Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/19/2004 09:05 AM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 19, 2004
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES)
"An Act relating to moratoria on entry of new participants or
vessels into a commercial fishery; relating to vessel permits
for, and the establishment of a moratorium on entry of new
vessels into, state Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 347
SHORT TITLE: COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STEVENS B BY REQUEST
02/16/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (S) RES
03/03/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/03/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/03/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/05/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee
03/05/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/04 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/08/04 (S) NR: OGAN, LINCOLN; DP: WAGONER,
03/08/04 (S) STEVENS B, ELTON
03/08/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/04 (S) Moved CSSB 347(RES) Out of Committee
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 3DP 4NR
03/10/04 (S) DP: WILKEN, BUNDE, STEVENS B;
03/10/04 (S) NR: GREEN, HOFFMAN, OLSON, DYSON
03/22/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/22/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 347(RES)
03/24/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/04 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/29/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/29/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/05/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/05/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/14/04 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
04/14/04 (H) Heard & Held <PUBLIC TESTIMONY>
04/14/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/19/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
HERMAN M. SAVIKKO, Fishery Biologist III
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 347.
KEVIN C. DUFFY, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 347.
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff
to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 347 on behalf of the sponsor
by request, Senator Ben Stevens, chair of the Joint Legislative
Salmon Industry Task Force.
ED DERSHAM, Chair
Board of Fisheries
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 347.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of SB 347.
ALAN PARKS, Commercial Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, expressed a
preference for an individual-based moratorium.
GERRY MERRIGAN, Prowler Fisheries
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, as a member of
the Board of Fisheries' GAO groundfish rationalization
committee, testified in support of moving ahead with a bill that
includes vessel-based moratorium criteria, and in support of
giving the CFEC general moratorium authority.
JOE CHILDERS, Director
Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 347.
JULIE BONNEY
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, expressed
support for Version X.
JASON M. KOONTZ, Commercial Fisherman
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, testified in
support of an individual-permit-based fishery, and in opposition
to a vessel-based program.
ALEXUS KWACHKA
Gulf Groundfish Fishermen's Association;
Crewmember's Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, testified in
support of an individual-based moratorium, and in opposition to
a vessel-based moratorium.
JULIE KAVANAUGH, Owner/Operator
F/V Silvia Star
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, expressed a
preference for an individual-based moratorium or a combination
of an individual-based and vessel-based moratorium.
JEFFREY R. STEPHAN
United Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc. (UFMA)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 347, said the UFMA
supports a vessel-based moratorium but has no objection to
including an individual-based moratorium in the bill as well.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Heinze, Ogg, and Gara were present at the call to order.
Representatives Samuels and Guttenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
SB 347 - COMM. FISHING MORATORIA, INCL. AK GULF
Number 0045
CHAIR SEATON announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 347(RES), "An Act relating to moratoria
on entry of new participants or vessels into a commercial
fishery; relating to vessel permits for, and the establishment
of a moratorium on entry of new vessels into, state Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fisheries; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was a proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for SB 347, version 23-LS1677\W, Utermohle,
4/13/04, which was adopted as a work draft on 4/14/04.]
CHAIR SEATON noted that members' packets also include [other
proposed House committee substitutes for SB 347, Version 23-
LS1677\U, Utermohle, 4/2/04, and Version 23-LS1677\X, Utermohle,
4/16/04]; "the rational that were used for the hair crab
fishery"; a proposed amendment changing the time frame in
Section 4 to one year; some intent language from Representative
Ogg; and "a letter to consider for the Board of [Fisheries]
relating to the jig fisheries."
Number 0161
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for SB 347, Version 23-LS1677\U, Utermohle,
4/2/04 as the work draft.
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
CHAIR SEATON remarked that the committee has three versions of
the bill to consider: "The first version is a vessel-based
version; the second version is [Version X] which is a
combination of vessel and permits, establishes a new vessel
permit and moratorium on that vessel permit; and the third
version, [Version U], is a moratorium bill utilizing the current
limited entry interim-use permits [IUPs]." He then referred to
a handout outlining the fisheries in each area that do not close
due to not having been fully utilized.
Number 0296
HERMAN M. SAVIKKO, Fishery Biologist III, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), indicated that the ADF&G biologists in the
Central and Westward regions provided the aforementioned
information. He went on to note that the state manages black
and blue rockfish, pollock, and - in the Central region -
lingcod. In recent years, these fisheries in the Central region
have typically attained their guideline harvest levels (GHLs).
In the Westward region, though, the ADF&G does not specify GHLs;
instead it looks at traditional average catches and manages
toward that long-term average, and this determines whether a
fishery is healthy. He also mentioned that for the "parallel
fisheries," those that begin in January - cod, pollock, shallow-
water flatfish, and [demersal shelf] rockfish, for example - the
ADF&G has concurrent management with the federal government;
these fisheries, in recent years, have either attained their
specified total allowable catches (TACs) or were constrained by
halibut bycatch. He remarked that skates and sharks were, up
until the 2003, considered one fishery.
MR. SAVIKKO, in response to a question, said that there has been
very little interest shown in the Pacific cod fishery in Prince
William Sound, and surmised that this could be due to the
difficulty of harvesting that kind of fish in that area and/or
market considerations. All other fisheries in that area, except
for lingcod, had either reached their GHLs or were constrained
as bycatch only. In response to further questions, he said that
the lingcod, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries are the only
ones that are separately managed in the Prince William Sound
area by ADF&G biologists, and that pollock reached its GHL but
Pacific cod and lingcod did not.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked for clarification.
MR. SAVIKKO relayed that in a specific fishery - "and, again,
I'm talking from zero to three miles, of direct state management
during a state season" - biologists would have established some
target allowance for poundage that they felt the resource could
handle. Meanwhile, the fishermen would register their vessels,
come in and fish, and the fishery would be assessed through
sampling programs or observer coverage. Then, when fishermen
attained that target allowance, the fishery would be shut down.
He noted that when a fishery goes to a bycatch status, it means
that a sufficient number of that type of fish has been obtained,
and so only a certain percentage of that type of fish can be
part of the total catch of a vessel with another fishery as its
target.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked why information regarding fisheries
would be treated as confidential.
MR. SAVIKKO said that any time there are fewer than four
participants in an area, it is the ADF&G's policy to protect
those participants' data; to that end, identifiers are removed
and the data is summarized.
CHAIR SEATON mentioned that the legislature, before limiting
entry in to certain fisheries, is attempting to get a handle on
which fisheries are not fully utilized.
Number 1047
KEVIN C. DUFFY, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G), mentioned that he is also the state representative on
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council [NPFMC], six
members of which are Alaskans. He stated that he is very
interested in protecting and promoting the state's interest in
all Alaska's fisheries and federal fisheries. He added:
We want to provide sustainable resources and viable
fisheries to support our fisherman in our coastal
communities, and we want to develop fisheries systems
that do that - specifically, ... [increasing]
efficiencies resulting in economic benefits and
stability, improving safety, improving stock
conservation, reducing bycatch where necessary and
controlling incidental catches, reducing gear
conflicts, and ... providing entry-level access to our
fisheries off Alaska's shores.
[The] moratorium concept is intended to address what I
consider to be some potential long-term threats to
state-water groundfish fisheries. ... As Mr. Savikko
... just testified about a number of groundfish
fisheries in the [Gulf of Alaska (GOA)], we are either
reaching our TACs or our [GHLs]; that's because the
harvesters, through time, become more efficient,
especially in the [Pacific] cod fisheries .... There
are impacts resulting from the federal rationalization
process that we're going through, in [GOA] groundfish
[fisheries] and, ... depending on how we do it in the
federal fisheries, this can free up effort in the
"zero to three miles," which [are] the state-waters
fisheries.
Number 1242
COMMISSIONER DUFFY continued:
There're also other [NPFMC] actions going on that are
crossover issues in state and federal fisheries; ...
some of these, what we consider constraints or threats
to the state-waters, are real but they're oftentimes
difficult to quantify. And I know that your committee
has spent a lot of time, within the confines of the
draft moratorium piece of legislation, trying to
address some of these issues, and hopefully the
[ADF&G] has been very responsive to your data needs,
and we will commit to [continuing] to provide that
information.
[Senate Bill] 347, [the version] limiting vessels only
while leaving (indisc.) individuals free to come and
go during a moratorium is still our preferred choice;
we think it most effectively limits the potential for
growth, but in the interest of compromise and to
address those that are concerned about particular
viewpoints, we are willing to look at other options
and are looking at a vessel-based as well as an
individual-based [method].
[With regard to] the moratorium concept itself, it's
important to remember that the Board of Fisheries ...
[and] a number of members of the public ...
established a formal "Gulf Rationalization Committee"
to advise the Board of Fisheries; this is made up of
constituents [with] varied interests across the [GOA].
I think they had a series of approximately four
meetings, in working with the Board of [Fisheries], to
talk about - timing-wise, as we rationalize federal
fisheries - what options do we have in the state-
waters fisheries to try and make those two
rationalized schemes work together as effectively as
possible.
[I] think the committee did a lot of good work, and
they came to a conclusion that a moratorium was a good
concept to have in place in terms of moving forward in
the federal process as well as [in] the state-waters
process. The concept they came up with was to leave
the jig fisheries exempted as part of the moratorium
in order to provide entry-level opportunity. While we
recognize this puts them at some risk of increased
effort, we also believe the jig fishery represents
some long-term opportunities for ... Alaska.
Number 1430
COMMISSIONER DUFFY went on to say:
The [NPFMC] itself ... has constructed a range of
alternatives for the federal fisheries, looking at
rationalizing the groundfish fisheries; our timeframe
at this point, in terms of reaching [an NPFMC]
preferred alternative for the federal rationalization
program in the [GOA], is currently slated for December
of '04. We will probably have ... a detailed analysis
of the options available this summer, and the [NPFMC]
will then address these issues and see if there are
any other [modifications] to the range of alternatives
... at the October [NPFMC] meeting. So the point
being that the federal ... [NPFMC] process is moving
forward on rationalization.
Once the [NPFMC] decides, in December of '04, it would
probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of a year
and a half - ballpark- to develop the regulatory
structure under the federal system that would then
implement whatever system we establish in the federal
system. In the federal rationalization program we're
looking at a range of alternatives from status quo to
[an Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ)] type fishery to a
straight co-op fishery, and then there's modifications
in between there. What we are not looking at,
specifically in the [GOA], is something we did do in
[the] Bering Sea crab rationalization for a whole set
of other reasons, and that is specifically processors
shares in the [GOA] - that is not on the table as an
option under [GOA] rationalization.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY concluded:
On behalf of [the ADF&G] and the Board of Fisheries,
[which has] put a lot of work into this issue, I'd
like to thank you for your hard work and diligence;
this is important to Alaska and our coastal
communities, and we recognize that and we want to be
helpful in this process. Having said that, I would
encourage the committee to decide on a version of the
legislation that you all think is appropriate at this
point, and to allow the deliberative process to move
forward on this [GOA] rationalization and [GOA]
moratorium you're considering. ... I would encourage
you to contact me if you ever have questions about
what we're doing in the federal fishery; we are
available to provide any type of information you need,
... [and] hopefully my staff is being as helpful as
possible in providing timely information. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Number 1597
CHAIR SEATON surmised that the goal is to institute procedures
that fully utilize GHLs each year.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY concurred, and added:
In the Board of [Fisheries] process, they came up with
a range of alternatives they were looking at for the
future of state-water fisheries under this
rationalization program, and those three options have
been incorporated into the federal analysis so [that]
as the federal system moves forward, they understand
what the range of alternatives are on the state side.
... In our set of alternatives, we are looking at
future fisheries that capture, historically, what
we've harvested in the state-water fishery; we're
looking at options that capture, historically, what
has been harvested in the state-water fisheries as
well as [in] the parallel fisheries; and we are also
looking at an option for expansion of the state's
share of the groundfish resources in state waters
under state management as we move forward. ... Our
intent is to provide not only historic participation
but also, through our management and the Board of
[Fisheries] process, to ... provide for expanded
opportunity in the state-waters fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the moratorium is needed for
conservation reasons, or whether the ADF&G already has adequate
tools outside the context of a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY replied:
We have adequate tools in our authorities to address
all the conservation issues in [the GOA]. There are
some species, obviously, that we don't know that much
about, and we want to make sure that for some of these
miscellaneous species, we're not over harvesting. But
the concept of a moratorium, as part of [GOA]
rationalization, we think has the ancillary benefit of
providing some constraints in growth, which, by
definition, would help us have that greater comfort
level relative to the conservation issues. So I think
the primary issue is, controlling growth to get a
snapshot of participants as part of rationalization.
But if we have that opportunity, through a moratorium,
to control that growth, it will also have ancillary
conservation benefits.
Number 1789
COMMISSIONER DUFFY, in response to questions, said:
I operate under the assumption that all fishermen in
state waters, unless identified otherwise, participate
in a legal fashion in their fisheries and do
everything they can to comply with the conservation
requirements and any enforcement requirements as well
as onboard observers in certain circumstances. So we
are not worried about ... illegal catch. ... The issue
for us is, as you get additional participation and
[GHLs] remain static, then, by definition, the pie is
divided up into smaller pieces. So through time what
you get is a less economically viable fishery for a
number of participants, and that's ... an important
issue to address through a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY, in response to a further question, said that
a moratorium could potentially prevent federally licensed
vessels that do not currently participate in state-waters
fisheries from harvesting fish in state waters.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether this could result in more
competition among "moratorium vessels."
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said he wouldn't agree that such would be the
case. He offered:
I think what we've got right now under status quo
[are] defined harvest levels that fluctuate mildly
depending on abundance and the opportunity for new
participants to come in. So there's already a ...
"race" for fish, with an inability to constrain growth
of participants. Through a moratorium, you would have
the same amount of biomass being harvested, but you
would be defining the players in that arena. So it's
a protective mechanism, to try [to] ... protect those
participants through a moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether, if the moratorium limits
vessels, those vessels that currently operate outside the three-
mile limit would be excluded from participating in a state-
waters fishery.
Number 1974
COMMISSIONER DUFFY explained that there are some [federally
licensed] vessels that do currently participate in the parallel
fishery, and so putting a moratorium in place would simply
preclude additional entrance into the fishery through a period
of time. He said he expects that through rationalization of
state-waters fisheries by the Board of Fisheries, vessel size
and types of gear will be determined, and this criteria could,
through time, work to further constrain participants and provide
more opportunity for some of the coastal communities and smaller
vessels that typically come out of those communities. In
response to a question of whether a vessel-based moratorium
would be used to keep as many [federally licensed] vessels out
of state waters as possible, he explained that in the federal
fishery, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act is in effect, and so there are certain issues
that must be dealt with; for example, there are a total of 10
national standards including not discriminating against
nonresidents and protecting coastal communities.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY reiterated that a vessel-based moratorium
would prevent an increase in participation, whereas leaving the
fishery open also leaves open the question of how many fishermen
currently participating in the federal waters could merely
register with the state and then come into state waters and thus
create more competition.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for a more detailed description of
the differences between the proposed committee substitutes.
CHAIR SEATON instead referred to a handout in members' packets,
and offered his interpretation of the information included
therein. He suggested that a vessel-based moratorium could
create an incentive for vessel owners who aren't currently
fishing in a particular fishery to start participating just so
as to qualify, under a "historic" criterion, in the moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Commissioner Duffy what version he
would be happiest with.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said he would prefer a vessel-based
moratorium but would consider other options in a spirit of
compromise.
Number 2440
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she would like to understand the
differences between Version U and Version X.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that Version U pertains
to permits only - "entry permits, interim-use permits" - and
does not "work with vessels." Version X and the original SB 347
create a new license - a vessel permit.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said that a two-part approach - looking at
both vessels and individuals - seems to make sense given the
committee's concerns.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether a moratorium based on the current
permitting system would be acceptable to the state.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said such would be acceptable, but a vessel-
based moratorium would be more acceptable because it will make
for a smaller field of participants. He added that the state is
also willing to look at a person-based moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the [NPFMC] is waiting
for the state to decide what kind of moratorium to put in place
before it moves forward.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said the [NPFMC] is not waiting for the state
to act first. He relayed that the federal system is moving
forward in terms of developing an analysis independent of
moratorium issues, though it is aware that the Board of
Fisheries has a set of findings and has recommended a moratorium
to the legislature. In response to another question, he said
that it is up to the state to determine how a moratorium in
state waters is shaped, via legislative and Board of Fisheries
participation, and the federal rationalization process will not
overturn or preempt it.
Number 2754
COMMISSIONER DUFFY, in response to further questions, said that
it is his understanding that in some cases, federally permitted
vessels have turned in their federal permits - License
Limitation Program (LLP) - and this has allowed them to come in
and participate in a state-waters fisheries. He reiterated that
the Board of Fisheries will be able to determine criteria for
vessel size and type and type of gear.
CHAIR SEATON said that one concern he has heard expressed is
that federal rationalization will remove seasonal constraints.
COMMISSIONER DUFFY said that although season lengths could vary,
there will always be some sort of seasonal constraints. He
again pointed out that without a moratorium in place, the field
of participants will continue to expand. Though some may argue
that creating a moratorium will cause people to rush in to
participate, there is already a race for fish; he remarked that
his hope is that a moratorium will create "a stand-down period"
wherein people who do come in and fish during the moratorium
period might not in fact qualify, depending on the qualifying
years. In response to another question, he explained that the
groundfish fishery in Cook Inlet consists of cod, and that the
GHL for that fishery is being reached.
Number 2918
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force, Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Senator
Ben Stevens, chair of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task
Force and sponsor of the bill by request of the Board of
Fisheries, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC),
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). She relayed that Senator Ben
Stevens's preference is to have CSSB 347(RES), which provides
for a vessel-based moratorium, be the vehicle that moves
forward; in the spirit of compromise, however, Senator Ben
Stevens would support a vessel- and participant-based moratorium
as proposed in Version X. She relayed that Senator Ben Stevens
would also support "a more recent qualifying period," which
would address a "recency" concern brought forth by the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), and not allowing
moratorium activity to count towards any permanent program that
may be adopted.
TAPE 04-24, SIDE B
Number 2960
MS. SUTTON relayed that Senator Ben Stevens would not support a
solely participant-based moratorium. In response to questions,
she reiterated her understanding that Version X is a combination
of vessel- and participant-based moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how one would qualify for a permanent
program if participation in the moratorium won't count towards
historical criterion.
MS. SUTTON suggested that the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission and the ADF&G could better address that question.
Number 2751
ED DERSHAM, Chair, Board of Fisheries, said he concurs with the
comments of Commissioner Duffy and Ms. Sutton. From the Board
of Fisheries' perspective, "this" is only partly about the
"timeout," only partly about controlling efforts during this
period while rationalization is considered; more significantly,
for the Board of Fisheries' process, this is about encircling
the participants and getting a handle on who they are at the
current time under a moratorium. Doing so will open up more
options for the Board of Fisheries to consider as it reacts to
the federal rationalization program.
MR. DERSHAM, using the cod fishery as an example, said:
In the state waters in cod, we have the parallel
fishery that takes place in state waters during the
federal fishery, and we have [a] separate state-water
with pots and jigs that occurs in a different season.
In the federal fishery we have pots, jigs, longlines,
and, in some areas of the [GOA], trawl. So if the
Board [of Fisheries] does not have a way of encircling
the participants, if there's not a moratorium, if
there's not a looking towards something that encircles
the participants, our options are very limited in our
reaction.
We have our "time, area, method, means" authority that
we use ... [but], in state waters, we ... couldn't
even stand pat; we couldn't just stand back and say,
"We're going to continue to do what we've done in the
past," because that wouldn't be possible under
rationalization because our state-water fisheries now
don't open up until the parallel fishery in the
federal fishery end. Well, they wouldn't necessarily
end under a rationalized federal side, because the
whole idea is to slow down the pace of the fishery.
So our options would pretty much be limited to just
[a] state-water fishery with pots and jigs; longlines
would be very difficult to have in state waters under
our current authority because we wouldn't be able to
apportion the bycatch that's now apportioned to the
longline fishermen that participate in state waters
through the federal side.
Number 2673
And we wouldn't be able to limit the entry into the
state waters of other longline fishermen that haven't
[participated] in the parallel fishery in the past
without the moratorium. So we would have very limited
options. ... But ... it's possible, as we explore
this, that the best results for the state ... might be
something under very limited options. It might be
something very much like enlarging our current state-
water fishery, but it also might not, because as we
try to use our allocation criteria, which includes the
effect on the economies of the state and the local
communities involved - the coastal communities here -
we need to look at the economic efficiency that
Commissioner Duffy alluded to and try to design ... a
fairly complicated but wide ranging array of options
that might include [a] fairly significant jig fishery
open to entry.
It might include ... the other gear types under
something other than "open to entry," with a mixture
of allocations to different size vessels; that would
protect the small boat fishermen but also recognize
the history of state residents that have larger
vessels that have participated in both the parallel
fishery and the state-water fishery and have
significant histories. And ... we've explored, under
the legal aspects, the possibility of IFQs in state
waters; that might meet a constitutional test and be
legal under the state system. [The Board of
Fisheries] would require additional authority that ...
[it] doesn't currently have, which would require
coming back to the legislature to ask for that.
Number 2539
MR. DERSHAM continued:
But we're just trying to create a situation that keeps
as many of our options open as possible, so we can go
down this road and look at this whole situation and
say here's what's best for ... Alaska in the [mind] of
the Board of [Fisheries]. And we have this workgroup
that's worked for a year now and is continuing to
work, and [it's] ... a wide ranging group of ...
Alaska residents that participate ... in all the
facets of the groundfish fisheries in the [GOA].
So, ... I'm trying to bring a little bit more clarity
to why we're supporting this beyond the fact that ...
you need to look at a moratorium as a timeout to ...
slow down the race for fish. And in this case, that's
part of the rational. ... For the Board [of
Fisheries], the main rational is that it gives us an
ability to look at more options and really decide
what's best for the state, rather than kind of be
forced into a narrow range of options to react to the
federal rationalization that seems to be coming pretty
quickly. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
MR. DERSHAM, in response to questions, confirmed that the Board
of Fisheries currently has the ability to make distinctions and
apportions according to vessel size, and reiterated that one of
the options a moratorium would make available could include, for
example, apportioning equal shares of a fishery according to
vessel size and history. Having a limited number of
participants could make the foregoing option possible. He also
reiterated his earlier comments regarding IFQs, meeting a
constitutional test, and coming back to the legislature for more
authority. He noted, however, that at this point, he couldn't
say what the Board of Fisheries might ultimately conclude is the
best option for Alaska; rather, the Board of Fisheries is merely
trying to keep its options open.
CHAIR SEATON raised the issue of apportioning bycatch.
Number 2092
MR. SAVIKKO said:
My understanding of the issue, of bycatch that's a
problem in this specific fishery, was the halibut
bycatch. And again, that's a fishery that is
controlled by a treaty agreement and ..., as the
federal biologist explained several meetings back, the
halibut is fully allocated already. And to bring in a
gear type such as a longline or a trawl fishery within
state waters, you would have to reallocate existing
fish from one user group to this other user group. So
that was the [concern] on bycatch when you term that
bycatch - we're not talking rockfish or lingcod or
other bycatch species that I was speaking to earlier -
the problem was the halibut.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that in state waters,
during the parallel fishery, the longline cod fishery almost
always all occurs before the halibut opening. And if such is
the case, doesn't the state have a way of saying that halibut is
a prohibited species in a state-waters longline fishery?
MR. SAVIKKO replied:
What I was saying was, in that specific instance,
where you're talking about a directed longline fishery
for Pacific cod in the parallel season, they are
already allocated, through the [International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC)], an apportionment of
halibut for that specific fishery. If we were to
continue that in the state-managed fishery, which
would typically start in let's say February or March,
then you would have to take from that group, and other
groups, additional halibut to allocate to this new
user group fishing in March that currently is not a
legal gear type during the state-managed fishery.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there would be a problem with the
state continuing to manage the state-water fishery during the
parallel fishery.
MR. SAVIKKO indicated that many issues, such as whether there
will even continue to be a parallel fishery, are still up in the
air.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the ADF&G is telling the Board of
Fisheries that it has to eliminate all longline fisheries from
state waters.
MR. SAVIKKO said no, that such a decision is up to the Board of
Fisheries to make via its normal process.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Dersham which version of the
bill the Board of Fisheries would prefer.
MR. DERSHAM said that the Board of Fisheries is willing to work
with either the version providing for a vessel-based moratorium
or the version providing the combination vessel-based and
participant-based moratorium.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the Board of Fisheries would also be
willing to work with an IUP-based moratorium.
MR. DERSHAM said that neither the Board of Fisheries nor the
aforementioned workgroup has had an opportunity to discuss that
option yet.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that an IUP-based
moratorium is the only type currently authorized by statute.
Number 1749
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
offered her understanding that Version X "is Version W with some
fine tuning" that occurred over the last few days in response to
issues raised during the committee process, one of which was the
desire to make it possible for the moratorium to end sooner.
Number 1699
REPRESENTATIVE Ogg moved to adopt the proposed HCS for SB 347,
Version 23-LS1677\X, Utermohle, 4/16/04, as the work draft.
[The motion to adopt Version U as the work draft and the
objection to that motion were left pending.]
Number 1683
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
MS. McDOWELL offered to explain the changes incorporated into
Version X. On page 3, lines 3-5, there is new language intended
to clarify that nothing in the groundfish moratorium would
predetermine what, if any, permanent limitations on entry might
be adopted later. She opined that having a moratorium based on
both vessels and individual will level the playing field. Page
7, lines 18-19, now says that the CFEC may, by regulation,
extend the moratorium on entry of new participants and vessels
into the GOA groundfish fishery listed in subsection (l). The
intent here is to clarify that the moratorium may not have to be
extended on all fisheries. The language on Page 9, [subsection
(f)(1)], now addresses the concern that one could increase
vessel size by swapping vessels; there is no longer language
permitting an increase in size of up to 10 percent.
MS. McDOWELL relayed that language on page 9, lines 22-24, would
not allow for any separation of a moratorium permit and the
vessel; thus, if a moratorium-eligible vessel was sold during
the moratorium, it could continue to fish because the moratorium
permit would transfer with the vessel. The language now on page
10, lines 27-31, allows the moratorium on specific fisheries to
be shortened if the CFEC adopts another solution within four
years. She noted that there was a concern raised at a prior
meeting regarding the need to insert language "in the groundfish
part" comparable to language currently on page 6, lines 30-31,
which says, "Nothing in this section limits the powers of the
Board of Fisheries or the Department of Fish and Game"; the
drafter, however, has pointed out that similar authority that
could pertain to the groundfish section of the bill already
exists under another statute.
MS. McDOWELL, referring to Ms. Sutton's comments regarding the
sponsor's willingness to consider shortening the qualification
period, pointed out that if the committee did want to do that,
it would go a long ways towards addressing the concern that the
pool of moratorium participants would be too large, and could
easily be done by changing the language on page 8, lines 6 and
23, so that it references, "January 1, 2000; the qualification
period would then be four years instead of six years. She
remarked that such a change would reduce the pool of potential
participants during the moratorium, pointed out that four years
is normally the amount of look-back time the CFEC uses in most
limitations, and characterized it as a reasonable period of
time. The only people and vessels that would be excluded under
such a change would be those who participated five and six years
ago but haven't participated since.
Number 1159
MS. McDOWELL opined that the changes made thus far coupled with
reducing the qualification period would result in a bill that is
very responsive to the concerns raised thus far. She remarked
that "this" is a tough, complicated issue, and that if the
committee feels that the CFEC should have the tools to deal with
moratoria needs as they arise in the future, then there are
other sections of [Version X] that would provide such. She
characterized Section 9 as being very responsive to the
committee's concerns, and as providing the CFEC with a workable
and easily administered moratorium, which would keep freed-up
federal vessels from coming in and would contain potential
growth throughout its duration.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether the CFEC would be amenable to
reducing the moratorium period to two years with the possibility
of having a one-year extension.
MS. McDOWELL said that such a change would result in a very
short time period, and pointed out that the purpose of a
moratorium is to do thorough analysis, which might not be
possible if the time period were too short, particularly given
the CFEC's current staffing level and workload. She added:
I'd be reluctant to say that we would have the ability
to do the kind of thorough analysis, in that amount of
time, that would need to be done, to make a decision
about what to even propose. ... We may also not know
for sure what's happening at the federal level and
what the risks are to these fisheries, whether we can
risk open access, [and] whether the Board [of
Fisheries] would have tools to deal [with issues] ...
in that amount of time. I don't know that we could
come up with a very sound proposal in such a short
time period.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he would like the CFEC to work with due
diligence and resolve this issue as quickly as possible because
the proposed moratorium can potentially tie up a large number of
fisheries for a long period of time. He suggested that the
language currently in Version X would allow the CFEC the ability
to extend the moratorium whenever it wished.
Number 0882
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that the generic portions of Version X
only address the CFEC's ability to extend a moratorium created
under AS 16.43.225, whereas the moratorium specifically
authorized by Version X is not one of those types of moratoria.
She attempted to assure Representative Ogg that the CFEC has
every motivation to arrive at a proposal for a permanent
solution as early as possible, since it is by far easier to
craft a permanent program if there has not been a long
moratorium.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the [GOA]
rationalization will be in place by 2006-2007. He asked why
there should be a moratorium lasting longer than it takes for
the federal program to be implemented.
MS. McDOWELL replied:
Even if the federal government was not taking any
action in these fisheries, if we were just going to
try to put together a moratorium and come up with a
limitation proposal just strictly looking at state
issues, these are by far the most complicated
fisheries the [CFEC] will ever have dealt with. ...
Normally, when you limit a fishery, you have one gear
type, one species, one area. Here we've got a huge
area, ... [and] we would have to figure out ... what
areas, what species, [and] how [to] ... - in the data
- sort out what was incidental catch and what was
targeted; [there are] so many species, so many areas,
so many different gear types, that it's going to be
extremely complicated, data-wise.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what kind of permanent limitation
might be instituted after the moratorium.
MS. McDOWELL indicated that there would be several options
available. In response to another question, she noted that
Section 9 of Version X statutorily creates a moratorium.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON relayed a concern that instituting a
vessel-based moratorium for the fisheries referenced in the bill
will result in all future entry permit programs being vessel-
based.
MS. McDOWELL said such would not be the case, but acknowledged
that many share that concern. In an effort to allay that
concern, which she characterized as unnecessary, she pointed out
that regardless of what criteria the moratorium is based on -
person, vessel, or a combination of both - the fish data
collected during the moratorium will be the same because it
comes in on fish tickets, which are in the name of the vessel
operator, or the IUP holder. In response to another question,
she noted that the CFEC doesn't have the authority to institute
a vessel-based permit system without first getting legislative
approval.
Number 0193
ALAN PARKS, Commercial Fisherman, relayed that he has been
involved in the commercial fishing industry since 1975, has
participated in catching halibut, crab, shrimp, salmon, and
herring in just about every major fishery in the state - from
the GOA, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands - and under just about
every imaginable scenario with regard to business relationships
- he's been a crewmember, a skipper, a hired skipper, a boat
owner, and has hired skippers and leased boats. He said he is
not supportive of a vessel-based moratorium. He suggested that
it is important for committee members to look back on the
principles of fisheries allocation since statehood and since the
enactment of limited entry. He opined that if a moratorium must
be put in place, it should be participant-based, and that the
number of eligible people under any scenario is not going to be
the sole determining factor for who gets to go fishing.
TAPE 04-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. PARKS indicated that one's market - for example, whether a
processor is willing to buy one's fish - can also be a
determining factor in whether one will be able to go fishing.
He noted that a vessel-based limited-entry system was
established for Korean hair crab fishery at the request of the
CFEC, and predicted that establishing a vessel-based moratorium
for groundfish in the GOA will lead to the CFEC later
recommending a vessel-based limited-entry system. Opining that
it is not in the state's best interest to consider the federal
government's rationalization regarding the federal waters of the
GOA, he offered a personal example wherein his pay as a
crewmember aboard a union vessel out of Seattle was cut by 60
percent when the rights to the resource were switched over to
[an absentee owner] in a vessel-based system. In conclusion, he
characterized the state of Alaska as the leader in conservation,
warned the committee against going down the same road the
federal managers have taken, said he really appreciates all the
hard work the committee has done on this issue, and suggested
that to keep things simple, the moratorium should be individual-
based.
Number 0290
GERRY MERRIGAN, Prowler Fisheries, noted that he is also a
member of the Board of Fisheries' GAO groundfish rationalization
committee, and said that he supports the original version of SB
347 though he might also support Version X because it contains
language regarding vessel-based criteria. He predicted that a
moratorium which is solely individual-based will result in
approximately 30 percent more participants, and characterized
such a situation as a "de-rationalization program." He
suggested that members remain clear that a moratorium is not
synonymous with the licensing program or the rationalization
program. The timeout period provided by the moratorium will
provide the time in which to determine whether a particular
fishery's licensing program should be vessel-based or
individual-based, but the moratorium itself will not force the
state into any particular rationalization program.
MR. MERRIGAN then read portions of the handout provided by the
Board of Fisheries regarding its findings, and suggested that
when discussing capacity, it is the vessel that needs to be
considered, not the individual, and that having a vessel-based
moratorium in some fashion will preclude people from jumping to
larger vessels. He said he supports giving the CFEC general
moratorium authorization. He noted that the Board of Fisheries'
GAO groundfish rationalization committee is still adjudicating
"maximum number of crab permits" from Southeast Alaska from the
early '80s, and attributed this backlog to the un-workability of
the "existing limited-entry moratorium system." In conclusion,
he opined that a statutory moratorium is the best option, and
said he supports moving ahead, particularly since the CFEC, the
ADF&G, the NPFMC, and the Board of Fisheries all appear to be
mostly in agreement on this issue.
Number 0613
JOE CHILDERS, Director, Western Gulf of Alaska Fishermen,
mentioned that he's already testified during a prior hearing,
and asked the committee to reflect carefully upon Mr. Merrigan's
last comment regarding the fact that all the various groups that
have to work together on this issue are in agreement.
Number 0693
JULIE BONNEY, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, said her biggest
concern is that the bill move forward. A lot of people have
done a great amount of work on this issue even before the bill
got to the legislature because they believed it would provide
the state with an important tool in keeping fisheries
economically viable while dealing with the concept of federal
rationalization. She indicated that although she still has a
preference for a solely vessel-based moratorium, she is in
support of Version X because it provides a compromise and, as
such, is a good thing. She offered her belief that the drafters
of Version X have included as much flexibility as possible, and
that the period of time proposed for information gathering will
result in it being accomplished in a timely fashion.
Number 0864
JASON M. KOONTZ, Commercial Fisherman, predicted that if a
solely vessel-based program is instituted, it will lead the
state down the road towards corporate absentee ownership, and
suggested that such a program will limit his ability to earn a
living. He recommended mirroring what the NPFMC ends up
proposing, and use of an individual-permit-based program as a
viable solution, adding that he does not support a vessel-based
program.
Number 1038
ALEXUS KWACHKA, Gulf Groundfish Fishermen's Association;
Crewmember's Association, relayed that the Gulf Groundfish
Fishermen's Association represents about 156 people, and that
the Fishermen's Association represents about 238 people. He
indicated that neither organization supports a vessel-based
system, and suggested that if a limitation is established, it
should recognize the individuals that have participated in a
particular fishery, not the vessels. He noted that the federal
program has no provision regarding skipper or crew, that it
pertains solely to vessels, and opined that such encourages
"absentee ownership."
MR. KWACHKA expressed a preference for an individual-based
moratorium, rather than a vessel-based moratorium, and opined
that the Board of Fisheries has plenty of tools at its disposal
for limiting participation, which, he suggested, will also be
limited by economic factors, just as has occurred in Kodiak's
salmon fisheries. In conclusion, he characterized the pot
fishery and jig fishery as very successful, and said, "I think
when you look at the fuel consumptions by trawl vessel versus a
pot boat, you're going to see that the economics will not permit
them to go into these fisheries - it just doesn't work for them
the way it works for the smaller vessels of the communities
here.
Number 1302
JULIE KAVANAUGH, Owner/Operator, F/V Silvia Star, expressed a
preference for an individual-based moratorium or, as a second
choice, a combination of an individual-based and vessel-based
moratorium, rather than an exclusively vessel-based moratorium.
She, too, mentioned that there is a concern that by establishing
moratorium that is strictly vessel-based, the CFEC is indicating
a preference for instituting a vessel-based permit system in the
future.
Number 1412
JEFFREY R. STEPHAN, United Fishermen's Marketing Association,
Inc. (UFMA), said the UFMA supports a vessel-based moratorium
but has no objection to including an individual-based moratorium
in the bill as well. He opined that a moratorium is in the best
interest of Alaska vessels and residents, and that this bill in
particular will protect their standing in any federal
rationalization program. He suggested that the Board of
Fisheries should be provided with as many options as possible so
that it is not limited in its ability to preserve the standing
of Alaska vessels.
[SB 347, Version W, was held over; the motion regarding adoption
of Version U as a work draft and the objection to that motion
were left pending; the motion regarding adoption of Version X as
a work draft and the objection to that motion were left
pending.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1558
The House Special Committee on Fisheries was recessed at 11:02
a.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting was reconvened April
21, 2004.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|