02/07/2007 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 7, 2007
8:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting involving geoducks
and to geoduck seed transfers between certified hatcheries and
aquatic farms."
- MOVED CSHB 26(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 74
"An Act prohibiting mixing zones in freshwater spawning waters."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/02/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/05/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/07 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 74
SHORT TITLE: BAN MIXING ZONES IN SPAWNING AREAS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON, GARA, LEDOUX
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) FSH, RES
02/05/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/05/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/07/07 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Fisheries Biologist III
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB 26.
THOMAS PEBBLER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during hearing on HB 74.
KEN DUCKETT, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters Association (USAG)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
RICHARD KING, Village Administrator
Ekwok Village Council
Ekwok, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
BRIAN KRAFT, Owner
Alaska Sportsman's Lodge
Kodiak Sportsman's Lodge
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
GARVAN BUKARIA
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 74.
GEORGE MATZ, Issues Coordinator
Cook Inlet Alliance (CIA)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
CATHY CRAWFORD, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
RALPH GUTHRIE
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 74.
IZETTA CHAMBERS, Manager
Naknek Family Fisheries, LLC,
Naknek, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 74.
TYLER DANN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 74.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:36:18 AM. Representatives,
Seaton Johansen, LeDoux, Edgmon, and Edgmon were present at the
call to order. Representatives Wilson and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 26-GEODUCK AQUATIC FARMING EXEMPTION
8:36:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to aquatic farm permitting
involving geoducks and to geoduck seed transfers between
certified hatcheries and aquatic farms."
8:38:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON opened discussion on HB 26, pointing out that
public discussion is closed. He called attention to incoming
information from legal services and other additions to the
packet.
8:39:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON paraphrased from a Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum dated February 6, 2007, the subject of which
was "Aquatic Farming Permits (HB 26; Work Order No. 25-
LS0179\K). This memorandum addresses four issues brought up by
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. He opined how the
opinion, related to the fourth issue, is "backwards."
8:44:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the Governor has indicated a wish to
support mariculture. Referring to an excerpt from the
Governor's campaign materials, he read a quote as follows:
I will work with our shellfish growers to make sure
state permitting is not a hindrance to their business.
We will grow our mariculture business in a way that
does not interfere with the established dive
fisheries, but that will produce quality products for
the marketplace, and jobs for our coastal communities.
8:46:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that there are no geoduck or dive
fisheries in the areas that will be affected by HB 26. The
intent of the bill is to provide jobs in coastal communities.
He then offered Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 1, line 7, following "section.":
Insert "If, under this section, the commissioner
issues a permit for an aquatic farm to culture
geoducks in a management area that does not have wild
geoduck stocks when the permit is issued, the permit
may not allow operations for that purpose in the
intertidal habitat or environment."
8:46:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIR SEATON explained that Amendment 1 would address concerns
regarding intertidal areas in the northern parts of the state.
This would alleviate concerns regarding interference with
recreational use of habitat, as this would be a subtidal or dive
fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR SEATON, referring to a statement from the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that ADF&G does not
have adequate funding for shellfish research.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said:
I listened to that statement, and ... was concerned
[that] maybe they do need the money before this can be
done safely. And then I listened to the other
statement ... that there's absolutely no study they
could do, that would make them feel comfortable. So,
it almost seems like we could throw all of the money
in the world at this, and they'd never feel
comfortable.
8:50:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that he shares this concern. He said "I got
the feeling, when we were talking about genetics, and the offer
to look at sterile stocks. The quote was that they would ...
look at it, but not that if they were sterile they would agree
to those." However, there is no wild stock in these areas;
therefore genetic problems and solutions are not an issue. This
is an issue of ecological considerations in regard to
introduction of geoducks into an area where there is no wild
stock population. The problem, he said, is stated in the ADF&G
handout titled "Attachment 4, Selected Fish and Game Laws,
Regulations and Guidelines Related to Shellfish Transport and
Aquaculture." He pointed out that the "Northern Exchange" is
Tenakee Springs; however, an intertidal geoduck farm has been
permitted 35 miles North of Juneau. This is in conflict with
ADF&G statements regarding ecological effects, as it is outside
of the natural range.
8:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether ADF&G was questioned
regarding this.
CHAIR SEATON replied no, as the information regarding the
aforementioned farm was received later.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she would like to hear an
explanation.
8:53:43 AM
CYNTHIA PRING-HAM, Fisheries Biologist III, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that there is an intertidal
aquatic farm site at Bridget Cove. The larval drift zone is a
result of currents. The aforementioned site is allowed because
it is within the larval drift zone.
8:55:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the larval drift zone is intended to
prevent the contamination of stocks across genetic lines. He
pointed out that Attachment 4 states that the "natural range" is
south of Tenakee Springs. He inquired as to why a site that is
above the natural range has been permitted, given the previous
concerns regarding the ecological interaction beyond the natural
range.
8:56:26 AM
MS. PRING-HAM replied that anything within Zone 1, which is
southeast, may have geoducks due to currents. The natural range
is what the ADF&G is currently aware of. She reiterated that
geoducks are not typically found in intertidal areas; however,
they are found in the aforementioned zone, which is why the site
was permitted.
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification that geoducks are not
naturally in the intertidal range.
MS. PRING-HAM replied that they are typically in the lower
intertidal range.
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether those found in Tenakee
Springs or in the Northern part of the range are intertidal.
MS. PRING-HAM replied that she is unable to answer this
question. There is not enough information regarding the full
distribution of geoducks in southeast Alaska; however, the
currents may carry larvae into the northern area.
8:59:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON questioned whether surveys have been done in
Northern Lynn Canal, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, or
Pelican.
MS. PRING-HAM replied that she is not aware of any. However, it
is feasible for viable populations to be in these areas.
CHAIR SEATON said:
It seems that when you are talking about an ecological
interaction, and ... in your own paperwork, you say
that their range is south of Tenakee Springs, and you
are permitting farms north of Tenakee Springs, it's
[obvious] that you haven't worried about an ecological
interaction in the northern end, which was beyond your
established range ... for the species. So, we'll go
on to further questions. I think we've found that we
don't know a lot of information.
9:01:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that the intent of HB 26 is
"going in the right direction." However, this process is "piece
meal." He offered his understanding that the Governor is
interested in building this industry. Lack of funding is a
concern of ADF&G. He expressed concern regarding the science
behind it, and opined that many concerns have been brought up.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to report HB 26, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
26(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
HB 74-BAN MIXING ZONES IN SPAWNING AREAS
9:04:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act prohibiting mixing zones in
freshwater spawning waters."
CHAIR SEATON passed the gavel to Representative Johansen.
9:05:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, speaking as a joint prime sponsor of HB
74, explained that HB 74 would reinstate the previous
prohibition on pollution mixing zones in Alaska's freshwater
spawning areas. This prohibition was in effect for over ten
years, and was reversed two years ago. He gave a brief history
of the statute, along with current concerns regarding mixing
zones and spawning areas. He stated that HB 74 prevents
artificially dug channels or lakes from being reclassified as
"spawning areas," thus offering security to mining interests and
municipalities.
9:11:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES moved to adopt CSHB 74, Version 25-
LS0337\M, Bullock, 2/6/07, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version M was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Version M clarifies that
mixing zones are not authorized at any time, in addition to
clarifying that the prohibition does not apply to turbidity
mixing zones. He noted that his office has received a large
amount of testimony in favor of the bill. He brought attention
to a letter from Joe Faith, of Dillingham, Alaska, requesting a
definition of "suction dredge" and "mechanical dredge."
Additionally, there are letters from individuals with mining
interests, which resulted in the turbidity mixing zone
exemption.
9:13:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in regard to the definition of "suction
dredge" and "mechanical dredge," asked if further information is
available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that information is not available
at this time.
9:14:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the sponsor would like a
conceptual amendment to address this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that it would be helpful to hear
public testimony regarding this issue. Additionally, other
concerns may be raised.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that there will be additional
changes.
9:15:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN returned the gavel to Chair Seaton.
9:15:23 AM
THOMAS PEBBLER stated that he is in support of HB 74. In regard
to mixing zones, he stated that Alaska's fisheries should not be
compromised for the sake of waste discharge. The fisheries are
"invaluable," due to the laws which have, until recently,
maintained the standard of quality. He opined that allowing
mixing zones in the fisheries would defeat and reverse the
intention of the original law. It is not possible, he said, to
compensate for "invaluable, renewable resources." Timing the
mixing so that it corresponds to periods between spawning would
be "futile." He opined that the current regulations will
eventually lead to disaster, and must be changed.
9:18:00 AM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that she would cover
three issues: background on water quality standards and mixing
zones, recent regulatory changes regarding spawning areas,
regulatory protections in place for mixing zones. DEC, she
said, is responsible for adopting water quality standards that
will protect multiple uses of Alaska's waters. This includes
drinking water, contact recreation, and growth and propagation
of aquatic life, and domestic, commercial, and industrial use.
The water quality standards include numerical and narrative
criteria that are established in regulation. The mixing zone
provisions are included in the water quality regulations.
MS. KENT offered the definition of "mixing zone." She explained
that mixing zones are not unique to Alaska, and are allowed
under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has developed guidelines on how to establish mixing
zones. The mixing zones are highly regulated by the department,
and are not a "blanket approval" to discharge pollutants into
the water. Mathematical models are used to determine the size
and shape, using site-specific information. Many permits
require that the permittee monitor the concentration of
pollutants and discharge, in addition to monitoring to ensure
that water quality standards are met at the edge of the mixing
zone. DEC conducts independent inspections and monitoring of
permittees.
MS. KENT went on to say that mixing zones have been allowed in
Alaska for the past 30 years, as a part of a wastewater
discharge permit, which must go through a public notice and
review period. Mixing zones are a tool used to keep treatment
costs reasonable, while ensuring protection of human and
environmental health. She then gave examples of mixing zones.
9:24:50 AM
MS. KENT moved on to discuss the recent changes in mixing zone
regulations. Previously, there was a prohibition on mixing
zones in streams and rivers, and spawning areas for anadromous
fish, along with specific resident fish. The DEC felt that in
certain circumstances, the prohibition was excessive.
Additionally, the regulations were not fair to those who had
invested in facility infrastructure and received authorization
for a mixing zone which later became a spawning area. Finally,
she said that the old regulations were not synchronized with the
permitting practices. The current mixing zone regulations were
adopted by DEC one year ago. These regulations continue the
prohibition on mixing zones and spawning areas for anadromous
salmon. The only exception to this is for renewal of mixing
zone authorizations in areas where spawning was not occurring at
the time of the initial authorization. This applies to both
domestic and industrial discharges. The mixing zones are
prohibited from having any adverse affect on the present or
future spawning, incubation, and rearing capability of an area.
These regulations also continue the prohibition of mixing zones
in spawning areas for other specifically identified species, and
allow for a few exceptions which were not previously allowed.
The new regulations require DEC to work closely with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and ADF&G. She noted that
the new regulations also include lakes.
MS. KENT then explained the exceptions for spawning areas. The
first is in regard to spawning that occurs after the mixing zone
has been authorized. The second exception is for the discharge
of a substance that does not adversely effect aquatic life.
Finally, an exception is made if DNR or ADF&G has approved a
mitigation plan under its regulations. In regard to spatial and
temporal nature of mixing zones, she stated that DNR and ADF&G
consider all mixing zones to have both aspects, which is
reflected in the new regulations. However, the treatment of
mixing zones and spawning areas remains the same.
9:29:05 AM
MS. KENT then discussed the regulations which are in place for
all mixing zones. Individuals who meet the aforementioned
requirements must meet additional regulatory standards. She
paraphrased from a handout titled "Division of Water Quality
Standards, 2003-2006 Triennial Review, Mixing Zone Requirements
in Regulation (as of March 23, 2006) and explained that this
applies to all mixing zones. These requirements are designed to
protect aquatic life, human health, and multiple uses of the
water.
9:32:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the fiscal impact of certifying that
the biological impact of the water-body will not be impaired.
MS. KENT replied that the applicant is obligated to self-monitor
for this. The departments then review the reports and conduct
independent monitoring.
9:34:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired as to how an individual might apply to
mitigate the biological integrity of the water-body.
MS. KENT replied that both DNR and ADF&G have regulations
regarding mitigation. In response to an additional question,
she explained that the regulations require that the
aforementioned departments review and approve the mitigation
plans for waters they are statutorily responsible for.
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that under a temporal
application, the mixing zone could not be used while fish were
spawning. However, the mixing zone may be approved for when the
fish are not spawning.
MS. KENT replied that this is correct. She explained that the
new regulations are specific regarding this issue. This is
intended to prevent mixing zones in areas that would have a down
stream effect, or an effect on the area when fish are spawning,
incubating, or rearing.
9:37:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that a mixing zone may be
allowed in a spawning area when spawning is not occurring, as
long as this would not diminish the long-term integrity of the
area in regard to supporting fish.
MS. KENT agreed that this is correct.
9:38:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired as to how many current mixing
zone permits would not be allowed if HB 74 were to pass.
MS. KENT stated that she does not have this information but will
research this.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in regard to the inspections done by the
department, inquired as to what is done. Additionally, he asked
whether the department has the ability to monitor on a "real-
time" basis.
MS. KENT replied that the inspections determine whether a
facility is operating as was indicated, in addition to ensuring
that outfalls are located appropriately. For around 25 percent
of inspections, samples are taken to ensure that the discharge
is the same as is being reported. She explained that most
facilities are continuous discharge facilities, which gives a
"pretty good picture" of what is being discharged.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to how many inspectors are
employed during the summer months.
MS. KENT offered her understanding that there are 12 full-time
inspectors and two seasonal inspectors.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether additional inspectors would
be needed if HB 74 were to pass.
MS. KENT replied that the number of inspectors would not change.
In response to a question from Chair Seaton, she explained that
during the previous year, 90 facilities were inspected. She
reiterated that on average, water samples are taken at around 25
percent of the facilities. This is in addition to the self-
monitoring that is required of most permittees. Daily
monitoring may be required, and reports are turned in on a
monthly basis.
9:42:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON requested additional information regarding the
water quality samples.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to whether the inspections are
announced or unannounced.
MS. KENT replied that generally, rural area inspections are
announced to ensure that facility operators are available.
However, not all inspections are announced.
CHAIR SEATON requested additional information regarding how many
inspections are municipal waste-water facilities versus
industrial facilities.
9:44:05 AM
KEN DUCKETT, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gillnetters Association (USAG), stated that USAG is in support
of HB 74. He opined that it is difficult to prove that a fish
population has been adversely effected by an action. Various
factors may effect the productivity of a system. The way to
avoid this is "to not have ... discharge to begin with." He
stated that he recently purchased a fishing license in Oregon,
where warnings are given regarding the fish caught in a
particular system. He opined that Oregon is a good
environmental state; however, he does not want to see this
happen in Alaska.
9:47:04 AM
RICHARD KING, Village Administrator, Ekwok Village Council,
stated that the Ekwok Village Council is in support of banning
mixing zones. He explained that villagers use the area for
subsistence, and opined that adding pollution to the food supply
"is not right."
9:48:13 AM
BRIAN KRAFT, Owner, Alaska Sportsman's Lodge, Kodiak Sportsman's
Lodge, expressed concern with allowing mixing zones. He opined
that self-monitoring may result in mistakes, and common sense
should be used. In addition, it "does not make sense" to spend
millions of dollars to market fresh, wild, salmon and allow
mixing zones. The commercial fishing industry "depends heavily
on a strong perception of clean water and clean habitat for
these renewable resources." He encouraged the passage of HB 74.
9:51:11 AM
GARVAN BUKARIA stated that he is in support of HB 74. He stated
that allowing mixing zones "at any time" can adversely impact
the fishery resources. The addition of toxins to water bodies
is not helpful "in any shape or form."
CHAIR SEATON clarified that "at any time" means that mixing
zones could not be allowed during one time of year and not
another.
9:53:13 AM
GEORGE MATZ, Issues Coordinator, Cook Inlet Alliance (CIA),
stated that CIA is in support of HB 74. The prohibition of
mixing zones should be at a statutory level.
9:54:17 AM
CATHY CRAWFORD, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen
United (CDFU), stated that CDFU is in support of HB 74. The
CDFU is committed to ensuring the sustainability of wild Alaskan
salmon, which is recognized in the world-wide market as a
healthy product. It is imperative that the fish remain free of
pollutants throughout all phases of the life cycle.
9:56:33 AM
RALPH GUTHRIE stated that while he supports HB 74, he is
concerned with the discharge of salmon waste in closed waters.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that HB 74 applied to fresh-water, and
does not include any marine mixing zones.
9:58:17 AM
IZETTA CHAMBERS, Manager, Naknek Family Fisheries, LLC, stated
that she is in support of HB 74. She stressed the importance of
maintaining clean waters for Alaska's fisheries.
10:01:11 AM
TYLER DANN stated that he is in support of HB 74. He pointed
out that fisheries are important to the state of Alaska. In
contrast to this, the mining industry does not appear to support
the state. Finally, the state of Alaska has a "great
opportunity to get it right."
CHAIR SEATON noted that public testimony would continue at the
next committee hearing.
10:03:31 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:03
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|