Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/27/1997 01:21 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 141 - SCALLOP FISHERY/VESSEL MORATORIUM Number 0344 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House Bill No. 141, "An Act relating to a vessel permit moratorium for the Alaska weathervane scallop fishery; relating to management of the scallop fisheries; and providing for an effective date." Before the committee was CSHB 141(FSH), version 0-LS0112\R. AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Alan Austerman, said HB 141 implements a moratorium within state waters off Alaska, similar to that being implemented by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), which affects federal waters off Alaska. She read from the sponsor statement: "Without a moratorium implemented in state waters, it is probable that there would be an increase in effort on our state water scallop stocks, as well as on the associated marine habitat, and create an unmanageable fishery. "Worldwide, scallops have proven to be susceptible to overfishing and boom/bust cycles. Scallops are a long-lived shellfish. The large scallop meats which bring premium prices come from scallops eight years or older. "The Alaska scallop fishery started in 1968. Nineteen East Coast scallop vessels came to Alaska and took 1.7 million pounds of scallop meat. The fishery continued at a harvest level of 1.3 million pounds of meat annually until 1973. Catches dropped off sharply after '73, and fishing ceased in 1978 when the scallop beds were depleted. This boom-and-bust cycle was repeated in the 1980s and appeared to be repeating for a third time in the 1990s until the state developed a fishery management plan for scallops in 1993. All scallop fishing was stopped in February 1995 in order to prevent an East Coast scalloper, Mr. Big, from fishing in unregulated federal waters. The fishery reopened in late 1996 under a federal management plan. "At present, weathervane scallops are managed jointly by the federal government and the State of Alaska. There is a federal fishery management plan to delegate management authority of scallops to the state `in process,' but it has not been finalized. The management plan includes mandatory 100 percent observer coverage, caps on the amount of crab bycatch which can be taken and area-specific quotas. Under new language in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the State of Alaska could exercise management authority out to 200 miles under delegated authority. "It is also in the State of Alaska's best interest that both the state and federal scallop fisheries have similar management plans and be managed by the State of Alaska. Representative Austerman's goal is delegation of management authority by the U.S. Department of Commerce to the State of Alaska with a more restricted moratorium base. It should be noted that the council's Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review found that four vessels could efficiently harvest the Alaska scallop quotas. "Within this legislation, Representative Austerman has separated out the weathervane scallop fishery conducted in Area H, or Cook Inlet. That fishery is unique in that it is managed an entirely separate fishery, has different gear specifications and has more recently been developed. "HB 141 is needed to ensure careful consideration [note: written statement says conservation] of the scallop stocks, as well as the marine habitat in which the scallops live, and to ensure that the bycatch of other marine animals, such as crabs, are properly controlled and managed. It's imperative to implement a moratorium on new entrants into the weathervane scallop fishery now." Number 0492 MS. DAUGHERTY discussed the three proposed amendments. Amendment 1 stems from a drafting oversight and makes language within the bill consistent. More substantial, Amendment 2 changes one of the qualifying years for the Area H fishery from 1995 to 1994, as that area was closed in 1995. On the basis of fairness, it also allows inclusion of someone who consistently participated in that fishery but with different vessels. Amendment 3 resulted from the fact that the statewide scallop fishery is due to open July 1. Without the amendment, someone could fish July 1 and possibly qualify under HB 141. Therefore, the date will be June 30. Number 0560 EARL KRYGIER, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager, Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), came forward to testify. He coordinates many interactions between the state and federal governments because many Alaska resources are either on the three-mile boundary or cross back and forth. He noted that with him from the division was Ken Griffin, coordinator for crab and scallop. Those resources are under fishery management plans in the federal zone. MR. KRYGIER said through 1995, the fishery was managed wholly by the state. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the state can extend its authority to manage vessels registered under state law into federal waters. Until 1995, that was never challenged. However, in 1995, the F/V Mr. Big, a large offshore catcher-processor, did not register with the state and fished with no seasons or size limits. That obviously created a problem. MR. KRYGIER advised that worldwide, scallops are susceptible to overfishing. Many overfished resources have been depressed for 10 or 20 years and may never return. Compared with that of other areas of the United States, the resource off Alaska is small. For example, on the East Coast, 30 million pounds of shucked meats are taken annually. Off Alaska over the last five years, the harvest has been 700,000 to 1.8 million pounds. The ADF&G has set an upper limit for extraction of the statewide resource at 1.8 million pounds. MR. KRYGIER said because of increased fishing beginning in 1990, the state developed a management plan. They conducted research and set guideline goals, such as making sure habitat and bycatch were not impacting other important species. MR. KRYGIER explained that scallops do not move around once they settle. Therefore, the state manages the fishery by small regions, which are either a bed or a series of beds. In some areas, reasonable harvest rates are determined by surveys. In others, the annual limit is based on a long-term, mid-level catch range. Number 0747 MR. KRYGIER said the state requires offshore vessels to carry certified observers; it costs $6,000 to $7,000 per month for an observer. The state is trying to become a better manager by gathering information about the resource. MR. KRYGIER said presently, the offshore fisheries are harvested by fairly large catcher-processor vessels, ranging from 80 to 114 feet in length, which carry up to 12 crew members. In scallop fisheries, efficiency is basically restricted by the number of crew members, who hand-shuck the meat. MR. KRYGIER reported that in Cook Inlet, the harvestable resource is only 20,000 to 28,000 pounds. A number of years ago, the Board of Fisheries recognized a special fishery there. It limited dredge size to six feet and set up crab bycatch levels to keep fishermen out of important crab areas such as Kamishak Bay. In addition, the ADF&G sometimes sends out a department employee as a short-term observer; the fishermen do not pay for that. He noted that in the offshore fishery, two 15-foot-wide dredges are used simultaneously. It is more industrial than the small-boat fishery inshore, which has vessels up to 70 feet long. Number 0869 MR. KRYGIER said after the Mr. Big came in and tried to fish uncontrolled in federal waters, the state asked the NPFMC to close the waters, which they did for 18 months. During that time, the state tried to put together a joint management regime to help manage this fishery. MR. KRYGIER advised that federal managers are not really interested in managing that fishery because the state has done so for a long time. Currently, they mirror closures by the state. He stated, "They'd like to get to the point where they actually delegate the authority back to the state to manage, and there would be the two management plans. They have put in place a moratorium in federal waters. And since ... many of the beds are trans-boundary beds, they're right on the three-mile line, and we don't have exact measurements of the numbers of animals in those beds, it's impossible for us to say that so much could be take on one side, inside the three-mile zone, and so much in the federal zone. Fishermen have fished those beds, back and forth across the line, so ... either you're an outside fisherman or you're a Cook Inlet fisherman." Number 0927 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated his understanding that during harvesting, a big scoop was pulled, picking up everything. MR. KRYGIER said it is a dredge, a metal bag that has a bar on the front. It digs into the surface a little bit. In places like Yakutat, where there are observers on board vessels, there is almost no bycatch of any other species. In other areas, there is some bycatch. "But we have the observers on board, and we'll actually shut down a fishery if they're starting to cause some interaction problems," he explained. Number 0972 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN compared dredging with mowing a lawn. He asked what happens to the scallop bed. MR. KRYGIER replied that on similar beds on the East Coast, harvest had occurred for numerous years. The dredge kind of bounces along the bottom, without digging in all the way. It has rings large enough to allow most smaller scallops to pass through. Since 1968, a number of beds have been harvested in a sustainable manner. The ADF&G is not concerned about impacts on the beds themselves, as long as enough spawning biomass remains to ensure replacement. Number 1056 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this plan covers both state and federal waters. MR. KRYGIER replied this is presently for state waters. However, it is similar to that put together for federal waters. It is a little more restrictive, but it basically mirrors the major portions of the fishery that ADF&G is concerned about. Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether, once harvested, a bed could be harvested again, and after how long. MR. KRYGIER indicated there could be an annual harvest of a portion of the beds. For example, at Kayak Island there had been a sustainable annual harvest of 50,000 pounds from one bed. After the Mr. Big came in, that fishery was shut down for a year, after which the bed was surveyed. This year, only 20,000 pounds was allowed. The ADF&G hopes within a few years it will return to a sustainable harvest level of about 50,000 pounds. Number 1163 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why there is such a significant difference in harvest levels between the East Coast and Alaska. MR. KRYGIER explained that the East Coast has a large area of highly productive beds, probably related to the Gulf Stream. The scallops are broadcast spawners, similar to oysters. Beds remain in one place, and the males and females broadcast spawn into the water. Many settle in the same bed or at the edges. However, if currents are strong, they settle in new areas. In Alaska, the area productive for scallops is smaller than elsewhere. In addition, a few areas have been permanently closed to scalloping to protect bycatch of crab, for example. Number 1266 MARK KANDIANIS, Owner, F/V Provider, came forward to testify. An Alaska scallop fisherman since 1980, he had been through two boom- and-bust cycles of the fishery, in addition to the current slower bust cycle. In 1992, there was an influx of boats, new arrivals from the East Coast, including the Mr. Big. The Mr. Big attracted attention from the East Coast, which had mismanaged its fisheries. In Alaska, there had been little regulation. Suddenly, vessels were coming to Alaska, going through the Panama Canal two at a time, resulting in a "feeding-frenzy type of fishery." Number 1364 MR. KANDIANIS indicated they approached the NPFMC in 1992 for a federal moratorium; however, it took three or four years to get it in place. The scallop fishermen suffered. The fleet more than doubled in size, beyond the break-even capacity. The Mr. Big then got its permit back from the state, "by some mistake, I guess," and went out to fish alone in federal waters, with no observers, and fished in areas where the guideline harvest quotas had been taken. As a result, the NPFMC closed the fishery for 18 months. Mr. Kandianis lost a half million dollars net, and the captain of his boat lost his home and family. MR. KANDIANIS said this legislation is important. Although perhaps too liberal, it is, he has been told, probably the best deal he will get for now. He believes the fishery can support three or four boats, less in some years. However, the limits the state has come up with are almost double that. Mr. Kandianis suggested the scallopers would "fight it out on the grounds" to find out who would survive economically. He urged passage of HB 141. Number 1513 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 0- LS0112\R.1, Utermohle, 3/4/97, which read: Page 5, line 1: Delete "Alaska" Insert "the state and the adjacent United States exclusive economic zone" CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1531 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, 0- LS0112\R.4, Utermohle, 3/27/97, which read: Page 3, line 24: Following "registration area": Insert "(1)" Delete "1995" Insert "1994" Following "1996": Insert "; and (2) during each of at least three calendar years between 1984 and 1996, inclusive" Page 3, following line 24: Insert a new subsection to read: "(f) Notwithstanding (d) and (e) of this section, a vessel owner who does not own a commercial fishing vessel that qualifies for a vessel permit for a scallop fishery registration area may receive a vessel permit for that registration area if the vessel owner owned and fished two or more commercial fishing vessels whose combined participation in the scallop fishery for that registration area would satisfy the requirements for a vessel permit for that registration area under this section. The commission shall issue a vessel permit under this subsection to the last commercial fishing vessel that the vessel owner owned to satisfy the requirements for the vessel permit for the registration area if the vessel owner still owned that commercial fishing vessel on July 1, 1997. Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Page 3, line 28: Delete "(d) - (f)" Insert "(d) - (g)" Number 1539 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion. MS. DAUGHERTY explained that the first part is necessary because the Area H fishery was closed in 1995. Next, it places a requirement of three calendar years. The bulk deals with situations where a person did not consistently fish the same vessel during the qualifying years. This is a vessel moratorium; the amendment makes a slight adjustment in talking about vessel owners instead of just vessels. Number 1715 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was further objection. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1722 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read: page 3, line 14: change "July 1" to "June 30" MS. DAUGHERTY explained because the statewide fishery opens July 1, someone could qualify by fishing one day in 1997. This stays with the intent that everyone who qualifies has already fished this year. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 1801 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the "United States exclusive economic zone" is. MS. DAUGHERTY replied it is from three to 200 miles. Number 1810 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to page 2, line 20, which says it is the intent of the legislature that the Board of Fisheries maintain 100 percent observer coverage for all vessels engaged in the Alaska weathervane scallop fishery. Referring to the zero fiscal note, he asked how this will be paid for. MS. DAUGHERTY explained that is for "statewide," the outside fishery, and the vessels pay for it. Number 1883 BRUCE SIEMINSKI testified via teleconference from Seward in opposition to HB 141. He came in Alaska in 1968 to fish scallops and has been here since. He noted there is no provision for the original fishermen who are still trying to get money together to buy a vessel. Although he believes the fishery should be managed to a certain extent, he opposes the permit system giving the right to only a few people. MR. SIEMINSKI reported that there had been observers aboard the vessels all the time he fished from 1970 to 1975. He said for every crab a scalloper killed, a crabber probably killed 100,000; he saw no danger from scallopers in that regard. Number 1978 MR. SIEMINSKI referred to Area H and suggested the state look at more of the three-mile limit for the whole state. There are other places where scallops can be fished year-round and into the three- mile limit, such as off Yakutat, the Fairweather Grounds, Sitka and elsewhere. He suggested that be allowed. MR. SIEMINSKI restated his opposition to this permit system. He cited the example of permitting at Bristol Bay 20 years ago. Those families have children who are now grown, and there is now one permit for five or six families, or one boat carrying six or seven people. He concluded by asking what would be done for people who had been here a long time but were waiting to get back into the fishery. Number 2099 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN reminded Mr. Sieminski he could submit written testimony as well. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 3:00 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 3:01 p.m. Number 2129 MAX HULSE, Owner, F/V La Brisa, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. A scallop fisherman who owns a boat with his son, he referred to a fax he had sent concerning their history of scallop fishing. They had written the proposal to open the scallop fishery in Cook Inlet. They fished scallops from 1982 until 1988, and in 1994 and 1996, during which time they owned and fished three different vessels. He thanked those responsible for Amendment 2, adopted that day, which allows them to fish in Cook Inlet. MR. HULSE said they will qualify in the moratorium in federal waters to fish both Cook Inlet and the outer fishery in Alaska. However, he believes they have enough equity in the Alaska scallop fishery that they should also qualify in statewide waters. He further believes minor changes in HB 141 could allow that without affecting the overall intent of the bill. Number 2304 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Amy Daugherty was nodding her head, indicating she expects Mr. Hulse to be in touch with her. He encouraged anyone else to do likewise. Number 2330 WILLIAM KOPPLIN testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he has owned a small scallop boat in Homer for three or four years. He referred to a fax he had sent. He stated, "We have fished in state waters; we have fished in federal waters. And this bill would not allow us to fish in federal waters. And I just don't see that's fair, since we are Alaskan residents. It is an Alaska resource." He said he has proposed amendments that he will contact "the proper channels" about. MR. KOPPLIN had been told that in 1996, the scallop quota was approximately 1.5 million pounds. He said the ex-vessel price per pound for scallops is seven dollars, which comes to $10.5 million. TAPE 97-35, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. KOPPLIN asked where the analysis came from that says the fishery can only handle four boats. He said originally, the NPFMC was going to allow 11 vessels. "Even 11 boats divvying up $10.5 million seems like a pretty decent catch," he said. Number 0083 MR. KRYGIER responded that in 1996, there were 733,000 pounds harvested. At seven dollars a pound, the total value was $5.13 million, and the average per vessel was about $500,000 per vessel. He understood Mr. Kopplin to be mixing both Area H and the statewide fishery when talking about the two numbers. "There's about four vessels under the federal and state moratorium for the Cook Inlet area," he said. "And the total is eleven under one and seven under the other for the outside waters. So that's the difference." Number 0166 MR. KOPPLIN asked whether eleven vessels were allowed for the federal waters, with only four now being allowed under HB 141. MR. KRYGIER replied, "The number is actually five in Cook Inlet. We've added that extra one with that inclusion, and seven on the outside. So that's a total of twelve." Number 0223 MR. KOPPLIN referred to page 5, lines 4 through 12. He asked whether someone could send or fax him the applicable statutes. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that section was being removed from the statute. He suggested Amy Daugherty could discuss it with him. Number 0320 MR. KOPPLIN asked whether, if HB 141 is adopted, it will supersede the moratorium placed by the NPFMC or whether there would be two different moratoriums and sets of regulations. MR. KRYGIER explained, "Presently, the federal moratorium is still in the federal process. It hasn't been published. The council's already ready to go to the next step, and the next step would be a license program. And what they'll do is, is they'll adopt a license program which basically mimics what you do in the state moratorium, so that they'll both be consistent out the back door." Number 0411 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON made a motion to move the amended committee substitute with the attached fiscal note. He asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 141(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|