Parcel A is presently not state park land and under Version I
would become state park land.
MR. WEDEKING nodded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that
when something is made into state park land it becomes harder to
build a road rather than easier. He recalled the statement that
this proposed exchange would make completion of the road segment
easier and requested more details in this regard.
MR. WEDEKING replied that a road already exists through Parcel A
and this proposal would facilitate future access to the section
shown in blue, the Cottonwood Eastland section of the park.
10:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired about the name of the main road
that goes through Parcel A.
MR. WEDEKING answered it is East End Road.
10:19:29 AM
CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that currently all of this
is state land. Parcels A, B, and C are general state land under
DNR management that would then become park land, so no private
land transfers would be involved.
MR. WEDEKING replied that parcels B and C are currently managed
by State Parks through interagency land management agreements;
the bill would make them legislatively designated areas. Parcel
A is not currently managed by State Parks; the bill would make
it a legislatively designated area. He confirmed that none of
these areas contain private land.
CHAIR TARR offered her belief that a legislated designation is a
stronger designation for those park lands.
10:20:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether the land exchange
is one acre for one acre.
MR. WEDEKING responded that the hatchery is about 123 acres and
parcels A, B, and C are 266 acres, so it is two to one.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how it is that the Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery has existed and operated for decades, and now
suddenly there is a finding of incompatibility for it to be
within state park boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to Mr. Sam Rabung to answer the
question.
10:22:02 AM
SAM RABUNG, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), testified that ADF&G's
mission statement says the department is to protect, maintain,
and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the
state, and manage their use and development in the best interest
of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state
consistent with the sustained yield principle.
MR. RABUNG stated that Alaska Statute (AS) 16.05.092 says, in
part, that the department shall encourage the investment by
private enterprise in the technological development and economic
utilization of the fisheries resources, and through
rehabilitation, enhancement, and development programs do all
things necessary to ensure perpetual and increasing production
and use of the food resources of the state waters and
continental shelf areas. The work described in statute was
under the purview of the Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement,
and Development (FRED) Division of ADF&G until about 1994 when
it was merged with the Division of Commercial Fisheries.
MR. RABUNG explained that with the FRED Division gone ADF&G no
longer conducts fishery restoration, rehabilitation, or
enhancement other than the Division of Sport Fish's hatcheries
and stocking program. The Division of Commercial Fisheries
still operates the pathology, gene conservation, and mark, tag,
and age labs, and has contracted out the operation of the FRED
Division salmon hatcheries to private nonprofit aquaculture
associations that operate them at their own expense as a service
to common property users. Permitting and oversight is provided
through the statewide Aquaculture Planning and Permitting
Section in ADF&G headquarters. This section is responsible for
the salmon hatchery program, the aquatic farming program, and
permitting for research and recreational projects statewide.
MR. RABUNG specified that ADF&G's Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery is
located within Kachemak Bay State Park across Kachemak Bay from
Homer. The State of Alaska constructed the hatchery in 1976
using bond funds, and the FRED Division operated the hatchery to
enhance pink and chum runs in Tutka Creek. In 1988 AS 16.10.480
was passed by the legislature, authorizing ADF&G to contract out
the operation of its hatcheries. In 1991 ADF&G contracted with
the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (CIAA) to operate the
hatchery. The state retains ownership of its facilities when
operations are contracted out and the land use agreements are
held by ADF&G. Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association obtained the
necessary private nonprofit hatchery permit for Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery following the prescribed public process. Operation of
the hatchery was evaluated for consistency with statewide
policies and prescribed management practices by the department
in 2012, and pink, chum, and sockeye salmon have been produced
at the hatchery. The original permit allowed a maximum
incubation capacity of 125 million pink and chum salmon eggs.
The permit was altered in 1994 to allow incubation of 660,000
sockeye salmon eggs for release into Tutka Bay Lagoon, which
provides the brood stock for the Lower Cook Inlet Lakes sockeye
salmon stocking program, part of which creates the popular China
Poot personal use fishery.
MR. RABUNG said it came to [ADF&G's] attention that the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery operations may be considered incompatible
with Kachemak Bay State Park when the plan was updated recently,
which is updated about every 10 years. Through discussions with
DNR, it appears this stems from recent court interpretations
that broadened the definition of disposal of state lands. So,
given the operation of the hatchery on the park lands somewhat
excludes or precludes any other use, that may be considered a
disposal of state lands and it was done in a manner inconsistent
with recent interpretations. Version I of HB 52 addresses the
compatibility concern in a manner consistent with other parks
guidance, such as AS 41.21.302 Management of Marine Parks, as
well as the improper disposal of state land concerned.
10:27:01 AM
CHAIR TARR summarized that everything was working fine until
this recent court decision expanded the definition of land
disposal. So, having this hatchery in an otherwise public use
area made it seem exclusive to that use and it became the
incompatibility factor.
MR. RABUNG replied that that is his understanding of it. He
said there were three or four court cases that addressed this.
10:28:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that one of the court
cases was the litigation over the Stand for Salmon ballot
initiative in which the [Alaska] Supreme Court found that the
ballot initiative constituted a taking or appropriation or
designation of lands. He asked whether that was one of the
legal variables in play.
MR. RABUNG deferred to Mr. Wedeking to answer the question.
MR. WEDEKING read the list of court cases: Northern Alaska
Environmental Center [and Sierra Club] v. State of Alaska,
Department of Natural Resources in 2000; Save Our Parks, Inc.
[SOP, Inc.] v. State Department of Natural Resources [Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation] in 2013; Nunamta [Aulukestai]
v. State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Natural Resources in
2015; and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State of
Alaska, Department of Natural Resources in 2020. He said he
would provide the list to the committee after the hearing.
10:29:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired whether Parcel A, which includes
East End Road, would give the park the opportunity to build a
road or trail into the park to provide better access instead of
boating in.
MR. WEDEKING confirmed this to be correct and said future
development would provide connection. He noted that a trail
system exists in that area.
10:30:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that there are oyster and seaweed
farms in Jakolof Bay. He asked whether the water is being
checked to ensure that the hatchery and growth of aquaculture
farms are compatible and not creating issues for the natural
stock in that water.
MR. RABUNG responded that the hatchery in Tutka Bay Lagoon has
been operating since 1976, so ADF&G doesn't see a problem with
that. He noted that Jakolof Bay is just outside the park and
said aquatic farming is somewhat self-limiting. The oysters
themselves are considered the canary in the coal mine - too many
oysters in a concentrated area will eat the food and won't grow.
A very productive bay, Jakolof provides a tremendous number of
oysters for sale primarily locally in the Homer area. Because
the surface area of Jakolof Bay is about maxed out for being
able to provide access to uplands for common property users for
the public, significant growth in Jakolof Bay isn't anticipated.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked that that is a great answer. He
said he is a huge fan of hatcheries and isn't sure why a
hatchery can't be compatible with a state park and a state park
plan if there is an ability for Alaskans to take a tour of a
hatchery that provides for food sustainability. He said he
thinks all this kerfuffle is unnecessary.
10:34:05 AM
CHAIR TARR noted that Mr. Sam Rabung and Mr. Dean Day are
providing invited testimony. She turned to Mr. Day to begin his
testimony.
10:34:40 AM
DEAN DAY, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
(CIAA), provided invited testimony in support of HB 52. He said
CIAA is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1976 to provide and
protect the salmon resource in Area H. He explained that Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery is a state-owned facility that was operated
by ADF&G from 1976-1991, and in 1991 CIAA assumed operation of
the hatchery through an operating agreement with ADF&G. In
addition to the operating agreement, a letter of intent was
created that says the Tutka hatchery provides an important
public service through the production of salmon for commercial
and sport fisheries in the Lower Cook Inlet Area. The letter of
intent further says that as presently managed and with
appropriate and reasonable controls to protect the values of
Kachemak Bay State Park, the Tutka hatchery is compatible with
the purposes of the 1989 Kachemak Bay State Park management
plan. The park's 1995 wilderness management plan explicitly
identifies fishery enhancement as a goal for the park and
repeatedly characterizes fishing as an important recreation and
commercial activity in the park in general and Tutka Bay in
particular. The Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery and its virtues as an
attraction for visitors are specifically referenced.
MR. DAY related that after decades of CIAA operating the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery on behalf of ADF&G, and under multiple park
management plans supporting hatchery operations, DNR's Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has determined that the hatchery
is likely no longer compatible with the plan and seeks to close
the hatchery at the end of the contract term in 2031. He said
the closing of Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery would affect CIAA's
ability to provide funding for its other operations, which
includes enhancement projects for personal use sockeye dipnet
fisheries in the park and in China Poot, sport fisheries in Cook
Inlet Resurrection Bay, and habitat and invasive species work
throughout the region. These projects would be at risk of
closure or be severely reduced. Closure of the hatchery would
impact local economies through loss of jobs; loss of commercial
fishing revenue; loss of income to a variety of recreational,
commercial, and personal use fishery support businesses; and
loss of municipal tax revenues. The commercial fishing and
seafood processing industry in Cook Inlet would directly suffer
a significant revenue loss if the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery was
eliminated. The Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association has invested
millions of dollars in improving hatchery operations, including
the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery. Multiple projects are undertaken
as a part of CIAA's mission, these apply throughout the Cook
Inlet region, Resurrection Bay, and the outer district. A
closure of any one facility would impact all facilities and
projects in the Cook Inlet region.
10:39:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked if the hatchery has any effluent,
eyesore, or impact that creates a negative experience for park
visitors, or something else that makes it no longer compatible
with the park.
MR. DAY replied that he was the Tutka hatchery manager for
several years and performed many tours during that time. He
said he can't speak specifically to any eyesores, but that some
people cannot support the overall mission of the hatchery.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked that this is part of Alaska, and
he is struggling to understand why the need to go through this.
He said the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery is an interesting and
vital part of the communities and the park could have a ranger
give the tours instead of CIAA.
10:41:52 AM
CHAIR TARR surmised it may have been a different situation back
when the state was managing the hatchery through the FRED
Division. She further surmised that with the recent evaluations
the incompatibility is that a common property resource on state
lands via the park is being managed by a private organization,
so if the state took over management there probably wouldn't be
an issue. However, she continued, the state isn't using that
model these days.
MR. RABUNG responded that it is irrelevant who is operating the
facility. Rather, the presence of that facility on state park
lands precludes other park uses and a prescribed public process
was not done to dispose of that land for that use.
10:43:28 AM
MR. RABUNG addressed Representative McCabe's question regarding
effluent. He explained that hatcheries are required to have
discharge permits issued by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and to meet water quality standards. That
includes the process water, the domestic water from the people
living onsite, net pens, and carcasses. Previously these were
issued by the [federal] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
but now it is DEC. When salmon come back and die something must
be done with the carcasses. A complaint heard from the public
about the Tutka and other hatcheries, and even about wild
streams, is that ADF&G should do something about the smell from
the decomposing carcasses.
10:44:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether the new case law
has similarly caught up other facilities in other Alaska state
parks and land swaps need to be done.
MR. WEDEKING answered that the division is looking at all areas
and everything in all state parks to see if there are issues
like this. This one popped up when the division happened to be
doing the management plan at the time. He stressed that this is
not a compatibility issue but rather a land disposal issue with
park land that is trying to be solved. Because there are
probably others, the division is working to identify them.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said it is important the committee
know what those others are so they can be fixed. He asked when
the process started and when it will be concluded.
MR. WEDEKING replied that identifying these began after the SOP
case. He said he will get back to the committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether that was the Save
Our Parks case from 2013.
MR. WEDEKING responded, "Yes."
10:46:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted 2013 to 2021 is eight years
and presumed it doesn't take eight years to do the review. He
requested Mr. Wedeking to reconcile that gap in time.
MR. WEDEKING answered that he can't because he has only been in
this job for about five years, but said they are addressed as
they come up.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether over the last five
to eight years State Parks has affirmatively identified in other
state park units any other activities, facilities, or structures
that are known right now to not be "sympatico" with state park
legislative designation.
MR. WEDEKING replied that he would say yes. He explained that
the division is addressing other locations, whether in Chugach
State Park or utility lines through other state parks. Even
easements are not allowed, so as they come up the division is
working through them, creating a list, and moving forward on
those. While he doesn't know specifics, he said the division is
looking for legislative solutions for the ones the division has
come across and he will provide a list to the committee.
10:48:31 AM
CHAIR TARR observed from DNR's website that there was a 12/7/18
determination for Kachemak Bay State Park and an intent to adopt
a version of the management plan that, once adopted, will serve
as the basis for management of park lands for the next 20 years.
She asked whether all parks are on 20-year cycles. She offered
her understanding that the writing of these plans is a multi-
year process. She further related that the notice was 12/7/18
but comments on the intent to adopt a version of the plan will
be accepted until 1/22/21. She requested Mr. Wedeking to help
the committee understand the planning.
MR. WEDEKING responded that the gold standard for plans would be
to last 10 years, but most likely they are going to last for 20
years given the lack of staff. For this one, he continued, the
draft plan was issued in 2018 and then due to public comment the
division put out another draft and an Intent to Adopt Plan,
which is the one the division is working with now that has
identified the disposal issue of the hatchery.
CHAIR TARR surmised the plan is adopted for 20 years and working
on a new plan is a multi-year process.
MR. WEDEKING answered that that is correct and said it can take
three years to do a comprehensive plan with public input.
10:50:53 AM
CHAIR TARR invited Ms. Kris Hess to provide comment.
10:51:09 AM
KRIS HESS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water
(DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that the
DMLW assists the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
("State Parks") in preparing management plans for state parks.
She said they are a multi-year process to go through, obtain
public comments, and then finalize a plan with that public
involvement. The issue of disposal comes in because state parks
are set aside from the public domain and must be managed for the
purpose in which they were created. It is a recent involvement
of the court cases, especially the 2020 Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council case in which the Alaska Supreme Court
solidified the whole disposal issue. A state park must be
managed for the purposes that the park was created; an interest
cannot be conveyed to an outside party, such as an easement,
lease, or interagency land management agreement (ILMA) like what
was given at the hatchery.
10:52:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked when Kachemak Bay State Park was
established.
MS. HESS replied that the park was originally created in 1970
and the ILMA was originally issued in 1979. The first court
case was in 2000, so at the time there wasn't that guidance from
court decisions regarding legislatively designated areas and the
disposal concept.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recited that the park was [established] in
1970, the hatchery was started in 1976 by ADF&G, a state entity,
and the ILMA was in 1979. He asked whether ADF&G did any
studies when it first built the hatchery.
MS. HESS responded that a lot of information was gathered at the
time the hatchery was created in 1975 by ADF&G, which was after
the park was created in 1970. The first court case was in 2000
and the subsequent cases were in 2013, 2014, she believed, and
2020. At the time the hatchery was constructed there was not
the guidance that is now had from the courts. She deferred to
Mr. Wedeking to speak to studies that were done with the
hatchery's construction.
10:56:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated that it would be terrible
if the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery had to be shut down because of
this land and legal development. He requested the agencies to
get ahead of this so the legislature can have some foresight and
be in a less reactive posture if there are analogous issues
elsewhere, which there seems to be.
CHAIR TARR remarked that this problem will arise in situations
where it is legislatively designated areas. She noted that the
statute could be looked at to see the legislatively designated
areas and then the agencies could get that information to the
legislature. She asked whether the agencies anticipate
identifying the problems by chronologically working through the
various management plans.
MR. WEDEKING confirmed there is that way, and that there is as
the agencies address them in the field. He said he will work
with the group to address Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' request
because he thinks it would be of benefit to the division as well
as to the legislature.
10:58:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared that when she originally saw that
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery in her community was being affected,
her intent was to look at all hatcheries across the state
because she thought it was a compatibility issue. However, she
learned that it is not a compatibility issue but rather a land
allocative issue. The statute for each state park designates
the specific land points for that park, so it must be taken one
park at a time. She thanked the divisions for working so
diligently to bring this together in a short amount of time, and
said she looks forward to doing whatever needs to be done on
this land allocation issue in light of these lawsuits.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.
11:00:39 AM
CHAIR TARR observed that Section 1 of the bill deals with the
additions to the park and Section 2 deals with the exception.
She asked Mr. Almeida to provide a sectional analysis.
MR. ALMEIDA deferred to Mr. Wedeking to review the sections. He
confirmed that Section 2 is the transfer of the 123 acres.
MR. WEDEKING stated that Section 1 provides the additions, which
are highlighted in black and underlined. He said Section 2
removes Tutka Bay Lagoon and the land the hatchery sits on.
CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the original bill was
the compatibility issue, but that it is a land disposal issue so
Version I, Section 1, brings those new parcels in and [Section
2] removes the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery from the park.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE agreed with everything being talked about,
but said it seems the state is trying to throw itself off land
that it has already been on for 45 years. He offered his hope
that this can be solved because the hatchery is important.
11:03:49 AM
CHAIR TARR removed her objection to adopting Version I as the
working document.
11:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected to make a comment. He
said he gets the sense the agencies are in harmony and the real
issue is the separate branches of government - the Judicial
Branch has created a new reality for the Executive Branch as
well as the Legislative Branch. He then removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Version I was before the
committee.
11:04:43 AM
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 52.
11:05:05 AM
BRENT JOHNSON testified in support of HB 52. He noted that he
is a past president of Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
(CIAA). He said he is a commercial fisherman above Ninilchik
and doesn't catch fish related to the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery.
However, he continued, the hatchery is an integral part of CIAA.
Each hatchery has its own benefits and risks and all hatcheries
working together are needed for CIAA to survive. As an upper
inlet fisherman, he looks to hatcheries like Tutka to provide
resources like pike suppression projects, beaver dam projects,
and water flow control structures in the upper inlet. Also, due
to tough times there are fewer fish processors in the upper
inlet, and those fish processors need salmon to survive. These
hatcheries provide salmon that expand the processors" resources
so they can survive so that commercial fishermen can survive for
a big year when big fish processing capacity is needed.
MR. JOHNSON related that the CIAA's mission statement says it is
to protect self-sustaining salmon stocks and their habitat,
rehabilitate self-sustaining salmon stocks, rehabilitate salmon
habitat, and maximize the value of Cook Inlet common property
salmon resource by applying science and enhancement technology
where appropriate, all of which he firmly stands by. Regarding
the bill, he noted that the hatchery would still be under the
jurisdiction of DNR and ADF&G, and the agencies would be
monitoring what goes on at Tutka Bay. He said it is important
that the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery survives, and he appreciates
Representative Vance writing the original bill.
11:07:35 AM
ROD VAN SAUN thanked Representative Vance for bringing forward
HB 52 because the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery needs to be kept
running. He said he has been a commercial fisherman for several
years and has also worked 25 years in the charter boat industry.
He said he would like to be a voice for the people all over the
state who benefit from the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery as many
don't even realize it. He has friends from Fairbanks, the
[Matanuska-Susitna] Valley, and the Interior who benefit from
the sport fisheries that CIAA provides when they go to Seward,
Homer, or China Poot. He is excited about the pike eradication
in Shell Lake and bringing back the sockeye return. If the
Tutka hatchery were taken out of the mix and CIAA lost the
funding from Tutka, the ability would be lost to provide those
sport fisheries and everything else. He stressed the importance
of passing HB 52.
11:10:02 AM
CRISTEN SAN ROMAN testified in opposition to HB 52. She stated
she grew up fishing for wild salmon with her family and is
presently a fish processor and filleter. Now, salmon are more
than food, her livelihood is dependent on healthy fish stocks
and the success of others in harvesting fish.
MS. SAN ROMAN offered her understanding that hatcheries were
founded with the idea of bolstering wild salmon numbers, which
she thought a good idea at the time. But, in researching the
impacts of hatcheries, she has found that this salmon ranching
has had unintended consequences. Young salmon are voracious
eaters and when manufactured and released into the ecosystem by
the millions the wild fish are forced to compete with them for
food. Hatchery salmon are also known to stray and spawn with
wild fish, degrading the bloodlines and productivity [of the
wild fish]. If running this hatchery is continued, then clearly
the focus has become solely for economic gain rather than
helping wild fish stocks.
MS. SAN ROMAN maintained that greed is leading to genetically
weak wild salmon that are unable to adapt to changes in the
ocean environment or produce enough offspring to keep their
populations up on their own. When the people of today become
old timers, they may talk about the good old days when real wild
salmon could be caught in the bay. Perhaps without this
hatchery, Tutka Bay and surrounding waters could also be richer
in shellfish populations.
MS. SAN ROMAN said she is only 22 years old and has a lifetime
ahead of her to see the consequences of the decisions made by
legislators. She urged the committee to vote against HB 52 and
to trust the science so that her children can grow up harvesting
real wild seafood like she did as a child.
11:12:32 AM
CHRIS PERRY testified in support of HB 52. He said he has
fished in Lower Cook Inlet for approximately 36 years. He
recounted that in 1981 most of the 80 salmon seine permits in
Lower Cook Inlet were fished, while 70 permits were fished in
1991. With the help of Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery, the hope is
that at some point these permits will be fished again.
MR. PERRY stated that closure of the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery
will directly affect other sport and personal use fisheries in
Lower Cook Inlet and all of Cook Inlet drainage, plus the China
Poot dipnet sockeye fisheries will close. Sockeye for these
projects are harvested, eggs are taken at the Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery, and the smolt are released at their respective lake
systems. Thousands of fishermen will lose these opportunities.
The cost recovery done at Tutka Bay on returning pink and
sockeye salmon is an integral part of CIAA's economic operation,
helping to support many of CIAA's projects throughout the Cook
Inlet drainage. Projects that may be impacted by closure of the
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery include Trail Lakes Hatchery, Port
Graham Hatchery, and Resurrection Bay and Resurrection Bear Lake
sockeye and coho projects, which may include Resurrection Bay
saltwater coho and sockeye enhancement projects.
MR. PERRY noted that the City of Seward contracts aquaculture to
produce coho for its silver salmon derby. He said many of the
Interior and Northern Cook Inlet stocking projects, as well as
invasive species eradication projects, will be affected. With
the impending closure of federal waters in Upper Cook Inlet and
this loss of fish tax, aquaculture will have further challenges
to financing these operations. He urged that a way be found to
save the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery. He pointed out that 83
percent of the permits originally issued are local. Responding
to Representative Tarr, he agreed to provide statistics in
writing to the committee.
11:15:09 AM
SUE CHRISTIANSEN testified in opposition to HB 52. She stated
she has been a resident of Kachemak Bay for 42 years and is a
member of the Kachemak Bay State Park Advisory Board, a past
employee of ADF&G, and a past setnet fishing woman. She
recounted that 51 years ago the legislature set aside Kachemak
Bay State Park, which includes Tutka Bay Lagoon, to protect and
preserve its unique and exceptional values.
MS. CHRISTIANSEN urged the committee to consider some of the
economics that have not been mentioned. She said 90 percent of
the return from the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery goes to the
aquaculture corporation because CIAA is in debt over $16
million, an important factor the committee should investigate.
Regarding sport fishing, she said other hatcheries are available
that could easily provide smolt for China Poot dipnet fisheries.
Regarding industrial scale fish farms, she stated that farmed
fish compete with wild salmon and deplete other marine species,
including Pacific cod, halibut, king and tanner crab, herring,
clams, and mussels, and they replace wild salmon genomes.
MS. CHRISTIANSEN stated that Kachemak Bay was once considered
the richest bay in the world, but industrial scale fish farming
is not the way to restore it. She pointed out that there are
virtually no wild salmon remaining on the East Coast, yet they
were once as prolific on the East Coast as they are in Alaska.
She urged the committee to consider that the Kachemak Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve is interested in having
Tutka Lagoon become an educational research center.
11:18:18 AM
LEONARD FABICH testified in support of HB 52. He stated he has
commercially fished and sport fished the waters of Kachemak Bay
since 1987, and in 2013 he became a commercial salmon seiner in
Lower Cook Inlet. He said he would like to keep the Tutka Bay
Hatchery open. He said he differs with the Kachemak Bay State
Park management plan decision that the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery
is incompatible with the state park.
MR. FABICH said one of the many benefits to the hatchery is that
last season he fished the entire salmon season on the Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery returns. On even years when pink salmon do not
generally return in big numbers on the outer coast the hatchery
is a huge bright spot in the seine summer fishery, with the reds
and pinks returning to the hatchery release sites by far the
target fish. The hatchery is a big part of his livelihood, so
the argument that it largely only benefits [CIAA] is false.
MR. FABICH, in regard to intruding on the park, stated that
commercial fishermen bring a great amount of pleasure to park
visitors each summer. He said a favorite opportunity for
visitors is observing fishermen in action and many tourists go
home with photos of fishermen catching hatchery fish. It
benefits the city with taxes collected. The spinoff from this
hatchery affects thousands of people. One of the largest
positive benefits is the China Poot dipnet fishery and snag
fishery as well as the Tutka Bay sport fishery for reds and
pinks, all funded by the hatchery costs recovery measures; this
will go away if the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery is closed. He
said he is in favor of the land swap that will allow the
hatchery to be on state grounds and continue operating.
11:21:11 AM
CHELSEA HAINSMAN, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United (CDFU), testified that CDFU supports HB 52. She said the
Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery has provided salmon for users in all
user groups subsistence, sport, personal use, and commercial.
She noted that the 1991 memorandum of understanding (MOU)
between State Parks, ADF&G, and CIAA states that Tutka Bay
Lagoon Hatchery is compatible with purposes of Kachemak Bay
State Park as set out in statute and the park management plan.
MS. HAINSMAN stated that historically this hatchery has been
critically important to Alaska's culture and economy. Changes
to this management plan will have detrimental impacts on the
coastal communities and fisheries of Southcentral Alaska. This
bill fixes legal land allocation issues associated with the
recent management plan recommendation and will allow the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery the ability to continue providing salmon for
Alaskans.
11:22:18 AM
ALAN PARKS expressed his concerns related to HB 52 and the Tutka
Bay Lagoon Hatchery. He said he is a commercial fisherman. He
noted that the park plan was developed over a six-year time span
under several administrations and the final draft isn't out.
The hatchery has been very contentious throughout its history,
he related, and it is important that the public get more
understanding of what HB 52 proposes to do.
MR. PARKS stated that the difference between the FRED Division
and CIAA management of the hatchery is vast - under state
management the hatchery operated at 40 million eggs and every
fish was fully utilized. He maintained that Cook Inlet
Aquaculture Association is maximizing if not over-maximizing the
lagoon, and the lagoon is a cesspool that has been totally
mismanaged. As someone who works in the tourist business, he
would not take someone in there because of the stink and the
beaches being covered with dead fish. In 2015 at least 100,000
fish were on the beaches outside of the lagoon. Fish were
spread out on the beaches throughout Tutka Bay and were floating
in kelp rafts because they were not harvested. The point is
that CIAA says it values the lease of Tutka Bay at almost
$500,000; Mr. [Rabung] says that they are contracted?
11:25:22 AM
ROBERT ARCHIBALD disclosed that he is on the Kachemak Bay State
Park Citizen Advisory Board and the board of Friends of Kachemak
Bay State Park. He said the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery has been
an issue for a while. One contentious issue that hasn't been
discussed is carcass dumping in Tutka Bay. Another is the
desire for the net pens to be removed from the lagoon because it
is not sustainable to rear salmon in the lagoon in the numbers
that [CIAA] wants to rear them. This means that [CIAA] wants to
pull those net pens out into Tutka Bay, which is the state.
MR. ARCHIBALD said he can understand how this contentious issue
has come up with the new lawsuits about disclosure and disposal.
He urged the committee to postpone moving HB 52 so that citizens
who use the park can better understand the ramifications. He
stated that this is the first he's heard of the area out East
End Road that would be in this land swap and he thinks there
needs to be more discussion on this.
11:27:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that Mr. Archibald is on the
park's advisory board and asked whether he is correct in
understanding that Mr. Archibald hadn't seen this land swap
proposal until now.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that no one had seen the land
swap, including herself, until last night and specifically the
map was received this morning because the departments have been
working on finding land available and it wasn't known how
quickly that was going to move along. So, she continued, this
is recent to come before everyone. She said she intends to
continue to have communications with the community on what that
would look like but wanted to get this on the record and move
forward with the issue of the land allocation at hand.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said it seems there are some
strong local passions about land use, and it doesn't fully serve
the public in terms of public comment if they don't know what
they are commenting on. If there is a land swap in their
backyard and they don't know what parcels are being moved, it
would seem important that the public be able to comment on that.
CHAIR TARR announced that the committee is unable to accommodate
additional public testimony this morning beyond the next two
witnesses. She said the bill would not be moved out of
committee today and that there would be another hearing.
11:30:01 AM
PENELOPE HAAS, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, testified in
opposition to HB 52. She urged the committee to read the
written comments submitted by her organization. She suggested
that this change in course regarding the Tutka Bay Lagoon
Hatchery is the result of multiple forces that include the court
cases along with the public's growing understanding of the
impacts of enhancement hatcheries on wild salmon populations and
the species that salmon prey upon, such as crab, shrimp,
herring, and cod, among others.
MS. HAAS noted that the statute guiding the management of
Kachemak Bay State Park defines it as a scenic park, which means
a relatively spacious area of outstanding natural significance
where major values are in natural, geological, faunal, or floral
characteristics. She stated that an enhancement hatchery which
selectively enhances one population among all the species in
interplay is a disruption to that natural balance.
MS. HAAS related that a long public process went into the
decision by DNR to change course on the hatchery. Before DNR
changed course with the management plan there was a denial of
permits with dumping of carcasses into the bay with a concern of
contamination of the bay and the loss of oxygen at the bottom of
Tutka Bay. She stated that a large group of people in Kachemak
Bay do not support HB 52 and passing the bill would be going
against the public process that went into the removal of the
hatchery from the state park.
11:33:07 AM
TIM ANDERSON stated he is a former fisheries and wildlife
biologist, and his wife runs the Majestic View Bed and Breakfast
in Homer. He said he operates as a charter captain taking out
only the people who stay at Majestic View. He goes to Tutka Bay
30-60 days a year and along the way people see the salmon and
wildlife and the fishermen catching salmon. His guests take
pictures as they watch orcas, black bears, eagles, and harbor
seals chasing and eating the salmon. Regardless of whether his
guests catch a fish along the way, they enjoy watching more fish
than they've ever seen in their life.
MR. ANDERSON addressed the "stink thing on the shoreline." He
said some years there is such a surplus of salmon that there are
more than can be used, and the stink goes away quickly and can
only be smelled up close. As far as decimation of the bay, he
suggested that a look be taken at sea otters because it's not
all the little hungry salmon fry. He noted that Halibut Cove
and all the cabins in the bay have not been gotten rid of. He
urged that a way be found to work with it the way it is because
it works great. He added that he agrees with Representative
McCabe about over-thinking it and over-politicizing it, and said
he supports the bill.
11:35:42 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that HB 52 is being held over and public
testimony is being left open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 52 Sponsor Statement 4.21.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Version A 2.18.21.PDF |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/6/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Fiscal Note - DNR-DPOR 4.28.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/6/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| House Fisheries - Commercial Fishing Industry and COVID-19 Impact Update - UFA 4.29.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM |
Commercial Fishing |
| HB 52 CS Version B 4.28.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Tutka Bay Hatchery Exhibit A 4.29.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Tutka Bay Hatchery Historical Background 4.29.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/6/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM HRES 2/7/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Tutka Hatchery Map 4.29.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM HRES 2/7/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Tutka Bay Hatchery & Land Parcel Maps.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/6/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Version I 4.29.21.pdf |
HFSH 4/29/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/6/2021 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/18/2021 10:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |