Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/22/1995 05:07 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 22, 1995
5:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Moses, Vice-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation by the Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN BURKE, Acting Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
Phone: 465-6187
POSITION STATEMENT: Initiated presentation
TOM DONEK, Access Coordinator
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4180
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided part of presentation
ROCKY HOLMES, Regional Supervisor Southeast Region
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 240020
Juneau, AK 99824
Phone: 465-4296
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided part of presentation
FRED ANDERSEN, Regional Supervisor
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Region
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1300 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 459-7207
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided part of presentation
KEVIN DELANEY, Southcentral Regional Supervisor
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99502
Phone: 267-2224
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided part of presentation
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m.
He noted for the record Representatives Davis, Elton and Ogan were
present and that a quorum was present.
Number 010
JOHN BURKE, Acting Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), introduced his staff and said,
"We have three goals in the Division and we try to measure all of
our activities against these goals. The first one is to conserve
populations of naturally spawning, naturally reproducing fish.
Second, we would like to maximize both the reasonable opportunity
to sport fish and the diversity of that sport fishing. The third
goal, we've given ourselves over time, is to optimize the social
and economic benefits of Alaska's recreational fisheries." He
added, "Our main task can be simplified as making certain
populations of sport fish are healthy, while at the same time
providing as much opportunity to fish for these fish as we can
provide."
MR. BURKE then compared the Division of Sport Fish's in-season
management of sport fish to that of commercial fishing, saying, "We
have to go in afterwards and find out if we have the appropriate
escapements and we have to actually analyze the amount of harvest
there was, as well as escapement, without doing in-season
management. Now there are numerous instances in today's crowded
and controversial fisheries, where we do in-season management.
These used to be the exception, they're growing more common all the
time. In order to analyze our fisheries after the season takes
place, to get the data required for us to know what happened in
that previous year, we have what's called the Statewide Harvest
Survey. This booklet I provided you is the most recent record from
this survey. As you'll note, it's from 1993, the data generally
lags the fishery by about 18 months."
Number 110
MR. BURKE said, "Why do we have the harvest survey? Frankly, it's
the best, inexpensive way we have to gather this data. Each year,
questionnaires are mailed out to a representative sample of about
ten percent of Alaskan sport license holders. When a person
receives that questionnaire, they're asked to fill it out for that
entire household," and added, "Nonrespondents are then issued a
second questionnaire, as well as a reminder letter, and if that is
not returned, we will issue then a third reminder and an additional
survey. Now sometimes this creates confusion because of the
overlap in mailing times. Sometimes people receive additional
surveys even though they have responded to the first one. Over 55
percent of the surveys are completed and returned." He then said
that carelessly filled out and obviously inaccurate surveys are
discarded and discussed the statistical validity of the harvest
survey.
MR. BURKE concluded, "The information from the survey is used by
us, after the year, to identify things that have happened that we
might not have expected in some instances. It's used to go back
and let us help us analyze effort throughout the state. Where did
the people fish? Where was most of the effort put (indiscernible)?
And it also enables us to analyze the catch, just how many fish
were caught and how many fish were killed?"
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if ADFG utilizes data from federal
agencies who have reporting requirements and data.
MR. BURKE replied that ADFG information is independent of other
sources and added, "Now if we had an area manager who was going to
analyze that fishery, he would take everything he had available to
use."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN pointed out that Kodiak charter boat operators
have found a 20 percent difference between ADFG numbers and those
of federal agencies in National Wildlife Refuge on Kodiak
Island.
MR. BURKE said, "If there were to be a controversy and this was a
high pressure fishery and we thought we had a conservation problem,
then all sources would be viewed as indicators and ADFG would
probably go in ourselves with a creel survey".
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked if the harvest data delineates the
harvest by sport resident and sport nonresident?
MR. BURKE said, "Yes."
Number 280
TOM DONEK, Access Coordinator, Division of Sport Fish, ADFG, said,
"The Access Program is aimed at improving access for recreational
boaters and sport anglers throughout the state. Our Access Program
is founded on the principle that the finest fishing in the state
would be of little value unless the anglers can get to it. Our
emphasis is on access for anglers using boats. But we do
accomplish other projects for non-boating anglers." He added, "We
look for opportunities every time we can to work with the local
community. The basis of our program is the Federal Aid and Sport
Fish Restoration Act which mandates that we use 12 and a half
percent of our federal funds for recreational boating access. Each
year we try to set aside a smaller percentage of our funds for
other types of access projects. Since 1985, when our program
started, we have used about 15 percent of the federal funds
available to us for access project. That translates into about $14
million in federal aid funds that we have brought into Alaska for
access."
Number 330
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked what was the state's match to those
federal funds?
MR. DONEK said, "It's the same as any of our projects. It's a
25/75 match. Three federal dollars and one state dollar."
The slide show viewing boat ramp sites was given.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked how access projects are given priority.
MR. DONEK described a ranking system and said, "And we depend, to
a large extent, on the information that comes back from our area
managers." He added, "We try to divide them up so everyone in the
state gets something. We don't direct all our effort to one area.
Right now, we're spending about 60 percent of our money in the
Southcentral Region, about 25 to 30 percent in Southeast and about
10 or 12 percent up in Fairbanks, north of the Alaska Range. That
roughly follows the angling effort in those areas."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if it was a long project list.
MR. DONEK said, "The last time I counted the list there was like
120 some projects on it."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if Mr. Donek participated in any habitat
restoration.
MR. DONEK indicated that those situations are land management
situations and ADFG manages the resource, not the land.
Number 455
ROCKY HOLMES, Regional Supervisor Southeast Region, Division of
Sport Fish, ADFG, testified while showing slides. He said, "In
Southeast, 80 percent of the sport fishing effort is in saltwater.
That's different than the rest of the state where 75 percent of the
sport fish effort is in freshwater, as opposed to saltwater." He
then spoke about the increasing number of recreational harvests of
fish and said, "The reason we see a significant increase in the
number of nonresidents in Southeast Alaska is that we've seen a lot
more tourists coming to this state, to the area recently. That's
created a large demand for short term charter fishing
opportunities." Most of the rest of his testimony is indiscernible
due to the slide projector fan blowing in the microphone.
MR. HOLMES said, "The most popular fishery is the saltwater king
salmon fishery and it accounts for approximately 36 percent of the
angling effort in the region. It's also the biggest management
headache in Southeast Alaska, operating the fishery under the quota
established through the U.S.-Canada (indiscernible). In 1992, the
Alaska Board of Fisheries allocated 17 percent of the salmon quota
to the sport fishery (indiscernible). He then talked about the
$500,000 annual expense of the creel survey saying, "That works out
to about $12.50 for every king salmon harvested in the sport
fishery. But to put that in perspective, that represents about two
percent of the economic value of that king salmon fishery, which in
1988 was $23 million dollars."
MR.HOLMES then said, "For the upcoming season there's a very good
change that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may effect both the
sport and commercial fishery. Fortunately, in both of those
fisheries, we catch a small number of Snake River fall spawning
chinook salmon," and added, "Unfortunately, we may not know what
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) restrictions are going
to be until after the sport fish season starts." He then talked
about the decline in steelhead escapement, particularly in the
Situk River.
Number 584
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked for the reasons behind the decline in
steelhead runs, particularly seen in 1991.
MR. HOLMES said, "We know it wasn't sport caught fish because the
steelhead harvest in the sport fishery and really in the commercial
fishery too, in Alaska, is pretty minimal. Most sport fishermen
practice catch and release for steelhead and about 90 percent of
them are caught and released."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the king salmon fishery in Southeast
uses the creel survey or the State Harvest Survey sampling.
MR. HOLMES indicated both.
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked, "How do you regulate the sport fishery
cap?"
MR. HOLMES said, "When we get close to our cap we, usually drop the
bag limit. We've done other things: One year we banned down
riggers because we got way to close to our cap with too much of the
fishery left and we had to do something significant."
Number 618
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked how sport fishers would be notified
if and when NMFS cuts the king salmon quota substantially.
MR. HOLMES said, "We do have plans but we want to wait until we
have a little bit better idea of what the potential magnitude of
what they're going to cause to happen."
Number 638
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if ADFG knows enough to monitor the
migration of the ESA salmon.
MR. HOLMES said, "We've looked at that but we're not the ones that
get to make the decision on how the cuts to the fishery will occur.
That's a suggestion that we would make to NMFS, to say that we
could probably have a much higher quota as long as we didn't fish
in these areas, or at certain times, but that's not necessarily
something that they're going to listen to and what we've heard is
that they're much more likely to tell all fisheries of Southeast
Alaska just to reduce their catch a certain amount."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "Can you tell when those fish are in the
area? Or when they'll be in the area?"
MR. HOLMES said, "Yes we can, based on coded wire tag sampling."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "Is there a potential harvest plan you
could put together based upon the cycle?"
MR. HOLMES said yes and, "Our people that are dealing with NMFS and
US-Canada (Treaty negotiations) are aware of those things but, like
I said, they're not necessarily listened to."
Number 661
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said he had heard that sport allocation
could be reduced to 17 to 20 thousand fish this year, compared to
the 40,000 fish last year. He said, "Would you like to speculate
the kind of management problems you might have if we increase
outside marketing to nonresident sport fishermen, what that means
to my next door neighbor who's a sport fisherman? What the impact
on the Alaskan resident sport fisherman might be."
MR. HOLMES said, "The worst case scenario is: The king salmon
resource in Southeast Alaska is already fully allocated and every
non-resident that comes up here to fish has the potential of taking
some of those king salmon away from residents," and then added,
"The sport fishery has the capacity to harvest 70,000 fish, but
that of course is a Board of Fisheries decision."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked how fast ADFG can respond when they use
Creel Survey information and they are close to a cap.
MR. HOLMES described the sport harvest evaluation process and
indicated reevaluation happens every two weeks.
Number 710
FRED ANDERSEN, Regional Supervisor, Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Region,
Division of Sport Fish, ADFG, began his testimony using overheads
and describing his region.
TAPE 95-10, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. ANDERSEN said, "Our Stocking Program, exclusively in the Tanana
River drainage, we stock four species of fish. As the program was
originally intended, it was a means of diversifying the numbers of
species that were available to recreational anglers in that part of
the state but in recent years we've come to view it more as a
conservation tool in that we use stock fish as a means of drawing
fishing pressure away from native species which, for the most part,
can take relatively only light to moderate levels of harvest before
going into decline. Northern Pike and Arctic Grayling for example.
Studies have shown we can support something in the order of 15 to
20 percent removal on an annual basis before they start to decline.
Unlike recreational fisheries here in Southeast and Southcentral
Alaska, nonresidents constitute only about 20 percent of the
anglers in our area." He then described some of the smaller
conservation problems in Interior Alaska. He said, "For the most
part we don't have a lot of conflicts between sport anglers and the
subsistence fisheries and the commercial fisheries."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about the False Pass fishery.
MR. ANDERSON said, "The False Pass fishery intercepts salmon bound
for western Alaska, for the Yukon, Kuskokwim and Norton Sound and
Kotzebue fish. For the most part, chums are not sought by
recreational anglers, therefore, (indiscernible) we're not directly
involved in that."
Number 225
KEVIN DELANEY, Southcentral Regional Supervisor, Division of Sport
Fish, ADFG, testified describing his region and said, "The region
I manage supports approximately 73 percent, in 1993, of the total
statewide sport fishing effort in the state." He then described
the growth in angler days in Southcentral from 750,000 to 800,000
angler days from 1977, to the recent estimate of 1.5 to 1.8 million
angler days, the present estimate. Regarding Cook Inlet, he said,
"The Cook Inlet area of the Southcentral Region supports 78 percent
of the effort that takes place in Southcentral." He then
proportioned each subsection of this region out.
MR. DELANEY said, "In Southcentral Alaska, we too have done some
analyses of the economic value of sport fishing. We have a couple
of different studies. The most comprehensive was completed in 1986
by consultants Jones and Stokes. I've taken the liberty to adjust
those figures for the changes in the effort that we've seen since
that time and made a very conservative change in the costs for
direct expenditures, per day, based on inflation. Really what
we're looking at now, the Cook Inlet fisheries generate
approximately $200 million a year in direct expenditures from sport
fishermen. These aren't direct expenditures, this isn't amortizing
out the boat that you may buy or the motor home. These
expenditures come from basically the time you leave your home until
the time you rearrive back there and it includes both resident and
nonresident."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if airfares from faraway locations were
included in those calculations.
MR. DELANEY said yes and, "What we're seeing here is a somewhat of
a leveling off. I think that's indicative of the crowding and
competition that exists in a lot of fairly accessible fisheries.
What I see occurring in Cook Inlet is continued growth, more likely
than not, at the rate that we watched occur during the late 1980s."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the growth would be in the outlying
areas?
MR. DELANEY said, "A lot of it has to do with how we approach the
management in Cook Inlet. It's very much like sticking your hand
in a bowl of jelly in that reason, if you push effort, you restrict
effort in one area, you can expect to lose some of it and expect
some of it to flow over," and gave an example. He listed the many
fisheries he is involved in and said, "Some of them obviously have
been the center of a lot of attention here in recent years,
particularly in recent months, the chinook salmon in the Susitna
River Drainage, streams like the Deshka River, Lake Creek,
Alexander (Creek), the Talkeetna River drainage. Also in the
Susitna the very popular coho salmon fishery. Very small sockeye
fishery, that's not a real popular species up in there. Rainbow
Trout, Dolly Vardens support a lot of effort and, in recent years,
we've seen a lot of interest in Northern Pike. And that's
interesting because Northern Pike weren't native to the system.
They were introduced illegally in the early 1950s. Spread real
gradually through the system over time and then in 1986, we had a
hundred year flooding event, a huge flooding event and after that
we found Pike everywhere.
MR. DELANEY continued, "Literally 120,000 angler days supported
right in downtown Anchorage last year, we put 42,000 angler days on
Ship Creek alone. That's all on stocked king and coho salmon.
Very popular local fisheries. We try to satisfy a lot of the
consumptive demands fairly close to the population bases. We don't
use our hatchery products in the far flung and wild remote places.
We do stock king salmon in Kodiak, that's about the farthest away
we go."
MR. DELANEY added, "Then we have the Kenai River which we basically
are obligated to run like a checkbook. A sonar unit that counts
fish in and we've got a daily estimate of harvest and effort
subtract fish out. The most intensively managed sport fishery in
the state of Alaska."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked, "Are you also on that one year to 18
months behind the cycle curve on your assessments?"
MR. DELANEY said yes and, "It's one of the reasons we got in
trouble on king salmon up in the Susitna. We're going to have to
go back there now and do a better job of estimating harvest in
season." He proceeded, "Bristol Bay area, world famous trout
fisheries, excellent fisheries for salmon. A lot of lodge
businesses out there. Overall, in the region about 60 percent of
the effort is from residents but it varies a lot from area to area.
Cook Inlet drives the total so it's 60, 65 percent resident.
Bristol Bay, on the other hand, is about 80 percent nonresident.
A lot of guiding and a lot of outfitting, largely nonresident." He
then brought forth Kodiak sport fishing issues.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said, "Some user groups believe that more
fish in the river equates to more habitat degradation, what's the
position of (the Division of) Sport Fish on this issue?"
MR. DELANEY replied, "We've got about 100 fisheries in Southcentral
in our management, and the character of each one of those is
different. And so for each one of those, I'd have a slightly
different answer. In general, if we are not sensitive to the
damage we can do by trampling banks and running boats and building
cabins, more is worse. In general, I think that's a very accurate
statement. But where we can educate people, where we can go in
with our access program and harden up sites, where we can change
the character, rather than just to let more . I think you can do
an awful lot and there still will be signs. You can't put 100,000
anglers and not have some sign that they were there but whether
that sign that they were there equates to a lack of fish production
is something you need to look at on a case by case basis. I'll
give you an example, on the Kenai River, there's absolutely no
question that when you trample the banks above the Soldotna or even
above intertidal, that you're going to be doing something to the
rearing habitat for chinook salmon." He then spoke of intertidal
area in the Little Susitna River which is less vulnerable in salmon
rearing.
Number 645
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pursued, "Well obviously, you mentioned that
there's been a lot of controversy with the decline of the king
salmon, especially in the Susitna Area. I've said all along that
it's a multifaceted problem. It's a common issue. Probably too
much sport pressure in some areas, a lack of enforcement and people
from my district have, I think all districts have, a tendency to
look down the inlet. The unfortunate part of that, being on the
very end of where the fish spawn through and then with the inlet
being such as it is, it's a long narrow thing. There's going to be
interceptions of different fish stocks. The people of my area,
especially that whole Susitna drainage, are looking for answers to
what we're going to be doing a year from now, five years from now.
What's being done with all the user groups? Is everyone being
treated fairly here or do you think sport fish people are bearing
most of the burden? Do you think sport fish people are most of the
problem?"
MR. DELANEY replied, "You've asked things that are definitely my
responsibility and you've asked things that are definitely not my
responsibility to answer. They're my responsibility to make people
aware of the issues and information. Fairness is one of those. I
can't do fairness. I can carry out the plan, but I can't make the
plan, I can help make the plan but we simply don't do fairness.
And fairness is really a big part of the whole allocation debate.
You're right though, it's really a multifaceted problem with king
salmon in Northern Cook Inlet and you hit on both. We've got a
major system there. A system that historically produces about a
third of the total return, 25 to 30 percent of the total return,
the Deshka. For some reason we've experienced a drop in production
there. It's a fairly substantial drop in production. We haven't
seen that same drop in production. At least through 1993, in the
other streams of the system. Talkeetna River drainage, up the
Yentna, those east side streams through the Susitna, they're doing
fine. The last year we could get our arms around all fish, 1993,
we're doing fine. But we let the fishery get too powerful there
for the number of fish that we have coming back, on average. Now
it isn't way too powerful, basically, it was kind of like: With the
Statewide Harvest Survey and the kind of assessment work we've done
it's like flying a big heavy airplane and your altimeter light,
you've got like an indicator that says 'Opps, you just passed the
altitude you wanted to stay at'. Well, a big heavy airplane, you
get through that altitude, if you know it right when you hit it,
you got a while to go before you're going to get her corrected and
get back down to the level you want. That's kind of what we've got
to do. But within that general approach, you've got a conservation
concern in the Deshka that frankly we're at a loss to explain right
now. You've got the flood event in 1986, and you ask yourself a
lot of good questions. If they're getting hit somewhere else, how
come Deshka fish seem to be getting hit disproportionate to others.
I don't know the answers to some of these questions. Our
Assessment Program, that will be beginning this year, is going to
be geared to sort that out, we're going to be coded wire tagging
the Deshka fish. We got a weir in the Deshka so we can do a more
accurate rebuilding of total return there." He added, "We know we
let the fishery get too big around Lake Creek and up in the
Talkeetna River Drainage, but we don't know what's going on in the
Deshka."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there is a creel count done on the
Deshka.
MR. DELANEY gave some history and said, "We did creel surveys in
79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and then as we really started to get our feet on
the ground, we started to back away from those intensive surveys
and go more with the statewide harvest survey. Because our
estimates had been very comparable and the only difference was
there's an 18 month lag time. But we were seeing all the way
through the 70s and early '80 was a very predictable annual rate of
growth. You just about had a straight line. It was going up 3 or
4,000 fish a year. We felt really comfortable and then, in the
early '90s, we had some streams we felt weren't producing quite so
well on the west side of Cook Inlet, but they were minor.
Basically, we made minor changes in the fishery. When we got the
statewide Harvest Survey back, we found that we just entered a new
era rather than a very predictable rate of growth."
TAPE 95-11, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. DELANEY continued, "We didn't see huge increases in the number
of people from the late '80s. It was a huge fishery in the late
'80s already, but what really happened, at least in my mind is, we
saw a real jump in efficiency." He gave examples of efficiencies
and said, "Next year we're back in the water with creel surveys and
a weir in the Deshka. We'll have to be more careful. It wasn't
that we weren't careful we just really believed from long time
series of data that we could project and we were wrong."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I guess I would have expected that the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill would have depressed nonresident fisheries."
MR. DELANEY said, "In fact we saw an increase in Prince William
Sound and you could speculate that it increased there while it
decreased in the region as a whole."
Number 068
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the flood could have effected the
Deshka River king salmon decline.
MR. DELANEY said, "The king salmon in the Susitna River Drainage
are primarily a five year old fish. The 8 to 12 pounders are four.
The 30 pounders are six. So we really looked for that, beginning
in 1990, 1991 and 1992, and, in fact we didn't see a direct effect
there. There's some thought that the harm that was done more to
the actual habitat then to the fish that were present at the time
of the flood."
Number 100
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if the Northern Pike could have an effect
as a predator?
MS. DELANEY said, "We have an assessment program in the water right
now, we've radio tagged pike throughout the Susitna Drainage and
we're doing a food habit study on those pike. We're finding for
the most part, that they're inhabiting areas that aren't heavily
utilized by rearing salmon and that they're eating insects, which
is not their preferred food. However, they are (also) finding them
with salmon and whitefish and trout and other species. In the
river systems it's different than in the lakes. In the lakes they
will take over."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked, "Is there any kind of study that shows
pre-'86 on some of the rivers systems that had pike in them
compared to the salmon in those river systems?"
MR. DELANEY said, "We're tying that together. What we've done
there is we've tracked as best we could. We've got say a visual
that shows pike distribution of 1950s, pike distribution of the
'60s, pike distribution of the '70s. Then you've got to go into 2
and 3 years increments because people are telling us they're here,
they're there and so you can watch how it expands and you can take
a look at salmon production over that same time."
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that the Nushigak River has pike
and a healthy king run.
MR. DELANEY agreed and said those pike are indigenous.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked his guests and adjourned the meeting at
6:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|