02/05/2013 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Alaska Department of Fish & Game Presentation of Foregone Harvest of Salmon | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 5, 2013
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME PRESENTATION OF
FOREGONE HARVEST OF SALMON
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species and establishing the aquatic invasive
species response fund."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/28/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/13 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
02/05/13 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF REGNART, Director
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the Foregone Harvest of Salmon
overview on behalf of ADF&G.
LOUIE FLORA, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 89 on behalf of Representative
Seaton, Prime Sponsor.
DOUGLAS DUNCAN, Intern
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted in the presentation of HB 89 on
behalf of Representative Seaton, Prime Sponsor.
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions, during the hearing
of HB 89.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:05:08 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Seaton, Gattis, Herron, and Olson;
Representatives Johnson and Feige arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
10:05:37 AM
^Overview(s): Alaska Department of Fish & Game Presentation of
Foregone Harvest of Salmon
Overview(s): Alaska Department of Fish & Game Presentation of
Foregone Harvest of Salmon
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
titled Foregone Harvest of Salmon.
10:06:24 AM
JEFF REGNART, Director, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), directed attention to the
committee handout titled, "A report to the House Fisheries
Committee: Salmon Escapements in Excess of Goal," February
2013, and the page 5 illustration titled, "Table 1-Statewide
summary," to indicate the overall escapement trends.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:08 a.m. to 10:09 a.m.
10:09:20 AM
MR. REGNART explained that Table 1 provides the frequency change
of escapement goals exceeded across the state, by region, with
varying results depending on the benchmark being applied. He
moved to Table 2-Southeast Region, pointing out that the
information reported is specific to each region and names the
systems being monitored; the data spans 2002-2011. If analysis
shows a system exceeding goals five out of five years, it is
highlighted for further scrutiny and the department makes
determinations on why over escapement might be occurring and how
to improve the situation; a narrative of each identified system
is included in the full report. Continuing through the
document, he said the succeeding tables similarly report data
for each region, namely: Table 3-Central Region, Table 4-Arctic
Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK), and Table 5-Westward Region. He pointed
out the systems in each region with escapement criteria showing
five out of five years of over escapement, highlighted for
further review. He offered that the criteria could be expanded
to three out of five, and information provided for the systems
which that data would include; however, area biologists would
need to be consulted for comment.
CHAIR SEATON requested the expanded report, and stressed the
need for the committee to gain an understanding of the reasons
for exceeding upper escapement goals.
10:14:22 AM
MR. REGNART returned to page 1, of the handout, and said the
narratives correspond to the tables. He said that specific
reasons behind the over escapement and how the department
considers each situation are herein discussed and include:
adequate management techniques; correct in-season authority; and
necessary oversight tools - additional assessment projects or
regulatory language for better in-season management. He said
that in some situations a good fix is not available, such as:
harvesting ability; interest within the fleet to target an area;
availability of processors to purchase the catch; and conflict
of overlapping runs where one stock is weak and requires
protection. All of these challenges face the department on any
given year, he said.
10:16:30 AM
MR. REGNART began with the Igushik system, which is productive
due to low pressure by fishermen for a number of reasons. The
department has provided ample opportunities for harvest;
however, certain gear types cannot fish this area. Located in
Bristol Bay, the Igushik is often passed over by the fleet due
to other bountiful areas that are easier to fish and where
tenders are positioned within proximity. Another example of
what can preclude harvest of an abundant fishery occurs on the
Yukon River. He directed attention to page 3, which begins with
discussion of the Yukon Mainstem Summer Chum Salmon. The
Chinook [also referred to in this report as King] salmon are a
concern in this area, but the once declining chum runs have
rebounded to healthy levels. In an effort to protect the
Chinook salmon, 750,000 chum go unharvested, due to the runs
entering the system simultaneously. The department and Board of
Fisheries (BOF) have each taken measures to address the overlap
of the runs and improvements are being made. The process is
slow as demands on this system are made by every user group.
One innovative, strategic approach has been for the department
to operate test fisheries prior to announcing a chum opening.
Additionally, as a disincentive, the commercial sale of Chinook
salmon is disallowed during times of chum harvest. The BOF has
recently authorized the department to allow dip nets for chum
harvest, for the live release of Chinook bycatch. Additionally,
seine catching is being allowed, with the same expectation that
Chinook will be live released. The over escapement is a current
loss of economic opportunity, but does not have a negative
effect on future fishing. As the new management tools are
implemented, data for the coming years should show that the
Chinook are being protected, as well as an economic increase in
the chum harvest.
10:20:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted the steps being undertaken to protect the
Chinook runs and asked if the department has the appropriate
emergency order (EO) authority and regulations in place, for
effective in-season management.
MR. REGNART answered that the department has been granted the
necessary authority and appropriate regulations are in place to
effectively manage the fishery. For example, he said that fish
wheels are required to have live boxes to allow release of
Chinook, and a Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
permit holder, perhaps for the Lower Yukon, will now be allowed
to use as many as four dip nets or a seine made of four inch or
smaller gill net, to effectively target the chum. He said these
are management tools that the department did not have authority
to implement in the past.
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding, from this testimony, that
ADF&G has authority to implement management strategies that will
allow appropriate opportunity for economic growth, based on an
expanded purview which up to now has been precluded.
10:22:59 AM
MR. REGNART returned to page 1, to review the report in further
detail, and began with Southeast Region I. He named the coho
salmon index stocks, which are: Hugh Smith, Sitka Survey, and
Auke Creek. He said the coho salmon in Southeast are difficult
to manage and data is less accurate, due to the way in which the
runs move into the systems. Typically, a large movement will
occur in conjunction with a natural event, such as a heavy
rainfall; escapements will go from zero then soar beyond range.
Other species in Region I are not as volatile and do not move a
quickly. An exploitation rate of 50 percent, or less, is
applied, and the hard data is gathered in post season surveys.
10:24:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled the reluctance of fishing fleet to harvest
Southeast coho, in certain areas, and legislation was passed to
provide the issuance of permits allowing independent fishermen
to tend one another's catch; in the absence of commercial
tenders. He asked if these permits are being utilized in
Southeast.
MR. REGNART reported that the transporter permits have been used
across the state and offered to provide further information to
the committee.
CHAIR SEATON stressed the importance for the fleet to know what
opportunities are available, and he briefly reviewed the
legislation that was passed allowing the department to issue
transfer permits.
10:29:39 AM
MR. REGNART stated that the Taku and Klukshu system sockeye
salmon are managed under the auspices of the Pacific Salmon
Treaty with Canada; the harvests are not solely the purview of
ADF&G. Because of treaty dictates, the department does not
manage these fisheries solely on abundance and escapement goals
can easily exceed targets.
CHAIR SEATON acknowledged the burden for compliance with treaty
criteria and stressed the importance to maintain accord among
the participants regarding harvest/escapement goals for the
systems. He requested further information regarding the
cooperative effort.
MR. REGNART agreed to provide further details.
10:31:06 AM
MR. REGNART moved onto Central Region II and the Igushik River
Sockeye Salmon narrative. He said it is one of three sockeye
producing rivers, in the Nushagak District of Bristol Bay. The
over escapement in the system is mainly due to minimal effort
and the inability of the fishermen to pull the fish out. The
district is shallow and primarily a set-net fishery. The number
of fishermen using set-nets has declined from roughly 80 to 50
and drift net fishermen are not inclined to put in effort due to
the shallow conditions, making this a hard area to manage. When
a strong run returns to the Igushik the department will have
daily or continuous openings, but over escapement will continue
to occur. Additionally, processors may not emphasize purchasing
in the area, nor place tenders in proximity; primarily due to
the shallow water conditions.
CHAIR SEATON noted that the report indicates an opening occurred
from 6/24-30, 2011. He asked whether the run was over by the
end of June and if the closure was for the remainder of the
season.
MR. REGNART explained that the run was neither over, nor closed
for the year. Usually, the opening would be similar to the
Nushagak District, commencing at the peak of the sockeye run,
the first week of July, and continuing through the 25th of the
month; allowing 12-18 hours of effort per day. Sockeye peak
early in the Igushik River and the June coho opening was in
addition to the simultaneous opening with the remainder of the
district. He said this is an example of what the department
does to encourage harvest of these coho.
10:34:16 AM
MR. REGNART returned to the report, page 2, and drew attention
to the Island Creek Pink Salmon section. He stated that the
system primarily provides a seine fishery and is one area in a
larger system that includes weak runs. Conservative openings
are allowed in an effort to rebuild the surrounding streams. It
is not possible to describe a fishery or isolate a stream, as
the fish will be harvested together. No additional tools are
needed to address the over escapement, and the expectation is
for adjacent stocks to rebuild and eventually allow expanded
opportunity in the area.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the agency has appropriate means for
assessing the area and to adequately issue EOs. He asked
whether the technology being used to assess these remote stocks
causes any delays of the in-season management
MR. REGNART reported that inflationary budget cuts had caused a
cutback in aerial surveys, but additional funding was provided
by the governor in FY 2012 and flights have been reinstated.
Some of the most isolated systems are being monitored via remote
sensing, eliminating the need for an expensive manned weir or
costly aerial counts. Additionally, due to satellite uplinks,
real-time management occurs on some systems, but not necessarily
this one.
CHAIR SEATON asked the division to provide the committee with
specific requests to identify whatever ways/means are lacking
that would allow economic opportunities to be pursued in the
identified areas.
10:39:03 AM
MR. REGNART continued with the Chenik Lake Sockeye Salmon
narrative, paraphrasing from the report, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Historically, the Chenik Lake system (also in Lower
Cook Inlet) has been difficult to manage precisely for
sockeye salmon given the barrier falls that prevent
passage into the Chenik River from the ocean at all
but the highest tides. Salmon, therefore, enter the
lake in very large pulses. Complicating this is the
turbid water of Lower Cook Inlet that prevents
managers from making accurate estimates of sockeye
numbers outside of Chenik Lagoon. Current EO
authority and management plans are adequate to manage
this fishery.
CHAIR SEATON said that the report indicates over escapement in
this system every year and said the legislature would like to
see the resource harvested to the maximum extent. He suggested
that in areas that are consistently over the escapement goals,
it may be possible to implement additional remote sensing
devices using funding from test fisheries or other means. These
are issues which the committee needs to have brought forward for
appropriate action to ensure that the state's interests for
economic opportunity are being served, he opined.
10:41:22 AM
MR. REGNART directed attention to page 3, to discuss the Yukon
Mainstem Summer Chum Salmon narrative. The department is trying
new approaches to satisfy chum harvests while protecting Chinook
salmon, he reported. The south, middle, and north mouths of the
Yukon River are being handled independently, as the ratios of
species vary in each area. Test fisheries are conducted to
determine the optimal harvest and allow selective chum openings
specific to the area; an approach implemented from 2010-2012.
During the 2013 season, the department will have additional
authority, granted by the BOF, for alternative gear use, as
previously mentioned, that should allow for live release of
Chinook bycatch. He said it is premature to draw conclusions
on how this will improve the chum harvest.
10:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said the complaint in AYK is that the
mechanical assessment tools being used are restrictive. He
asked about the need for new technology, with improved
monitoring methods, such as sonar capable of species
identification, to clearly monitor the Chinook salmon returns,
and if there are any additional/new devices that the department
would like to have to help monitor the [south mouth] of the
Yukon River.
MR. REGNART responded that the test fishing is important and is
conducted more in the south mouth with increased frequency.
Through local knowledge, the department has learned that the
Chinook return variably through one of the three mouths and, he
said, in-season isolation of which mouth the run is returning
through would be key. Sonar would not necessarily prove
helpful, but the test nets that are being used, as well as
feedback from the commercial fishery appear to be sufficient.
Additionally, the commercial applications that will be allowed
in the coming season, with the use of dip and seine nets for
live release, have good potential to allow an effective harvest
of the chum salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked about the department's policy for
starting and stopping monitoring of a system that is achieving
escapement.
MR. REGNART responded that the department approaches monitoring
in a uniform manner across the state, whether data is being
collected on a system via a weir, sonar system, tower, or other
assessment method. It is important for assessment methods to be
in place prior to the arrival of a run, and the department
endeavors to set-up systems early, based on historical
information; keeping in mind annual migratory variations that
may occur. Assessments are continued through the end of a run
to gain the most accurate information. He assured the committee
that uniform data collection criteria are applied.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that, in the AYK area, the prevailing
perception is that fewer monitoring sights are in place and
asked if this is a fact and, if so, why.
MR. REGNART answered that modifications have occurred and some
techniques work better on some species or in certain areas. For
instance, the use of sonar can be effective but also presents
problems depending on whether mixed runs are present, in which
case test fishing is a better method. He cited the Anvik River
sonar assessments, recently discovered to be flawed, which
require different techniques to be implemented. The most
effective method is sight identification, but in glacial
systems, sonar is effective due to lack of visibility. Every
system presents challenges, sometimes too great to get
satisfactory results. However, the department has not walked
away from monitoring any system, but rather proceeded to tailor
assessment methods to obtain the best information.
10:51:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the anticipated use of beach seines and
asked whether the parameters of length, depth, and usage are
being determined by the department. Further, considering the
methodology of the area, with small operators utilizing skiffs
or multiple permit holders working together to release bycatch
Chinook alive, he pondered whether the department has the
ability to monitor the situation or if special regulations will
be needed.
MR. REGNART said the board has adopted regulations for the
permit holders and identified the net parameters. He said it is
not a seining web, but a gill net; a different net than what
might be used in other areas.
CHAIR SEATON inquired further about the different net size and
crew configuration.
MR. REGNART responded that the net must be four inches or less,
and he assured the committee that the newly approved methods
focus on the ability to live release Chinook salmon.
10:53:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired how many DIDSON (Dual-frequency
IDentification SONar) sonar systems ADF&G is planning to use for
in-season monitoring in 2013.
MR. REGNART stated that the primary system being used will be
DIDSON. The Bendix system has become obsolete, for the most
part, with only one in use; possibly on the west side of Cook
Inlet. The short and long range DIDSON has replaced the Bendix
units for the most part, and he offered to provide details to
the committee. To a follow-up question he said the DIDSON can
be operated continuously, around the clock, sometimes
enumerating hourly increments. The schedule for operation is
based on the species and the run, he said, for instance a ten
minute enumeration for every hour of the day may be appropriate
depending on the application and management requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked how counting fish on the Kenai River
is being handled.
MR. REGNART reported that during a site visit, in 2012, he
observed that the units were operating continuously. He offered
to provide further details to the committee.
10:56:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the department has published any
documents on the effectiveness of the sonar. He stressed that
negative results should also be published as Alaska data are a
resource for many other state agencies. Further, the reputation
of the department is important, and specifically designed
systems should have published results for reference purposes,
reporting both positive and negative outcomes.
MR. REGNART said the Bendix system was new technology in the
1960s, but the department had to curtail use when it became
obsolete with the death of the person who designed and built the
systems; eliminating the possibility for continued operation to
be supported. The DIDSON was developed in an applied physicist
laboratory, at the University of Washington, and has proven to
be an index system that works very well. In order to replace
the Bendix with a DIDSON, the two units are operated side by
side, for a specified number of years, on an index system. The
overlap of reported data is important to provide understandable
differences, which may be within 15-20 percent. The important
aspect is to have confidence in the stability and consistency of
the reported data, over a period of time, for effective
management of a fishery. He stressed that the accuracy of the
Bendix was not in question, but required replacement by a
supportable system. The DIDSON does provide additional
flexibility, such as the possibility for differentiation of
species.
CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that split beam sonar was
not put in the Kenai, in 2012, because there was such
variability between the readings from the DIDSON and the split
beam counts from the previous two years. Reportedly it was not
possible to determine a ratio and escapement goal indexing could
not be correlated. He asked for a written report from the
department regarding analysis of the Kenai situation and the two
devices.
MR. REGNART explained that the split beam unit is created by
BioSonics, Incorporated, and he clarified the three systems used
in the field, which are: DIDSON, BioSonics split beam, and
Bendix. He confirmed the chairman's understanding that the
split beam gave the department "fits" within the Kenai [River]
enumerating Chinook salmon. The BioSonics unit has not been
deployed on the Kenai for the last couple of years, and has been
replaced with a long range DIDSON unit. He agreed to provide
the committee with a report.
CHAIR SEATON recalled an ADF&G report touting technological
effectiveness and suggested the need for the department to
publish a retraction statement. He again stressed the
importance for the reliability and reputation of ADF&G
publications.
11:02:58 AM
MR. REGNART drew attention to page 4, and the Cinder River
Sockeye Salmon report. He said the Cinder River is another
system that is difficult to harvest due to the shallow tidal
flats. The department is seeking regulatory changes through the
BOF, and the Cinder River is a main topic on the agenda for the
next meeting; action is expected prior to the next season.
11:04:36 AM
MR. REGNART addressed the handout titled, "Fishery Manuscript
Series No. 12-03; Summary of Pacific Salmon Escapement Goals in
Alaska with a Review of Escapements from 2003 to 2011," by
Andrew R. Munro and Eric C. Volk, dated August 2012, to state
that it is an annual document which provides a level of
departmental transparency. The report is verbose but allows a
look at what is occurring with salmon across the state, by
region. He directed attention to page 49, Table 13, titled
"Summary of Southeast Region salmon escapements compared against
escapement goals for the years 2003 to 2011," which is followed
by Figure 6, a bar graph of the same title, providing an
illustration of the information by annual percentage of goal
achieved. For the table, he suggested viewing the center row,
or column, labeled "Goal Met" for a comparison of the data that
brackets it labeled "Above Upper Goal" and "Below Lower Goal".
These comparisons provide useful escapement trends and he
briefly discussed the escapement percentages illustrated on the
succeeding pages which provide the same information for the
other regions of the state. He offered to explain the report in
further detail, when the committee has had an opportunity for
review, and to respond to any questions that arise.
CHAIR SEATON said this is important information for the
committee to receive, as well as to gain an understanding for
how the department tracks salmon escapement trends.
HB 89-AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
11:09:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to the rapid response to,
and control of, aquatic invasive species and establishing the
aquatic invasive species response fund."
11:09:38 AM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 89 stating that the intent is to
address a rapid response to invasive species which may already
or are likely to appear in Alaskan waters. In recent committee
meetings, invasive species, such as the Sitka infestation of
D.vex, commonly called Sea Vomit, have been presented and shown
to be a growing problem. It is important to have the ability to
address these types of outbreaks. Additionally, he said,
immediate attention may be required to address situations such
as unknown species arriving on the Japanese tsunami debris and
what the growing commerce connected to marine traffic may bring
to regions in Alaska. On the books, a long range plan is in
place, but HB 89 is specific for developing a rapid response
capability within, as well as through the coordination of, state
agencies.
11:12:20 AM
DOUGLAS DUNCAN Intern, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 89 provides the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) with the statutory authority, and a fund, to
swiftly address outbreaks of aquatic invasive species
such as D.vex.
HB 89 requires ADF&G, in coordination with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Department of Natural Resources, and other applicable
agencies, to establish and carry out a rapid response
plan to an incipient aquatic invasive species.
HB 89 gives ADF&G the authority to use chemical,
biological, mechanical, or physical methods to deal
with the outbreak. It allows for expedited review of
plans for dealing with invasive species, and directs
ADF&G staff to prioritize eradication of the invasive
species over other management issues for a specific
area.
HB 89 specifies that affected private property owners
shall be considered, but still allows responding
agencies to be held harmless for damages caused by
their invasive species treatment. Impacts to native
species shall be minimized if possible.
Sea Vomit and other aquatic invasive species have the
potential to seriously impact our lucrative commercial
fishing, mariculture, and recreational fishing
industries. HB 89 gives Alaska the tools to rapidly
combat this threat.
MR. DUNCAN stressed that the sooner response can take place the
better the possibility of success in protecting the aquatic
resources of Alaska; established invasive species are more
difficult to control or eradicate.
11:15:13 AM
MR. FLORA reported that, because of the previous legislation
considered on this subject, the topic has been discussed by, and
opinions contributed from, various interest groups to assist in
the crafting of the bill language. For example, inclusion of
"incipient populations of aquatic invasive species" is helpful
to isolate and trigger a rapid response for targeted action on
an incipient versus an endemic invasive population.
Paraphrasing from the bill, he said private property owners
would be held harmless, as indicated by the language on page 2,
subsection (h), which reads [original punctuation provided]:
(h) In responding under (b) of this section to the
occurrence of an incipient population of an aquatic
invasive species, the department shall consider the
potential effects of its response measures on private
property while selecting the most effective methods to
eradicate or control the aquatic invasive species.
MR. FLORA referred to existing regulatory language that governs
agricultural pests and can require property owners to pay for
mitigation efforts, to underscore the need to include subsection
(h). Also, HB 89 creates a rapid response fund, avoiding the
need to call a special legislative session in order to
appropriate money in the event of an emergency situation due to
an outbreak.
11:18:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked when the current memorandum of
understanding (MOU), between DNR, ADF&G and DEC, was signed and
whether it is specific to D.vex.
MR. FLORA said he would provide the information to the
committee, regarding the signature date of the MOU, and
clarified that it is specific to aquatic species.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired why the governors proposed budget
does not include funding for a study/plan for rapid response.
MR. FLORA deferred to a state agency for response.
11:20:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the intent of the bill requires
the creation of a plan, including applicable agency MOUs, and to
establish a fund to support and make capable a rapid response.
The purpose of the fund is not for planning purposes. Citing
the Whiting Harbor D.vex infestation, he said it has taken three
years for the department to formulate a request for proposal
(RFP) in order to handle the outbreak; putting economic
fisheries in jeopardy. He pointed out that the purpose of the
fund is described within the bill, at the bottom of page 2
[subsection (i)]. Finally, he offered that ADF&G is not only
working with DEC and DNR but is collaborating with other state,
federal and private entities as well, to develop an effective
plan.
11:24:14 AM
CHARLIE SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), referred to Representative
Herron's question regarding the MOU to state that it was signed
in mid-January. He declined to offer a definitive reason for
the lack of a rapid response to the Sitka D.vex infestation, and
said some confusion existed over statutory responsibility, which
required review by the Department of Law (DOL). He then
reviewed the fiscal note, prepared by ADF&G, for HB 89, and said
it includes the cost for a staff of three to attend to the
administrative procedures required in the bill, over the next 18
months. The first phase would be to update the Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan, an eleven year old document, as well as
establish a comprehensive outline and finally, create a detailed
rapid response plan for the five identified species, which are:
Northern pike, D.vex, European green crab, Spartina cordgrass
and crayfish.
11:27:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON acknowledged that the MOU was signed on
January 15, [2013], and said it appears to only cover the
freshwater invasive plant Elodea. Referring to the MOU, he
noted that the directional language states, "Responses must be
thorough and shared by all three agencies." He opined that
critics could interpret this to mean a slow response; something
to bear in mind. Further, he conjectured whether the sponsor
should take heart that the 18 month fiscal note will be
adequate. Referring to the previously mentioned 2002 ADF&G
statewide management plan for aquatic species considered to be
the highest threat, he asked whether the plan is being
implemented in relation to today's subject matter.
11:28:41 AM
MR. SWANTON responded, yes, and cited the ADF&G legislative
report [presented to this committee on 1/29/13]. Although not
considered a rapid response to the D.vex infestation, the report
also included discussion of the Northern pike issue, which has
been an on-going ADF&G concern. The department has met these
challenges utilizing the resources that have been available.
11:29:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the agencies were attempting to respond
to the D.vex appropriately, and said the legislature may have
had other expectations; revealing the need to revisit the
statutory authority. He stated his understanding for the major
delay, regarding the response to D.vex in Sitka, were the
liability issues that arose around the private mariculture
facility in Whiting Harbor. He asked if HB 89 would alleviate
repetition of a similar legal situation, with the inclusion of
the hold harmless language.
11:31:14 AM
MR. SWANTON noted that the bill offers comfort regarding
liability concerns; however, statute may apply differently on a
situational basis.
CHAIR SEATON requested that the bill be reviewed by ADF&G legal
counsel to ensure appropriate language and announced that the
bill would be held for further study and response.
11:33:39 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:33
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FMS12-03 Salmon Escapements and Goals 2003-2011.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
ADFG Escapement Goals |
| Report to House Fisheries Committee Salmon Escapements Above Goals 5 Years Running.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
ADFG Escapement Goals |
| HB0089A.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB 89 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB 89 Aquatic Invasive Species Background Information.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM HFSH 2/12/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB089-DEC-SWM-01-30-13.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB089-DEC-WQ-01-31-13.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB089-DFG-SFD-02-01-13.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB089-DNR-AGR-2-2-13.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |
| HB089-DOR-TRS-2-1-13.pdf |
HFSH 2/5/2013 10:00:00 AM |
HB 89 |