Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
01/19/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game – Office of the Commissioner | |
| Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game – Division of Subsistence | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
January 19, 2007
8:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER; DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DENBY LLOYD, Acting Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of ADF&G.
ELIZABETH ANDREWS, Director
Division of Subsistence
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Division of
Subsistence.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:33:16 AM. Representatives
Johansen, LeDoux, Edgmon, and Holmes were present at the call to
order.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER
8:33:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game from the
Office of the Commissioner.
8:34:04 AM
DENBY LLOYD, Acting Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), opined that Alaskans are passionate in their
pursuit of fishing rights, privileges, and opportunities across
the state. He pointed out that these passions take the form of
energy directed at effecting regulations and legislation;
[making it essential for a close working relationship] between
the commissioner's office and the legislature. He directed the
committee's attention to the handout and read the mission
statement of the department: "To protect, maintain, and improve
the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and
manage their use and development in the best interest of the
economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle." Acting
Commissioner Lloyd pointed out that this mission statement
provides a means to maintain the state's resources in
perpetuity; however, sustained yield, in this context, does not
automatically default to mean "maximum" sustained yield. The
goal, he explained, is to provide the maximum benefit to the
people that is sustainable over time.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD reviewed the core services of the
department as follows:
- Provide opportunity to utilize fish and wildlife resources;
- Ensure sustainability and harvestable surplus of fish and
wildlife resources;
- Provide information to all customers;
- Involve the public in management of fish and wildlife
resources; and
- Protect the state's sovereignty to manage fish and wildlife
resources.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, paraphrasing from the handout
entitled "Department of Fish and Game Overview", related that
the ADF&G operating budget totals $180.3 million, from 17
funding sources, including $62.1 million in federal funds, $52.7
million in general funds, and $26.4 million in fish and game
funds.
8:37:49 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, in response to Chair Seaton,
confirmed that the fish and game fund is one of the only two
dedicated funds in the state budget. Fish and game funds are
specifically derived from sport fishing and hunting license
fees, as well as fines and forfeitures. The funds are
redirected to specific management and research activities for
those resources. In further response to Chair Seaton, Acting
Commissioner Lloyd emphasized that there are some limitations
with regard to the transfer between fund sources.
8:39:37 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD continued his overview by informing
the committee that ADF&G's fiscal year (FY) 08 budget request
basically maintains the level of service of last year. He
explained that the increases in the budget primarily address
salary adjustments due to Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) increases and health care costs.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD specified that the department is
comprised of the following five divisions: the Division of
Commercial Fisheries, the Division of Sport Fish, Division of
Subsistence, the Division of Wildlife Conservation, and the
Division of Administrative Services. Additionally, the
department oversees the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) and the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council as well as the
administrative support for the Board of Fisheries and the Board
of Game. He then reviewed the staff in the Office of the
Commissioner, and explained that the commissioner administers
the department as well as represents the department and the
state on various management and research bodies. The
aforementioned bodies are specified on the lower half of the
document entitled, "Department of Fish and Game Overview."
These bodies include such entities as the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC), which primarily deals with the
management of federal fisheries offshore of Alaska. In fact,
the commissioner of ADF&G holds one of the voting seats on the
aforementioned body and is integral with regard to the promotion
of Alaska's interest in federal fishery management offshore.
8:41:50 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD noted that the document entitled,
"Department of Fish and Game Overview" includes details on the
department's budget. The department, with an approximate $180
million budget, has about 1,700 permanent employees of which 861
are full-time. The aforementioned document also includes
details of the budget by division.
8:42:29 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD then announced that he would describe
the various fishery management operations and arenas in which
those are operated. For fisheries within the state and for 0-3
miles offshore, the fisheries are largely governed by the
regulatory provisions of the Board of Fisheries. The members of
this lay board, with seven voting members, are interested public
individuals who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by
the legislature. Members of the Board of Fisheries serve three-
year staggered terms. The board meets five times per year and
considers various portions of the state on a rotating three-year
basis. Acting Commissioner Lloyd acknowledged that the Board of
Fisheries meetings are oftentimes highly contentious. However,
he emphasized that these meetings provide a forum outside of the
typical bureaucratic arena to discuss and deliberate very
important allocation issues amongst various fishing groups as
well as to provide policy guidance. Once the board lays down
the overarching regulatory and management plans, it's incumbent
upon the department to implement those. Additionally, the
department provides the research background for the board and
others to make the aforementioned policy decisions. He
highlighted that the department also includes the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission, which specifies the limited entry
conditions for various state fisheries. In most cases, limited
entry is based on license limitations. For example, a salmon
fishery may have the maximum number of licenses issued and those
licenses are tradable and sellable amongst the participants.
The aforementioned limits the overall effort applied to any
particular fishery. He noted that the CFEC acts as an
adjudicatory body in determining who obtains licenses and any
appeals. The CFEC also serves a very important data management
function in terms of the earnings and the distribution of
fisheries income through residents and nonresidents.
8:45:40 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD informed the committee that the
department also has a private nonprofit program (PNP) for
hatcheries. He explained that in the 1970s and 1980s, the state
was involved in its own hatchery program, but has gradually
withdrew from that. Therefore, the hatchery program is now
conducted by PNP corporations that are comprised of the
associations of the local fishermen and permit holders. The
department retains the permitting and various oversight
functions of the salmon hatchery program, including a pathology
laboratory. Acting Commissioner Lloyd noted that the department
also has a mariculture permitting program for shellfish and
mariculture. The ADF&G helps the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) permit locations where shellfish farming might
be appropriately conducted. The aforementioned is all on the
state side.
8:47:02 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD then reminded the committee that the
department deals directly with the federal fishery management
offshore program. He pointed out that NPFMC is roughly the
equivalent to Alaska's Board of Fisheries in that it's a group
of appointees who establish the general regulatory parameters
for the management of federal fisheries offshore. The
recommendations of NPFMC are sent to the U.S. Department of
Commerce and are implemented by the National Marine Fisheries
Service. He emphasized the importance of the state having
strong representation on NPFMC because many of Alaska's
residents are participants in those fisheries three miles
offshore of Alaska. Furthermore, the management of a number of
those federal fisheries is delegated back to the state such as
the Bering Sea crab fisheries. However, there are other
management activities of federal fisheries that aren't delegated
to the state. For example, the federal government, during the
crab rationalization program, maintained the power to limit
participation in those crab fisheries while the state maintained
the power to set annual quotas and determine when the season is
open and closed.
8:48:46 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD then turned to the international
agreements with which ADF&G deals. He explained that Pacific
halibut in the U.S. and Canada is largely governed by an
international treaty that is implemented through the
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). In fact, the
IPHC is deliberating whether it, on its own authority, might
impose a lower bag limit for the sport halibut charter. The
department also deals with the Pacific Salmon Treaty through the
Pacific Salmon Commission. Of current interest with the Pacific
Salmon Treaty is that various annexes to the treaty will expire
at the end of 2008. Therefore, the department is engaging in
the initial process to renegotiate the annexes. He noted that
the department has to negotiate with Canada as well as
Washington and Oregon. Moreover, there are a number of other
influences on the state's ability to manage its fisheries,
including federal lands and federal agencies. Although those
federal agencies aren't charged with the management of fish and
wildlife, they are charged with land-use controls. Those land-
use controls often translate into limits on the ability to
access fish and wildlife. For example, there are ongoing
disputes with the National Parks Service and the U.S. Forest
Service, and others with regard to what controls they can place
on access to lands and wildlife versus the state's desire to
have open and free access to fish and wildlife.
8:51:18 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD pointed out that management of
subsistence can be difficult. He reminded the committee of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which
created a rural priority for subsistence. Although the
aforementioned wasn't at odds with state laws and regulations,
several Alaska Supreme Court decisions don't allow the state to
provide a specific rural priority. Therefore, the state isn't
in compliance with federal law under ANILCA. The aforementioned
has resulted in the federal government creating a dual
management program. This all creates difficulty [with creating]
understandable, uniform, and streamlined management of
subsistence in the state. The department is aggressively
pursuing discussions with the federal subsistence board and
agencies to clear up those difficulties, he related.
8:53:23 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD informed the committee that ADF&G also
has to deal with influences of federal law due to the Endangered
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). He
emphasized that MMPA is a protection act not a management act.
The protection of animals under the aforementioned acts has
caused a number of difficulties for fishery management. He
reminded the committee of the impact of stellar sea lion
critical habitat and the pursuit of offshore ground fisheries in
Alaska. Acting Commissioner Lloyd related that ADF&G is
currently involved in an effort to comment on potential critical
habitat of the northern right whale. Although the northern
right whale is an endangered animal, the difficulty arises in
regard to whether pot fisheries is a significant threat to the
survivorship of these animals. He mentioned that right whales
are also found on the East Coast, where the gear of the Maine
lobster fishery has been completely redesigned.
8:54:55 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, in conclusion, reiterated the passion
Alaskans and people in Alaska have with regard to fishing. To
address management, ADF&G must have dedicated, professional
employees. However, the department is experiencing difficulty
in maintaining the dedicated, professional core of departmental
staff. He attributed this partially to the "brain drain" to
competing agencies that offer a large pay differential. He
related is own situation as an example, although he chose to
serve the state rather than take the higher paying position.
8:56:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON indicated that the pay differential will be
addressed in various ways. He then requested that Acting
Commissioner Lloyd expand on the authority of the commissioner,
the local area management biologists, and the regional
biologists.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD explained that the commissioner has
emergency order authority, which allows the commissioner to take
in-season action to open and close fisheries and change
boundaries. This authority is routinely delegated to the area
management biologist level. One of the strengths of Alaska's
management program is that delegation to the local level, he
opined. That delegation allows the individual with the most
immediate knowledge and access to the immediate users to make
the decisions for those fisheries. He opined that the
aforementioned stimulates responsiveness and local
accountability in the management program. Still, regional
oversight does occur in the regional offices which lead to the
division director's offices to the commissioner's office. On
rare occasion, emergency order decisions are [challenged] and
brought to the regional director's and commissioner's office.
Acting Commissioner Lloyd reiterated that the authority and
responsibility of the vast majority of fishery management
decisions is delegated to the local area biologist. In further
response to Chair Seaton, Acting Commissioner Lloyd confirmed
that the aforementioned framework is basically the same in the
Division of Sport Fish and the Division of Commercial Fisheries.
However, the Division of Subsistence doesn't have a direct
management mandate but rather serves as a research arm.
Therefore, the Division of Commercial Fisheries manages the
subsistence fisheries as well as the commercial fisheries.
9:00:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to where the National Estuary and
Research Reserve fit into the program.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD related his understanding that the
staff involved in that [program] are in the Division of Sport
Fish.
9:01:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON highlighted the importance of the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game holding meetings in the various
regions of the state because it provides local stakeholders an
opportunity to participate in the process. As an example, he
recalled the December Board of Fisheries meeting in Dillingham
this past year when approximately 158 people testified, many of
which were individuals who traveled from surrounding villages.
He then inquired as to whether the division directors are in an
acting director capacity until the acting commissioner is
confirmed.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD answered that his status as acting
commissioner affects the commissioner alone, not the staff. He
said, "I'm emphasizing the acting status at this point, not so
much due to legislative confirmation but for the additional
scrutiny that's placed on the commissioner of Fish & Game, as
opposed to other commissioners." He explained that the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game can submit a list of qualified
candidates from which the governor selects the commissioner. He
further explained that in his case the governor has requested
that he be the commissioner prior to the boards going through
the aforementioned process. The boards are scheduled to
complete the interview and selection process by January 31st.
With regard to the other departmental staff, they are full
employees of the department. The only acting director is Patti
Nelson and will be such until the board process is complete and
the commissioner is formally in place and can formally appoint
the director of the Division of Commercial Fisheries.
9:05:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised then that Acting Commissioner
Lloyd won't have to be confirmed by the legislature to make his
choices for division directors.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD replied no, and specified that he
won't wait for legislative confirmation to appoint his
leadership team. He noted that such is the case in other state
departments.
9:06:14 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD, in response to Chair Seaton, recalled
that the Mr. Big was a very large scallop boat from North
Carolina that came to Alaska and fished scallops. In this case,
the vessel Mr. Big took advantage of the fact that neither the
state nor the federal government had placed limitations with
regard to who could harvest scallops, and in what quantities.
The state and NPFMC had to act quickly to close the
aforementioned loophole and preserve some of the scallop beds
that are highly vulnerable to over harvest. The legislature
then passed legislation implementing limited entry for scallop
vessels. Acting Commissioner Lloyd understood Chair Seaton to
be referring to the fact that there isn't a federal fishery
management plan north of Bering Strait and thus there is the
potential for similar lack of regulatory management planning.
However, he related his understanding that NPFMC has that matter
on its agenda and thus the existing process should address the
matter. He said he didn't believe legislative action is
necessary at this time, but will inform the legislature
immediately if that changes.
9:09:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled that in the Mr. Big situation,
the vessel gave up its state permit in order to fish federal
waters where there was no management.
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD noted his agreement. He explained
that if a vessel intends to harvest and not come to shore, that
vessel can operate three miles offshore, which is outside of
state regulation. In the case of Mr. Big there weren't any
federal restrictions and thus they harvested in an unrestricted
fashion. In further response to Representative LeDoux, Acting
Commissioner Lloyd couldn't recall the details as to whether
NPFMC was able to issue an emergency regulation in the Mr. Big
situation.
9:12:28 AM
ACTING COMMISSIONER LLOYD pointed out that the transition report
was prepared by department staff of the prior administration.
The transition report was intended to describe the
organizational structure of the department and highlight issues
of concern for the new administration. The transition report
was prepared last November and shouldn't, he clarified, be
confused with the report from the new administration's
transition team.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - DIVISION OF
SUBSISTENCE
9:13:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
the overview from the Division of Subsistence.
ELIZABETH ANDREWS, Director, Division of Subsistence, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, echoed Acting Commissioner Lloyd's
earlier clarification that the Division of Subsistence is a
research arm within ADF&G. Therefore, the division provides
support to the rest of the department. She noted that state
statute on subsistence outlines the division's responsibilities.
9:15:05 AM
MS. ANDREWS, by way of background, informed the committee that
in 1978 Alaska passed the Subsistence Priority Law to recognize
the economic and cultural importance of subsistence to Alaskans.
She clarified that subsistence is defined as customary and
traditional uses. This law was passed prior to the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The state
was positioning itself to assume management for subsistence uses
on all lands, state and federal, in the state. She highlighted
that even prior to statehood there have always been provisions
for subsistence use, although there may not be subsistence
regulations for all areas or all game and fish species. She
highlighted that the primary purpose of the division is to
gather information on customary and traditional uses such that
harvest monitoring information and use patterns are provided to
managers as well as the Board of Fisheries and the Board of
Game. Therefore, the division's core duties revolve around
research, quantification, and presentation of information in
order for the aforementioned entities to manage and allocate the
resources. The board must identify which fish stocks, for
example, have a customary and traditional use. The department
doesn't make the aforementioned determination, but rather the
Board of Fisheries does. If it is a customary and traditional
use, it must be identified by the board. These decisions are
based on information brought forth by the division.
MS. ANDREWS specified that the division's budget source for
these core services are largely from the general fund. However,
as mentioned earlier the division has some responsibilities to
protect the state's interest relative to federal programs. The
aforementioned is accomplished by leveraging the state money in
order to obtain funding by contracts from other entities,
whether federal agencies or private businesses. Ms. Andrews
noted that the division also [provides information] that helps
the managers determine what component is necessary to provide
for the subsistence uses the board has identified. Again, this
information is used to assert the state's responsibility in the
management of fisheries.
9:22:17 AM
MS. ANDREWS acknowledged the importance of fish to Alaskans.
She related, "In terms of our research, just the ball park
figure is that 60 percent of the ... resources that are
harvested for subsistence uses or home use outside of the urban
areas constitute 60 percent of all the resources harvested,
whether that's big game, or marine mammals, or birds. For
example, 60 percent of it are fish." The division has found
that 80 percent of all households outside of urban areas
participate in harvesting fish. She further related that Alaska
has some of the most significant subsistence fisheries in the
world. For example, the Kuskokwim Chinook salmon fishery is the
largest subsistence chinook fishery in the state as it accounts
for about 50 percent of all chinook taken in the state.
9:24:14 AM
MS. ANDREWS reminded the committee that the Division of
Subsistence is one of the smaller divisions, that includes the
director and four program managers supported by general funds.
The division has approximately 24 full-time employees, 5-6
seasonal or part-time employees. The division's general fund
budget is roughly $1.8 million. The division, she highlighted,
brings in about $2 million in non-general fund sources. The
division has offices in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks as well
as staff personnel in the field offices of Dillingham and
Kotzebue. In attempts to streamline and address the cost of
doing business, the number of field offices have been reduced.
Still, the division has been able to provide the main services
for management purposes. Ms. Andrews then informed the
committee that due to increment funding from the previous
legislature, the division has placed all of its harvestable
information into a web-accessible subsistence information
system. The aforementioned allows staff as well as any other
interested party to access the information; the site can be
accessed via the division's web site on the department web site.
She mentioned that since the department is moving toward a
content-driven web site, it should be fairly easy to access.
MS. ANDREWS then informed the committee that the division has
also been able to diversify funding sources rather than being
dependent on non-general funds from federal agencies.
Therefore, the division has looked to other sources identified
as statutory-designated program receipts, such as the North
Pacific Research Board and various private entities.
9:28:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the type of research the division
provides for private contracts.
MS. ANDREWS explained that it would be research, such as harvest
surveys, that the division would normally perform if it had the
general funds to do so. She noted that the harvest surveys were
largely in the Bristol Bay area. Braund & Associates obtained a
contract to prepare information that would be used for the
environmental impact assessment for the Pebble Mine study. As a
part of that, Braund & Associates subcontracted gathering the
subsistence harvest information from a number of the communities
in the Bristol Bay area. Braund & Associates typically doesn't
perform field research but rather compiles and analyzes the
information. Therefore, the division served as the objective
researchers who gathered the basic information. This
information is needed by the department for basic management and
thus the division takes a strategic view of which contracts it
will take and which it will pursue in order to ensure that the
division's core functions are met.
9:30:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the department has ownership of the
information in the aforementioned contract.
MS. ANDREWS replied yes, adding that some of the information
from the aforementioned contract is posted in the subsistence
information system.
9:30:47 AM
MS. ANDREWS then turned to the matter of maintaining geographic
parity so that research doesn't focus on certain areas/regions
while neglecting other areas/regions. She highlighted that the
division has also attempted to ensure that [division staff]
attend all of the Board of Fisheries meetings and work through
the management plans.
MS. ANDREWS identified the key challenges for this coming year,
including the ability to continue to collect subsistence salmon
harvest information. She related that the division is keeping
its head above water with regard to continuing the monitoring
programs. She returned to the subject of information management
and related that the salmon data needs to be placed in a single
entity on the web site. The salmon data, she said, needs to be
easily extracted from the overall subsistence information
system.
MS. ANDREWS moved on to the challenge of providing support to
the joint boards as they review nonsubsistence areas that will
be before them at the October meeting. The nonsubsistence areas
are areas in which subsistence is not a primary characteristic
of the economy. She noted that the boards requested proposals
from the public in order to determine if the public views other
areas as nonsubsistence areas or would recommend any boundary
changes. Although only two proposals have been brought forward,
it's a large job because a variety of harvest, demographic, and
economic information has to be obtained. The aforementioned
information is then presented to the boards for review and
analysis. Ms. Andrews noted that the primary proposal was in
regard to South Central Alaska, which is a large population
center. Therefore, quite a bit of information needs to be
amassed, analyzed, and compiled in a meaningful way for the
boards. The Division of Subsistence will take the lead,
although the other divisions will be involved. In response to
Chair Seaton, Ms. Andrews clarified that references to joint
boards refer to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
She noted that the joint boards have certain authority, such as
to present names for the commissioner to the governor as well as
the advisory committee regulations.
9:36:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that there are some parallel actions that
the federal subsistence board has undertaken such as proposals
to move some areas from rural to nonrural. He asked if those
[proposals] are consistent with what the division is reviewing.
MS. ANDREWS specified that [the proposals of the federal
subsistence board] are independent. She noted that the federal
and state criteria are different. The state has 12 criteria
that it uses to identify fish and wildlife as being a principal
characteristic of the economy or area, while the main criteria
of the federal government is population size.
9:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said that he has noticed that the
department is appealing a federal board decision on a nonrural
designation in the Kenai area.
MS. ANDREWS clarified that the [department] is appealing some of
the customary and traditional uses in certain areas of the Kenai
because the [department] doesn't believe there is substantial
evidence to demonstrate a long-term and consistent pattern of
use. The aforementioned is the primary criteria. "We don't
think, in the state's view, that that was demonstrated - that
they followed their own regulations or followed their own
process in making that determination," she related.
9:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled that the subsistence liaison
has commented that the federal board decisions are being
revisited because they were poorly made. Representative
Johansen related his assumption then that since the [department]
isn't appealing the redesignation of Saxman to nonrural that the
[department] agrees with the decision.
MS. ANDREWS answered that she didn't know whether the department
had reviewed that decision.
9:40:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN related that there is much confusion in
District 1 as to why Saxman is now designated as nonrural while
other similar areas haven't been redesignated. He said that he
is trying to understand how the division/department approaches
these decisions [and which decisions are appealed].
MS. ANDREWS explained that the Kenai situation refers to the use
of the fishery by a community in a particular area. She said
that [the division/department] isn't clear why the determination
was made that Saxman is no longer rural based on the evidence
before it. The Kenai and the Saxman and Ketchikan situations
are separate issues. The criteria, she highlighted, for rural
versus nonrural designations are different than those used in
determining whether there is a customary and traditional use.
Under the state's regulations, Saxman is part of the Ketchikan
nonsubsistence area and doesn't meet the 12 criteria in which
subsistence is a principle characteristic of the economy in the
community/area. However, under the federal program, Ketchikan
was determined to be nonrural and Saxman rural. The evidence
the federal program used to designate that Saxman was no longer
rural would have to be challenged by the public. Ms. Andrews
clarified that under state law the joint boards have determined
that Saxman is nonrural.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN surmised then that the state doesn't
disagree with the federal designation of Saxman as nonrural.
MS. ANDREWS said she wouldn't say that the [department] agrees
with the federal program because the criteria for the state and
the federal programs are different.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged that the two different sets of
criteria are confusing, especially to those on the Lower Kenai
Peninsula - which is designated as a nonrural area - who have to
drive 75 miles to shop at a Fred Meyer or box store while areas
such as Kodiak, with a Wal-Mart, is designated as rural.
9:44:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON then turned the committee's attention to the
proposed change in regulations that would allow mixing zones in
fish spawning areas. Although that was somewhat addressed by
the former administration when it withdrew the allowance of
those pollution mixing zones on spawning areas for anadromous
fish, it was still allowed for all subsistence species. He
asked if the Division of Subsistence has reviewed the mixing
zones issue and whether it would impact subsistence species.
MS. ANDREWS replied no, not as a division.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that mixing zones is an area in which the
division should review because the subsistence and sport
divisions are impacted because those are the species left in the
mix.
9:46:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON highlighted how passionate people are with
regard to subsistence rights. He then recalled when the
Division of Subsistence was a larger division with a larger
budget and statewide presence than today. Therefore, he
questioned whether the division, in its current smaller state,
is able to keep pace with the federal subsistence board and
monitor activities on the state land.
MS. ANDREWS characterized the aforementioned as a challenge.
She then reminded the committee that the division's funding for
research comes from private contracts and the division's general
funds do not cover research, unlike the past. Furthermore, the
general fund budget has remained static for the past 10 years
despite inflation. Programs, staff, and activities have been
reduced to a skeleton, she mentioned. The federal subsistence
program does not include research, although the federal
subsistence program does contract with the department and other
entities for research. Thus, the Division of Subsistence is the
only program in the state conducting research on subsistence.
She related that from the federal subsistence program, the
division has received approximately $500,000 in contracts for
research. The division receives about $1.5 million more from
other entities and organizations.
9:52:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that if the Division of Subsistence
doesn't provide the research and the state challenges a federal
decision, the state is at an extreme disadvantage. He opined
that the House Special Committee on Fisheries is supportive of
ensuring that the state has the information to back the state's
position in the aforementioned situation. He then asked if the
challenge to the customary and traditional harvest is an appeal
or a legal challenge. He further asked if the funding for the
aforementioned comes from the division's existing budget or the
Department of Law's budget, or another funding source.
MS. ANDREWS specified that the funds for such a challenge don't
come out of the division's budget. She noted that the liaison
is from the commissioner's office. She further specified that
the situation that Chair Seaton mentioned isn't yet a legal
challenge. The Department of Law will fund the legal portion of
the matter.
9:54:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON informed the committee that there will be a hearing
on the resolution related to this issue. He then inquired as to
the type of research the division performs, how is it
accomplished, and the type of reports generated.
MS. ANDREWS explained that the division performs a lot of
harvest monitoring, household harvest surveys, which include
information related to household economy information, community
demographics, the patterns of use, and the gear utilized for
fishing. The division works closely with the communities. In
fact, the division obtains permission to work in a community
from some organizing body such as the tribal or municipal
government, or other community organizations. She noted that
the human dimension of the data collection poses some
challenges. In further response to Chair Seaton, Ms. Andrews
confirmed that the reports resulting from the research are
available on the web site.
9:57:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether it's common throughout the
state to provide stipends to individuals for data collection,
such as with Braund & Associates.
MS. ANDREWS stated that she is not aware of stipends being paid
by "our group."
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that he isn't referencing that
the department has a role in the stipends being paid, but merely
that there are stipends being paid to the village subsistence
users for their participation in the data collection effort.
9:59:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON queried whether the stipends are being paid for the
data that is being contracted through the division. He
expressed interest in whether the "same people are collecting
the same data or whether it's a different research project or an
extended research project."
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the practice of stipends is
common and whether it impacts the level of information that's
provided. He questioned whether people may be more forthcoming
regarding their traditional hunting and gathering patterns [due
to offering a stipend].
MS. ANDREWS pledged to look into this practice and noted that
often the individuals participating in key respondent interviews
are compensated, although the level of compensation varies.
However, typically those participating in the household harvest
surveys aren't compensated. She noted that often the local
research assistants are paid to administer the surveys.
10:01:47 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:02
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|