Legislature(2019 - 2020)Anch LIO Lg Conf Rm
09/03/2020 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Fisheries | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
September 3, 2020
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon (via teleconference)
Representative Chuck Kopp (via teleconference)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (via teleconference)
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sarah Vance (via teleconference)
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Sara Hannan (via teleconference)
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz (via teleconference)
Representative Dave Talerico (via teleconference)
Representative George Rauscher (via teleconference
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Representative Mark Neuman
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Harriett Drummond (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Fisheries
McKenzie Mitchell Fairbanks, Alaska
John Wood Willow, Alaska
John Jensen Petersburg, Alaska
Abe Williams - Anchorage, Alaska
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MEGAN WALLACE, Director
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited comment about the board
confirmation process.
MCKENZIE MITCHELL, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
JOHN WOOD, Esq., Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Willow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
ABE WILLIAMS, Appointee
Board of Fisheries
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Fisheries.
GARY CLINE
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
ANTHONY ZOCH, Regional Fisheries Coordinator
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
SHANNON DONAHUE
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
MELISSA STERITZ
Eyak Preservation Council (EPC)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
BRIAN HIMELBLOOM
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
John Jensen, and expressed concern about the appointments of
John Wood, McKenzie Mitchell, and Abe Williams to the Board of
Fisheries.
SERENA FITKA, Executive Director
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that given the Board of
Fisheries' current membership and nominee panel, it does not
have fair representation of all of Alaska.
EVELYN CORBETT
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
MALCOLM VANCE
McCarthy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
LINDSAY LAYLAND, Deputy Director
United Tribes of Bristol Bay (UTBB)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
JEFF SKRADE
La Crosse, Wisconsin
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
ROBERT HEYANO
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams and in support of the appointment of John Jensen
to the Board of Fisheries.
STEVE HYAMS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
NELS EVENS
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
JACK DONACHY
Chignik Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
JUDY GONSALVES
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
OLIVA EDWARDS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
CRAWFORD PARR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
PHIL HILBRUNER, Owner
Lakeview Outfitters
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
AMANDA JOHNSTON
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
VIVIAN MENDENHALL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
KATHERINE CARSCALLEN
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
VERNER WILSON III
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams and expressed concern about the appointment of
John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
DIANE FOLSOM
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointments
of Abe Williams and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
MARIEL TERRY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
MARK RICHARDS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
McKenzie Mitchell and in opposition to the appointment of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
ANNE CORAY KAHN
Lake Clark, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
DONNA RAE FAULKNER
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
DON MCNAMARA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointments
of John Wood and Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
RICHARD GUSTAFSON
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointments
of Abe Williams and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
MAGGIE BURSCH
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
KALEB WESTFALL
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the appointment
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
CHUCK DERRICK, President
Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointments of
McKenzie Mitchell and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
CHUCK MCCALLUM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointments of
McKenzie Mitchell and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries.
ROBERT HEYANO
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
John Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
BEN MOHR, Executive Director
Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointments of
McKenzie Mitchell, John Wood, John Jensen, and Abe Williams to
the Board of Fisheries.
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Seiners Association (SEAS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
John Jensen to the Board of Fisheries.
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointments of
McKenzie Mitchell, John Wood, John Jensen, and Abe Williams to
the Board of Fisheries.
GEORGIE HEAVERLEY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony expressing her concern
that the people of Alaska are losing faith in the Board of
Fisheries process.
STEPHANIE QUINN-DAVIDSON, PhD, Director, Yukon River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony urging that the
administration go back to the drawing board and nominate an
appointee with knowledge of and experience in subsistence.
KAREN HOFSTAD
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
John Jensen and in opposition to the appointments of McKenzie
Mitchell and Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
GALE VICK, Member
Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
McKenzie Mitchell to the Board of Fisheries.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:04:54 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the joint meeting of the House
Special Committee on Fisheries and the House Resources Standing
Committee to order at [10:04] a.m. Representatives Tarr, Tuck,
Kopp (via teleconference), Kreiss-Tomkins (via teleconference),
Edgmon (via teleconference), Vance (via teleconference),
Rauscher (via teleconference), Hannan (via teleconference),
Talerico (via teleconference), Hopkins (via teleconference), and
Stutes were present at the call to order. Representatives
Spohnholz (via teleconference), Rasmussen, and Lincoln (via
teleconference) arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Representative Drummond was also present (via teleconference).
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): Board of Fisheries
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Board of Fisheries
[Includes brief discussion of HB 309]
10:06:24 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
confirmation hearings for the Board of Fisheries.
CHAIR STUTES stated that due to a loophole in the Board of
Fisheries confirmation statutes and the timing of the COVID-19
virus there is a situation where four sitting board members
could be making allocative decisions before a vote by the
legislature or testimony opportunity by the public. She
specified that today's meeting was called to ensure the public's
right to weigh in on appointees before those appointees can make
decisions affecting the public's livelihoods and way of life, as
well as to allow committees to review and question the
appointees prior to a joint session for consideration. The
Board of Fisheries is a unique allocative board with a
tremendous impact on the lives of Alaskans, which is why this
opportunity for public and legislative input is crucial. Nearly
500 written public comments have already been received and are
posted in BASIS.
CHAIR STUTES pointed out that committees do not have the ability
to hold confirmations from moving forward. Today is an
opportunity for public input, she continued, but the committee
cannot hold names. She said Ms. Megan Wallace of Legislative
Legal Services has been invited to provide a statement about
this unique situation and the board confirmation process.
10:08:21 AM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, explained that this
year's board confirmation process has been complicated by the
COVID-19 pandemic and the legislature's early recess of the
second regular session. The legislature contemplated that
unless it did something to act, all the governor's appointees
would have been considered declined upon adjournment of the
regular session, she recounted. So, before going into extended
recess in March, the legislature passed and enacted into law HB
309, which extended the time for which the legislature could act
to confirm or decline to confirm the governor's appointments.
MS. WALLACE further explained that HB 309 extended the time for
the legislature to hold a joint session to confirm the
governor's appointees and provided for a date the earlier of
1/18/21 or 30 days after expiration of the disaster declaration
- by which the failure of the legislature to act would be
considered a declination of the confirmation of the governor's
appointees. Under SB 241, another bill passed by the
legislature, the disaster declaration is set to expire on
11/15/20. If the legislature were to meet to extend the
disaster declaration, that would also extend the time for which
the legislature could act to confirm or decline to confirm the
governor's appointees, but under HB 309 the legislature would
still need to act by 1/18/21, if under that hypothetical the
disaster declaration was extended. As situated today, the
governor's appointees would be considered declined 30 days after
expiration of the disaster declaration.
10:12:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the governor has statutory
requirements for filling the [currently empty] attorney general
position within a certain amount of time.
MS. WALLACE offered her understanding that there isn't a
specific date, but qualified she hasn't looked at that to know
whether there is a specific date by which the governor must
appoint a new attorney general.
10:13:28 AM
CHAIR STUTES noted the House Special Committee on Fisheries
heard confirmation of Mr. John Wood in early March, but the
House Resources Standing Committee didn't have that opportunity
before COVID-19 forced an early adjournment. She thanked Mr.
Wood for coming forth a second time.
CHAIR STUTES invited appointee McKenzie Mitchell to testify
first. She noted Ms. Mitchell was appointed on 7/1/20 and, if
confirmed, her term would run through 6/30/2023. She requested
Ms. Mitchell tell about herself and state why she is a good fit
for the Board of Fisheries.
10:15:11 AM
MCKENZIE MITCHELL, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated she is
testifying from a boat on the Yukon River where she is currently
working as a moose hunting guide. She said she was born in
northern California where her parents took her hunting and
fishing. She has now been in Alaska for 11 years after buying a
one-way ticket to Anchorage at the age of 20. She began calling
hunting and fishing lodges, landing a job at a remote hunting
and fishing lodge near Kodiak where she worked for several
years, eventually getting her captain's license, assistant big
game guide license, and sport fish guide license.
MS. MITCHELL said she went on to earn her [B.A.] in Economics
and her [M.S.] in Resource and Applied Economics, with a focus
on her passion of fisheries, from the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF). Earning her graduate degree required that she
critically look at fisheries management policies, allocative
decisions, and best practice principles of maximum sustainable
yield basically the process for fisheries management and how
to find values to various resources that typically don't have
monetary values that are observable in a market. She now
continues to work as a seasonal hunting and fishing guide and is
teaching economics and recreation management courses at UAF.
MS. MITCHELL said she views being on the Board of Fisheries as
the ability to give back to a state that has provided her with
everything she wanted to do in her life. If given this
opportunity, she will work hard to make the best decisions she
can. The best way to do that is to consider the information
provided by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and the
data and the science, as well as the importance of fisheries to
people's lives in Alaska. She will listen to the stakeholders
and educate herself on the various fisheries around the state
and their importance to the people as well as the market demands
that they satisfy.
10:19:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether Ms. Mitchell is a
professor or adjunct faculty at UAF.
MS. MITCHELL replied she doesn't have a doctorate degree, but
rather a master's degree in resource and applied economics. She
contracts each semester to teach a couple different courses.
Responding further, she confirmed she is adjunct faculty.
10:20:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN calculated that serving on the Board of
Fisheries could mean up to 30 days of board meetings over the
next calendar year. She inquired how that intersects with Ms.
Mitchell's obligations to current employers and whether Ms.
Mitchell will be able to fully attend the meetings.
MS. MITCHELL responded that she works as a hunting guide
typically in August and September. This year it seems as though
her working schedule conflicts with her ability to be present
for the Board of Fisheries meetings, but she has still managed
to make what she can work. However, she noted, this is a COVID-
19 related situation as typically the process occurs earlier in
the spring when she does have availability. Regarding conflicts
with teaching at UAF, she teaches online courses, giving her the
flexibility to be in various places and having her laptop along
to orchestrate the courses. The department in which she works
is supportive and willing to work with her.
10:22:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN acknowledged Ms. Mitchell has spent time
in rural Alaska, but said it appears she is missing experience
with subsistence users given her experience is as a commercially
employed consumer of sport fisheries. She requested Ms.
Mitchell describe her knowledge and experience with the
importance and economic value of subsistence users of fisheries
across Alaska.
MS. MITCHELL concurred she hasn't necessarily participated in
the subsistence fishery in Alaska. However, she noted, she
spends a lot of time working remotely. For example, she just
took a boat 480 miles down the Yukon River and is familiar with
the villages along the route. Working this remotely in the
hunting and fishing industry often requires support from
villages that are incredibly dependent upon Alaska's resources.
The resources supply so many Alaskans with a lifestyle and way
of life that is incredibly important. While that way of life
may not have an observed monetary value in comparison to a sport
or commercial fishery, the subsistence fishery has enormous
value, and it is important to maintain and preserve the people's
right to the land.
10:24:56 AM
CO-CHAIR TARR opined that it is important for the Board of
Fisheries to have good representation from all regions of Alaska
and from different perspectives. She offered her understanding
that the first board meeting ever attended by Ms. Mitchell was
after her appointment. Co-Chair Tarr recounted that in the
past, appointees have had more experience with the board process
and/or have been members of the advisory committees at the local
level, and therefore this lack of experience has been brought up
as a concern with Ms. Mitchell's appointment. She requested Ms.
Mitchell address this concern.
MS. MITCHELL answered that she understands the concern about not
being involved in the process prior to appointment. She stated
she decided to put her name in last winter when she heard
positions were coming open. She explained she wasn't involved
before because she just graduated school in May 2019. While in
school and completing her pilot ratings she waited tables five
or six nights a week. With graduation, she has had more stable
employment along with the credentials to afford a different
lifestyle than when a student and paying for school. This
change in her life is giving her the opportunity to become
involved and that is what she is trying to do.
10:27:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked why Ms. Mitchell applied to the
Board of Fisheries rather than the Board of Game since it seems
her experience is primarily with game.
MS. MITCHELL replied she would be interested in serving on the
Board of Game, as well, given her experience with both hunting
and fishing in Alaska is well balanced. During her first years
in Kodiak at the hunting and fishing lodge she worked a nine- or
ten-month season: fishing in summer, bear hunting in spring and
fall, and deer and elk later into the year. She has continued
to work in the sport fish industry this summer and the game
industry this spring and fall. As a student there were a couple
years when she wasn't in big game hunting commercial services
and one or two summers where she wasn't a sport fish guide. She
cares for both resources, but had the opportunity to apply for
one. Because fisheries is her educational background, it is the
one for which she is most qualified.
10:30:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ requested Ms. Mitchell describe her
perspective on how the board should use the allocation criteria
and where subsistence fits into that allocation scheme.
MS. MITCHELL responded that as a board member, she is aware of
the allocative guidelines the board follows, and the board looks
at the science and data to make the best allocative decisions
that it can. The idea is to conserve, develop, and utilize the
fishery according to Article VIII [of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska]. A big buzzword in this article is
conservation for the people of Alaska, she added, and that would
highlight the subsistence use of fisheries in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that subsistence has a priority
over other consumptive uses. It is important, she stated, that
any member of the Board of Fisheries understands that priority
and the way allocation needs to take place in Alaska.
10:31:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related that Alaska's constitution says all
Alaskans own all the state's fish and water resources. He
further related that Alaska's Anadromous Fish Act requires that
anyone conducting activities which may harm [anadromous] fish
habitat must apply for a permit from ADF&G and that there must
be public notice and opportunity for public comment. However,
he continued, that isn't currently happening. He asked how Ms.
Mitchell would ensure that there is adequate public testimony if
she were to be confirmed to the board.
MS. MITCHELL answered that Alaska's fisheries are one of the few
in the U.S. that are managed in such an open and public process.
Maintaining that process is really important, she stated,
because Alaska's resources are for the people of the state and
that is a priority. [As a board member] she would support
public processes throughout because that is the way of fisheries
management for Alaska and maintaining that is a good thing.
10:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK drew attention to a letter and documents
submitted by Ms. Mitchell and observed that none of them
specifically mention conservation. He inquired about the role
conservation has with the Board of Fisheries and how much focus
Ms. Mitchell will put on conservation to ensure viable fisheries
for the future.
MS. MITCHELL replied that much of what she provided is where her
education and experience falls into fisheries. She reiterated
that her background is resource and applied economics, and that
education focuses on allocative decisions, supply and demand,
satisfying market demand, assigning value to goods that don't
necessarily have observable market value or dollar flows to look
at and make comparisons. Dollar flows cannot be looked at to
compare across Alaska's different fish groups commercial,
subsistence, personal use, and sport fish because, like apples
and oranges, they cannot be compared. So, when asked what
conservation means to her, she continued, it means the duty of a
board member because of Article VIII, which says to make
resources available for maximum use consistent with public
interest and public interest being all user groups. Article
VIII also says to utilize, develop, and conserve the resources.
Conserving the resources is one of the most important things to
do because if a resource isn't preserved it can't be utilized or
developed. Subsistence user groups are incredibly important in
the state, Ms. Mitchell stressed; they have a priority in the
state for obvious reasons. If a resource isn't sustained, then
it cannot be utilized or developed, so conservation is key.
10:37:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK allowed it wouldn't be easy to take a strong
stance especially with a lot of seasoned board members. He
posed a scenario in which ADF&G decides not to provide an
opportunity for public comment on a fish habitat permit. He
asked what actions Ms. Mitchell would take to ensure that the
public comment process would be followed.
MS. MITCHELL responded that she couldn't speak to what action
specifically because that would be a process, and she would need
to understand the reasons why. If it is a funding issue, then
making sure that the department has the resources it needs to be
able to provide things to maintain the status of how fisheries
are managed in Alaska is going to be important. While she
cannot say specifically what action she would take, she can say
the public nature of how fisheries are managed in Alaska is
important and it should be preserved as best as the state can.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged that Ms. Mitchell, if confirmed, take
into consideration the food security of all Alaskans and make it
a priority, especially given the COVID-19 situation and low
salmon returns on the Yukon. That is why he asked questions
about conservation, he explained. He further urged that when
looking at the supply, Ms. Mitchell look at the needs of
Alaskans as much as possible.
10:39:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES requested Ms. Mitchell to explain what her graduate
thesis entails and why she considers it fisheries management.
MS. MITCHELL answered that her thesis is on the newly adopted
Recreational Quota Entity (RQE). A nonprofit, the RQE is to
help conduct the transfer of commercial halibut permits to the
sport fish side to better utilize the available halibut resource
and "whether or not the determinance of sport fish anglers to
pay in support of that program through ... some sort of means
like a halibut stamp similar to a king salmon stamp or ... the
federal duck stamp." She said she considers that fisheries
management because it's an idea about how to manage the halibut
fishery and how to better conduct the management of the halibut
resource for the state of Alaska by allowing the commercial and
sport fish user groups to essentially equate the halibut
resource in the most economically efficient way. It was a
management idea on how to allow them to do that.
10:41:51 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Ms. Mitchell is familiar with the
Community Development Quota (CDQ) program, what it is about, and
how it operates in the state of Alaska.
MS. MITCHELL replied that the RQE piggybacks off the CDQ program
in a way, however it wasn't applied to sport fish and commercial
fisheries. She said she isn't "super familiar" with it, but
during her time conducting research it was an entity that was
helping to allocate a resource as well, similar to the Guided
Angler Fish (GAF) program.
CHAIR STUTES noted that there are several of them across Alaska
and it's a huge resource and a huge concern to many rural
communities. [The CDQ program] contributes significant social
and economic benefit to residents of about 65 communities. She
asked whether she is correct in concluding that sport fisheries
are Ms. Mitchell's main focus.
MS. MITCHELL confirmed her industry experience is in the sport
fishery and her thesis focused on a particular management policy
that bridged the sport fish and commercial fishery. But, she
specified, as a Board of Fisheries member she realizes the
importance of fisheries to all user groups in the state and that
her responsibility as a board member is to make the best
decisions under the guidelines of fisheries management in the
state of Alaska. This will obviously require her to gain a
significant amount of education, to talk to a lot of subsistence
users, and probably to travel to learn more about various areas
of the state so she can make the best decisions for each
fishery, not just the ones for which she has industry or
education experience.
10:44:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the GAF program.
MS. MITCHELL explained that the Guided Angler Fish (GAF) program
is similar to the recreational quota entity (RQE) program in
that the GAF program aimed to allow the transfer of halibut
quota between commercial and sport fish user groups, but at the
individual vessel level as opposed to the RQE program which aims
to do it across the whole user group for various areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested Ms. Mitchell speak to
the analogy she referenced between the CDQ and GAF programs
[when responding to a question from Chair Stutes].
MS. MITCHELL responded that they are "not anywhere analogous,
just more so as kind of the development for the RQE program kind
of as it started as the GAF program, so it wasn't really
necessarily with the CDQ."
10:46:41 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Ms. Mitchell realizes that halibut
isn't a state managed fishery.
MS. MITCHELL answered "Yes, absolutely."
10:47:04 AM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that, historically, representation on the
Board of Fisheries has been a split between commercial and sport
interests and then subsistence representation. That has gotten
out of sync, she opined, not just in these appointments but over
the last few years. There is some concern about lack of
representation from Western Alaska and Yukon River fisheries and
from someone living currently in the Bristol Bay region. Of
concern to her with decisions made by the Board of Fisheries,
she opined further, is that a lot of work could be done on the
front end to avoid conflict and to work with stakeholders to
identify people who would have broad support from the public and
different user groups. Unfortunately, it seems this process
doesn't work in that way. When people don't work together
appointments become highly controversial and there is a lot of
conflict. In turn it makes the board process not function as
well as it should because of the conflict that was created
through the nomination and appointment process. Co-Chair Tarr
pointed out that the current board, seated and nominees, is
comprised of five sport interests, one commercial, and one
subsistence; six members are from Interior Alaska and one from
Coastal Alaska. She inquired whether Ms. Mitchell believes the
current board reflects the diversity of the state and that all
voices are being heard.
MS. MITCHELL replied she understands some of the opposition to
board members based on their geographic location in the state.
She offered her belief that no matter where the appointees came
from there would probably still be some contention because it is
hard to get geographic representation from everywhere on a
seven-member board in such a large state. The responsibility of
the board members, she opined, is to educate themselves the best
they can on all the fisheries in Alaska, the user groups, and
the importance of the fish to those user groups. That may
require travel and talking to stakeholders while in different
parts of the state. The position is voluntary and providing
services, Ms. Mitchell continued, and ultimately it will require
that a lot of time be dedicated to it. She is fortunate that
her work oftentimes takes her to various parts of the state
where she can talk to people and get better educated so to be
able to make decisions for the people and the resource.
10:51:46 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Ms. Mitchell would be a proponent of
shifting some of the commercial halibut quota to the sport
industry.
MS. MITCHELL responded that that is a really difficult question.
She explained that her thesis focused on looking at what would
be the best way to fund a management program that had already
been adopted at the time. The idea was to figure out a funding
mechanism for this already-adopted program. The most likely
mechanism was going to be a halibut stamp of some sort, which
would require the sport fishermen themselves to purchase that
stamp. She looked at how much could potentially be charged for
such a stamp, and how much revenue could be made. She did this
by sending a survey to 10,000 sport fishermen which asked them
how they would like their halibut catch to be regulated and
whether they were willing to pay this additional amount to be
able to do that. Ms. Mitchell stressed her thesis was not to
make a statement on whether she thinks there should be a
transfer of halibut between the user groups. Rather, her thesis
was to analyze and look critically at a newly adopted program to
see how it would work and what ways it would be effective.
MS. MITCHELL addressed the question of [whether she is a
proponent of transferring some commercial halibut quota to the
sport industry]. She stated that if commercial fishermen aren't
harvesting all their halibut [in a given] year, then providing
them an opportunity to transfer the excess to another user group
to utilize for a fee could support them. She said she would
need to talk with both user groups to see whether that was in
their interest, but she imagines that the development of the RQE
program and its ability to get adopted meant there was an
interest from both sides for that to happen at some level.
CHAIR STUTES said she presumes Ms. Mitchell's answer to the
aforementioned question is basically yes. She then inquired
whether Ms. Mitchell was asked to submit her name or applied
independently for a seat on the Board of Fisheries.
MS. MITCHELL answered that she received a phone call informing
her that there was a position open, and after thinking hard
about it she decided to submit her name.
10:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Ms. Mitchell is a commercial
pilot or private pilot with instrument ratings.
MS. MITCHELL replied she is a commercial pilot with an
instrument rating.
10:56:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that Ms. Mitchell's thesis on the
willingness to pay estimates from anglers seems very thorough.
Given Ms. Mitchell's commitment to pursuing education and
driving at best results, he requested an example of where she
has changed her view on a significant public policy matter based
on what she had learned.
MS. MITCHELL explained she provided her thesis to show she has
the ability to critically think about and conduct research, but
not necessarily to make statements about anything. She wanted
to show that in a Board of Fisheries position, her mathematical
skills and scientific related research with fisheries would give
her an advantage when looking at hard data. Regarding the
question itself, Ms. Mitchell stated that her opinion on things
changes all the time, especially the deeper she digs into
research, data, and comprehension. She noted that a thesis
takes several years to complete, and one goes into a thesis with
a theory and a hypothesis. Many of the results on her thesis
work surprised her. One question she asked the anglers was how
they prefer for their halibut catch to be regulated; for
example, regulation can be by size limits, spot limits, number
of fish per day, or number of fish per season. Seeing and
understanding how sport fishermen prefer for their catch to be
restricted made her think very differently on how management
policies come into play a lot of the time. Ms. Mitchell added
that her ability to have boots on the ground as a hunting guide
and sport fish guide, and to travel to rural parts of the state
where she sees how rural communities live, really gives her a
different perspective. Her thoughts change oftentimes with more
knowledge from talking to people, reading papers, and looking at
the science and the data.
11:01:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Ms. Mitchell is familiar with
the legal precedent in Alaska that establishes subsistence as
the highest priority for consumptive use.
MS. MITCHELL responded yes, she is familiar that subsistence is
of highest priority for consumptive use and she supports that
notion. She added that there are many rural Alaskans; it's a
way of life up here, so she is familiar with it, understands it,
and supports it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered his belief that in 1978 the Alaska
State Legislature was the first to put subsistence into state
law. Under the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA), Congress passed a priority subsistence law for
federal lands within the state. Subsistence, he stated, is very
much a part of Alaska's culture and is based on thousands of
years of tradition. Subsistence use of products is much greater
than just fish; it gets into clothing, fuel, transportation,
home goods, and the sharing of fish and wildlife with neighbors
who cannot hunt and fish for themselves.
11:03:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN related her understanding that due to
COVID-19 the Division of Sport Fish has lost about $8 million in
revenue, presumably from the lack of tourism and out-of-state
fishing licenses. Given the division's budget is $50 million,
she requested Ms. Mitchell's thoughts on how to reconcile such a
large loss to the division's revenue stream.
MS. MITCHELL answered that it is going to require a lot of hard
work to rebuild and continue to support the way things have
been. She said she doesn't have a specific way for solving that
problem or promoting any one way to deal with the revenue loss.
She stressed the importance of ADF&G and the importance of the
department to continue having the ability to conduct research
and provide scientific data to board members.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether Ms. Mitchell would be
supportive of increasing current user fees, looking at taxes the
state charges on gear, or increasing commercial fish.
MS. MITCHELL replied she wouldn't feel comfortable choosing
without critically thinking about that because every one of
those decisions has rippling effects on the various user groups
and the resource. She would need to spend a lot of time
thinking about it and working with others on the best way to
deal with it. All the options mentioned are possibilities that
would need to be looked at.
11:07:44 AM
CHAIR STUTES invited Ms. Mitchell to make a closing statement.
MS. MITCHELL stated she would do the same to educate herself
while on the Board of Fisheries as she did during the past 11
years of immersing herself into the Alaska way of life and
getting her education and credentials. She said it is an honor
to serve and to give back and that she appreciates being given
the opportunity.
11:08:49 AM
CHAIR STUTES invited appointee John Wood to testify. She said
Mr. Wood was appointed to the Board of Fisheries on 5/24/2019.
If confirmed, Mr. Wood's term would run until 6/30/2021. She
noted Mr. Wood has served on the board for some time, but has
yet to come up for a [confirmation] vote. Chair Stutes
requested Mr. Wood state why he is a good fit to remain on the
Board of Fisheries.
11:09:17 AM
JOHN WOOD, Esq., Appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated he came
to Alaska in 1971. He worked for the Alaska Court System as a
court attorney for the Superior Court in Anchorage. Working as
a standing master, probate master, and interim master, he heard
cases and made recommendations as to what the judges should rule
upon. He then went into private practice, which he discontinued
in the mid-1990s when he retired. He has been living in the
Willow area on 65 acres between two salmon streams.
MR. WOOD said his first experience in Alaska was fishing in
Alexander Creek in 1972, a creek that has gone from an abundance
of king salmon to almost barren of king salmon. He pointed out
it isn't just that particular creek system; the issue is found
throughout areas that were formerly world-famous fishing grounds
and now are barely holding on. He said this is an outright
concern of his, which must be addressed across the board. As
staff for then Senator Dunleavy in 2013 and 2014, he worked
closely with fish related matters for the senator's constituency
and was active during the 2013 and 2014 sessions of the Board of
Fisheries. He wasn't working with Senator Dunleavy in 2017 when
he observed the Board of Fisheries and didn't actively
participate.
MR. WOOD stressed that the one approach he takes foremost before
anything else is what he calls a conservation approach. He said
he would like to see the actions that he has helped take result
in more fish, and fish in their historical size, returning to
Alaska's streams. That is his number one priority. Before
getting to any of the subsistence, allocation, or consumption
questions, it must first be assured that the fisheries are going
to be here in the future for future generations. He would like
to see the board be more active much along the lines seen with
the federal board to rebuild stocks, and to do so requires
getting directly into the habitat issue. Many different
problems are occurring in the spawning beds that must be
addressed and remedied.
11:12:18 AM
MR. WOOD related that throughout all the meetings of this last
cycle he actively reached out to all stakeholders to get their
perspective on the current situation and how they would like to
see it change. Prior to his first meeting, he continued, he
drove to Homer on his own time and nickel to attend the "salmon
committee of the North Pacific committee" because they were
dealing with a lawsuit brought by a user group, a stakeholder,
that he thinks had and may still have huge impacts on the
fisheries in Alaska. He then stayed an extra day to go to
Soldotna and Kenai to meet with several of the setnetters and
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA) folks to get their
take on which actions they'd like to see and why, and the why
was much more important to him.
MR. WOOD stated he has a reputation for his ability to bring
parties together. He said he has been in enough positions on
boards and administrative bodies to know to create a win-win
whenever possible. As a result of insisting on stakeholders
getting together at these last board meetings, groups are now
talking to each other that never did before. Outside of the
Board of Fisheries he is in communication with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct some of
the research in the blue water at no expense to the state.
Right now, he explained, there is very little data on what
happens to the fish once they get out into the blue water. His
fear, he said, is that every net and line could be taken out of
the water, yet what happens in the blue water is going to
dictate for the most part what the returns are going to be.
Under that scenario it would dictate 100 percent and things
might still be way under goals. Getting a grasp on that is
needed, and that kind of information isn't currently available.
MR. WOOD noted that due to COVID-19, the Board of Fisheries is
holding a special meeting in a couple weeks to decide what to do
with the meetings coming up this cycle. He said his concern is
that the meetings will be postponed or not held because of
participants not being able to meet in person. This year that
would result in Ketchikan and Cordova issues falling to the
wayside, something he isn't willing to see. From the
recommendations e-mailed to him last night, which he has perused
but not yet studied, it appears the direction is towards not
holding in-person meetings. This would be a sad situation, he
opined, because the Board of Fisheries brings the unique
perspective of the public getting to directly interact with the
people who are making the actual decisions.
11:16:32 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Mr. Wood is presently employed in any
capacity by the State of Alaska.
MR. WOOD replied yes, he is under contract with the Department
of Administration and the Office of the Governor. In response
to a follow-up question, he said he reports directly to the
governor.
CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Wood whether he thinks a conflict, or a
strong potential for a conflict, exists when a Board of
Fisheries member on a state contract for other business is
reporting directly to the governor, regardless of whether it's a
technicality or a technical violation of state statute. This
seems like a dangerous precedent, she opined.
MR. WOOD answered that the contract specifically addresses the
issues and no fish issues whatsoever are covered by the
contract. So, he continued, he doesn't believe that to be any
kind of conflict. About 99 percent of what he has done thus far
is related to trying to develop a strategy for labor
negotiations with the various bargaining units that will be
taking place over the next several years.
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether she is correct in understanding
that Mr. Wood reports directly to the governor and no one else.
MR. WOOD confirmed he reports directly to the governor and added
that he communicates several times a week with folks within the
labor negotiating team at the Department of Administration.
CHAIR STUTES stated that this is personally very alarming to her
and that it is a moral and ethical conflict in her opinion.
11:18:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN requested further detail on what Mr.
Wood's contract entails for the Department of Administration.
MR. WOOD replied that the department and the governor's office
are developing the strategy for labor negotiations, which is the
vast majority of the work he's done thus far by a large margin.
That is trying to have an approach as uniform as can be with the
different bargaining units so the state can accomplish across
the board efficiencies and more effective government.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked when Mr. Wood's contract with the
Department of Administration would expire.
MR. WOOD offered his belief that it is April 2021.
11:19:48 AM
CO-CHAIR TARR related that Mr. Wood's contract has been brought
up as a concern. She asked whether Mr. Wood would be willing to
consider changes in his contract and to share with members the
terms of his contract to help them understand how any possible
conflicts or autonomy are addressed. She said she sees it as
problematic even if Mr. Wood isn't working on fisheries issues
because if Mr. Wood is aware that the governor has a particular
position on a fishery issue and doesn't want to get crosswise
with the governor because that influences where he stands with
his contract, then that could cause Mr. Wood to feel undue
pressure. She said this is the same concern she has with
another individual who is currently employed and there is the
possibility for undue pressure with trying to make choices
between employment and paycheck and the fishery resource,
resulting in bad decisions.
MR. WOOD offered his belief that his contract is part of the
public record for anyone to view. He said he has not considered
choosing one or the other. He noted that the contract was in
existence and disclosed back when he was initially appointed.
It went through all the conflict processes - to the Department
of Law and back to the chair of the board and each time it was
uniformly determined that there was no conflict of interest.
Regarding whether he would step down from that if appointed to
the board, Mr. Wood said he doesn't know he will be appointed to
the board until there is a vote, and so he is in an awkward
situation at best. He stated he was asked to do the work on
labor, he didn't seek it out, and thus far he has received
absolutely no pressure whatsoever and no discussion from the
governor about what way to go on anything with the board.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated she would look for Mr. Wood's contract in
the public record. She clarified that it's an ongoing issue,
not specific just to Mr. Wood. Questions have come up about
these close relationships, she continued, and she is trying to
learn as much as she can to evaluate this.
MR. WOOD replied that he understands.
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Mr. Wood is suggesting that at the
last hearing before the Special Committee on Fisheries he
disclosed the contract that he had with the governor.
MR. WOOD responded "absolutely."
CHAIR STUTES said she doesn't recall that and will listen to
those minutes.
11:23:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she is looking at Mr. Wood's
contract from the perspective that ADF&G employees in different
bargaining units are providing professional guidance and advice
to the Board of Game on a variety of proposals before the board.
She asked whether Mr. Wood sees that those employees could
perceive that their guidance to him could impact their positions
in bargaining units and therefore put them in an awkward
position, or whether Mr. Wood sees his contract and advice as
being far removed from impacting those ADF&G employees. She
further asked whether Mr. Wood has thought about this and talked
about this.
MR. WOOD answered he hasn't thought about it a great deal. He
said his advice to the governor is at the 30,000-foot level and
he can never envision it going down below that level. It is
geared toward subject matter type of discussions as opposed to
specific individuals. He stated he doesn't recall having ever
talked about specific individual positions. It deals with broad
issues, such as how to address health insurance or whether to go
to a multi-year approach for wage formats, and therefore isn't
at the level that is of concern to Representative Hannan.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether in his contract Mr. Wood
shares guidance and background with Tandem Motion, the company
that seems to also be providing some contract analysis to the
Department of Administration about very similar issues.
MR. WOOD replied no, he has nothing to do with that
organization.
11:26:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether there is a renewal clause in
Mr. Wood's contract.
MR. WOOD responded no, it expires. He said renewing it is an
independent choice, which was done recently.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to when Mr. Wood's original
contract started prior to being renewed.
MR. WOOD offered his belief that it was early spring 2019,
probably April, and then it was renewed this year.
11:27:24 AM
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled Mr. Wood's comment that he would like for
the Board of Fisheries to be more active in rebuilding stocks
and getting into habitat issues. She noted that that has been a
highly controversial topic with the citizen initiative and the
legislature has heard legislation. She stated she would like to
keep the science situated at the department to depoliticize that
as much as possible, keep the allocation decisions at the board,
and strengthen the advisory committee process. She asked
whether Mr. Wood sees taking actions for improving habitat to be
at the board level or the department level.
MR. WOOD answered that the board can identify and ask for the
research to be done to identify what habitat issues are impeding
the stocks in specific streams, and this has been done in the
past. However, he pointed out, a real problem is that the board
is without authority to direct the department to do anything
specific and to that degree the board is severely restricted.
The department must balance a whole litany of different items,
he continued, the budget not being the least of which the
department has to deal with. A good example of that happening
this season is that weirs are being pulled weeks ahead of the
time when they were pulled historically, so the counts of fish
returning won't be accurate.
CO-CHAIR TARR said she appreciates Mr. Wood's comment and added
that it sounds like support for having a real budget for the
department because those are the individuals who need to be
available and with the capacity to do that work.
MR. WOOD concurred that the work can't be done without a budget.
11:29:57 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Mr. Wood agrees that the Board of
Fisheries is a very active public process in its meetings.
MR. WOOD agreed and added that it is a more public process than
he has ever seen before.
CHAIR STUTES concurred and said it is probably because the Board
of Fisheries has the ability to affect the livelihoods of many,
many Alaskans. She inquired whether Mr. Wood has a suggestion,
considering the COVID-19 situation, for how this public process
can take place in October if the board meeting goes forward.
MR. WOOD replied that he is willing to meet in person if the
board is willing to meet. However, he said, if the board or
staff is concerned about doing that, then he wishes he had a
system that could be put in place. He has attended Zoom
meetings in the past and they aren't going to be effective in
accomplishing what the chair has described, he opined, nor will
teleconferencing. He said that when attending a board meeting,
a board member expects to start at 6:00 a.m. with breakfast
meetings with one or two different stakeholders, lunch meetings
with stakeholders, and dinner meetings with stakeholders. The
only time he didn't meet with stakeholders during the entire
process of each meeting was the night before the vote when he
would go back to his hotel room to study everything that he had
available on the subject matter. At some point, he explained, a
board member must get away to process in his/her own mind all
the information received.
11:32:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether Mr. Wood has any thoughts
on how to capture the nearly $8 million in revenue that has been
lost from [the lack of] license purchases due to COVID-19.
MR. WOOD responded that it is a hard question to answer. He
recalled a time when license holders were asked whether they
would be willing to participate at a larger dollar amount and
the answer was yes provided the dollars went to research and
enforcement. The hatchery program, he noted, is a success story
in that the commercial fishermen ponied up to ensure
continuation of the program. He said he doubts, however, that a
license fee increase would meet the full figure [of $8 million]
because he doesn't know that there are enough licenses to
support such a figure. There are going to be reductions in
service, and it will require being selective in how to go about
doing it. For example, if he were making the decisions, then he
would cut the two lake system weirs that give no data that can
be used for in-season management before he made cuts to the
weirs located toward the mouth of the drainage that do give in-
season ability. Better science could also be used, such as
having genetics play a much bigger role given that samples are
already being taken. For example, it could be done like it is
in Canada, with a 24-hour turnaround. Decisions could then be
made, and the budget would not be hugely impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether Mr. Wood thinks the
state is currently doing an adequate job with random sampling
and ensuring that statistical analysis is accurate.
MR. WOOD answered that random sampling is never precise. It may
be the only thing that can be done and used, he advised. It
isn't that it's the best science, but that it's the only science
available. It depends entirely on how "random" is done.
11:35:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said her constituents appreciate Mr. Wood
coming to Homer to hear their perspectives about the ongoing
issues in Cook Inlet. She asked Mr. Wood to give his thoughts
on the phrase "there are winners and losers in the fishery."
MR. WOOD replied that there is a limited resource in the numbers
of fish that are available to be harvested. If one particular
group harvests amounts that result in another group not meeting
what it feels is its just share, then he guesses that is what is
meant by one being a winner and one being a loser because
whichever fish went to the one particular group would not be
available to the other group.
11:37:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES recalled Mr. Wood mentioning he wants to get more
king salmon in the rivers. She inquired whether Mr. Wood thinks
the lack of king salmon has anything to do with the northern
pike predation situation.
MR. WOOD responded "yes."
CHAIR STUTES asked whether this is something that could be
addressed by the Board of Fisheries in its capacity.
MR. WOOD answered yes, the board can identify but has no
authority to direct, and that is where the rub comes in.
11:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related his understanding that ADF&G isn't
issuing proper public notice for public comment when dealing
with permits for fish habitat. He offered his belief that both
Alaska statute and constitution clearly say that all Alaskans
own the state's fish and water resources. He asked where Mr.
Wood stands on ensuring that proper public notice is given and
that public hearings are held for public comment on fish habitat
permits.
MR. WOOD replied that when it comes to Board of Fisheries
matters the board is overly emphatic on public participation.
However, he explained, the Board of Fisheries doesn't have any
ability to direct ADF&G to follow the law when it comes to
habitat permits. It's in statute, it's ADF&G's obligation, and
is something that absolutely should be followed, but the Board
of Fisheries doesn't have the authority to make it mandatory.
The board is more limited in authority than people would like to
believe. That was evidenced last year when people asked the
board to close the hatcheries, but the legislature has acted
quite clearly that that is not within the purview of the board.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether Mr. Wood would be willing
to write a letter to ADF&G if the department doesn't give proper
public notification and tell ADF&G why it is important.
MR. WOOD responded he is willing to do anything of that nature
if the department isn't following the law. He related, however,
that he has voiced his concerns on other issues, and it didn't
go particularly forward with the department.
11:40:45 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Mr. Wood has other areas of concern
as a Board of Fisheries member besides the Cook Inlet area.
MR. WOOD answered that he has concerns across the board, but is
more familiar with the Cook Inlet area than he is with other
areas. However, he continued, the same concerns are applicable
in Southeast Alaska, on the Yukon, and elsewhere. A concern
that came to light this year that he wasn't aware of until he
started dealing with is that there are crab fisheries that
haven't been allowed to be open in 30 years. Something is wrong
there, he stated, it shouldn't take a stock 30 years to
replenish itself. So, yes, there are concerns not just in Cook
Inlet that he wants to explore. He will take the same effort
that he did in going to Homer and he has already talked with
board member John Jensen about concerns in Southeast Alaska.
CHAIR STUTES invited Mr. Wood to provide closing comments.
MR. WOOD, regarding subsistence, urged members to look at the
record for the Board of Fisheries meeting in Seward when the
board was being asked to make an allocative decision. There was
no amount necessary for subsistence (ANS), he related, and he
insisted that that be established before the board went forward
and that was done. Then it was done several meetings later
consistently before any allocative requests were made. It is
his opinion, he continued, that subsistence is second only to
conservation.
11:43:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES invited appointee John Jensen to testify. She said
Mr. Jensen is the longest currently serving member of the Board
of Fisheries, having held a seat on the board since 2003. She
noted Mr. Jensen was re-appointed on 7/1/20 and, if confirmed,
his term would run to 6/30/23.
[MR. JENSEN was not online.]
11:45:01 AM
CHAIR STUTES invited appointee Abe Williams to testify. She
said Mr. Williams was appointed on 7/1/20 and, if confirmed, his
term would run to 6/30/23.
11:45:40 AM
ABE WILLIAMS, Appointee, Board of Fisheries, stated he is a
lifelong Alaskan, born in King Salmon. He has lived in Bristol
Bay for the majority of his life, he related, but has lived in
Anchorage since 2010. He just finished his thirtieth year of
commercial fishing in Bristol Bay. Two of his three sons own
their own operations in the fishery and the other son fishes
with him. Over the years he has served on the Bristol Bay
Borough Assembly, the school board, and the Naknek/Kvichak Fish
& Game Advisory Committee. Mr. Williams said he has owned
multiple businesses, one of which serves the commercial fishing
industry in Bristol Bay, and currently he works as director of
regional affairs for the Pebble Limited Partnership. His
participation in Board of Fisheries meetings over the years has
given him knowledge of the process and of the importance of
commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries around the state.
He stated that his ability to listen proactively to any and all
user groups makes him an extremely qualified candidate.
11:47:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN shared that she has heard concern about
Mr. Williams's role at Pebble Partnership and a potential
conflict that it might bring to the Board of Fisheries. She
asked Mr. Williams to speak to why it would not be a conflict.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that he has taken a proactive approach to
the Pebble Project for many years. It started in 2009 when he
was president of a village corporation in Naknek and there were
severe recessed runs and financial issues with the fishery in
Alaska. He proactively looked at different options in how to
diversify the economics of Southwest Alaska as well as the
economics of communities that don't necessarily participate in
the commercial fishery. For the last two years he has worked
directly for the project as director of regional affairs where
he engages with multiple communities, commercial fishermen, and
others about the project. He stated he respects those who look
at his position with the Pebble Project and assume he has a
conflict of interest, but he thinks it is just the opposite and
he doesn't have a conflict of interest. He further stated that
if the Board of Fisheries chooses to take up an issue in regard
to the Pebble Project itself, which he doesn't think the board
will do, nor that the board has jurisdiction to do, he will
conflict himself out as he has done in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN shared that concern has been raised
regarding a lawsuit brought forward by a fellow commercial
fisherman. She requested Mr. Williams speak to this.
MR. WILLIAMS responded he brought a lawsuit against the Bristol
Bay Regional Seafood Development Association (BBRSDA), an
organization set up under state statute that is designed to
brand and promote marketability of regional products. The
BBRSDA is tasked with the ability to brand Bristol Bay products
and bring awareness to the marketplace. His challenge was
related to the large sums of monies that [fishermen] pay into
BBRSDA being directed to organizations like United Tribes of
Bristol Bay and Salmon State where those funds were designated
and designed to actively promote and aid folks in the ability to
comment on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental impact
statement (EIS) process.
11:52:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether her understanding is
correct that Mr. Williams felt it was more appropriate to use
the money to pursue marketability of commercial fish product
coming from Bristol Bay and raising awareness about the
importance of the fish in Bristol Bay than use the money to
oppose the Pebble Project.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that the monies designed to travel from
the BBRSDA were funneled to these certain organizations for
specific purpose of commenting on the EIS process that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers was holding, which he said he and others
viewed as [inappropriate] use of the tax revenues that fishermen
pay into BBRSDA. Under the statute, fishermen are taxed, and
those taxes are to be used to promote and market products in
Bristol Bay.
11:54:12 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked about the outcome of the lawsuit.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that it was dismissed.
11:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON posited that Mr. Williams, through his
role as director of regional affairs at the Pebble Partnership,
has received a lot more visibility in the region than he would
have had in the past. This role, he opined, has created quite a
strain relative to relationships with a lot of people around the
region. Polls have shown time and again that 8 out of 10 people
in the Bristol Bay region oppose the Pebble Mine, perhaps even
more. Representative Edgmon stated that when he goes to the
communities, he hears it regularly and it is the number one
issue to a lot of people. People are very concerned about the
downstream impacts of the mine on the commercial and subsistence
fisheries and the cultural way of life the future of the
region. To provide context about the high visibility of Mr.
Williams, Representative Edgmon related that his household in
Dillingham has received at least five large-size postcards, at
least two having Mr. Williams's name on them, asking that he
sign up for the Pebble performance dividend, the dividend being
a unique thing on its own.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that Mr. Williams lost his seat on
the BBRSDA because many people were unhappy with his position on
Pebble. He said he hopes Mr. Williams sees this as a fair
question, because clearly Mr. Williams has to know that a lot of
people in the Bristol Bay region are very concerned about the
Pebble Project, as are many people around the state. He asked
how Mr. Williams is going to work with those members of the
region who are aligned on the opposite side of the Pebble issue
from Mr. Williams.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stressed the importance of the Board of
Fisheries process and noted that the Bristol Bay cycle comes up
every three years where the board comes to the region to meet
and to personally interface with key leaders and people who want
the best for the fishery and who don't see that putting a huge
open pit mine at the headwaters of very sensitive habitat is a
part of that. He asked how Mr. Williams reconciles all that
discord and will make all that work as the so-called Bristol Bay
representative on the board.
11:58:31 AM
MR. WILLIAMS responded that in his years of participation in
leadership roles in Bristol Bay he has always been engaged with
everyone and not necessarily key leaders. Key leaders are
important to listen to, but so are individual persons in each
community, he said, and in his position at Pebble he does that.
He travels to the region and he talks to people individually.
It sets his course as to how he does the things he does. He
stated he thinks he is high profile only because certain loud
voices, or certain people who are well thought of, oppose this
particular project or they highlight him as somebody who
supports mining in Bristol Bay. Mr. Williams added that he is a
people person, he has engaged with people for quite some time
and will continue doing so, and he thinks he is one of the best
to do it.
12:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated he didn't hear a response to his
question. He recalled that the board's last meeting in Bristol
Bay was in Dillingham in 2018. He related his understanding
that at this meeting Mr. Williams sponsored the proposal to do
away with the 32-foot boat length in Bristol Bay, which the
region at-large vociferously opposes. Yet Mr. Williams is out
there talking to people and working to build a consensus. He
asked how Mr. Williams could reconcile that with his ability to
work with the region as a whole, not just key leaders.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that Representative Edgmon's recollection
is incorrect. He said he didn't sponsor such an effort to lift
the 32-foot limit.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether Mr. Williams has sponsored a
proposal like that in the past.
MR. WILLIAMS replied he has not sponsored a proposal to lift the
32-foot limit on the fisheries.
12:02:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he stands corrected, but it was his
understanding that Mr. Williams either did or was part of an
effort to support it. He stated that it is a unique
circumstance of being a Board of Fisheries member with direct
knowledge about the largest salmon fishery in the world, but yet
possibly being on the other side speaking of the controversial
Pebble Mine that keeps coming back cycle after cycle. He said
he presumes [the Pebble Mine] will come up when the board meets
in the Bristol Bay cycle in 2021. He asked whether Mr. Williams
would support doing away with the 32-foot limit if a proposal
comes before the board at the 2021 meeting.
MR. WILLIAMS responded:
I don't know that I would be supportive to doing away
with the 32-foot limit. I think that ... definitely
here in the most past recent years a lot of folks have
invested into quality efforts on boats and they've
done so in a meaningful way that was restricted ... or
some people feel that they were restricted by the
length of the boat. So you have a lot of capital
outlay on existing vessels, and so lifting the limit
could pose certain burdens and certain problems on
others. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the
conversation as we look to bring the best quality
product from the Bristol Bay fishery into market and
raise our value, raise ... the commercial value and
the ex-vessel value. It's important to have the
proper tools to do that, and as a fisherman I can see
where the limit of [a] 32-foot [vessel] really creates
a strain on your ability to do so adequately and be
safe when you do it.
12:04:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON offered his appreciation for the dialogue
with Mr. Williams. He noted he has known Mr. Williams for a lot
of years and said it isn't personal. He offered his belief that
Mr. Williams knows what he is stepping into, that he keenly
knows the nature of the Pebble issue from being a Pebble
employee, and that there is support for the mine in some pockets
of the region, but that by and large the opposition is deeply
embedded. There are going to be people in the region, he
opined, who think the fox is in the hen house now with Mr.
Williams being on the Board of Fisheries, and it is up to Mr.
Williams to prove that that's an inaccurate characterization.
He further stated that whether in a public or private setting,
he doesn't want to be party to slandering anybody's character,
but he wants to make these views publicly known because a lot of
people are really concerned about this and concerned about a
project that may ultimately be shelved anyway with the current
permitting process that's underway. He said he appreciates Mr.
Williams' forthrightness and looks forward to working with him
if he is confirmed.
12:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he appreciates Representative Edgmon's
line of questioning. He stated it is hard for him to not see
that there is conflict because of the nature of the Pebble Mine,
where it's located, and the concern about the salmon fisheries,
one of the most abundant salmon fisheries in the world. It's a
conflict not only in the position, he continued, but also
looking at mines versus salmon in this particular situation.
The opposition isn't because of not wanting a mine developed,
but because of the mine's location and what the potential harm
is to the fisheries. The main role of the Board of Fisheries,
he stated, is to conserve and develop Alaska's fishery
resources, which, to him, also insinuates protecting the state's
fisheries. He asked what Mr. Williams thinks is the greatest
salmon producing lake in Alaska.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that multiple lakes are great salmon
producing lakes - the Wood-Tikchiks, Naknek Lake, Becharof Lake,
Ugashik Lakes but this doesn't preclude other lakes and
streams and tributaries that are in the Bristol region. It is a
large area at 40,000 square miles and seven large, major river
systems. All these in consort make up this great salmon
resource that is being discussed. Managing and conserving these
fisheries is important but it is larger than just
generalizations. He said he doesn't think his position at the
Pebble Partnership should define his qualifications; he has
fished in Bristol Bay for 30 years. He has subsistence fished
with his grandmother, sport fished with his family and kids, and
he cherishes this resource. But, he continued, he also is very,
very connected to the people of the region, and when he looks
around at the social issues taking place - schools closing and
populations moving away - it raises a red flag to him, which is
why he is involved not only with the Pebble Project but also the
commercial fishery right now.
12:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK maintained that Lake Iliamna, which wasn't
mentioned, is one of the most important lakes. He said he
understands Mr. Williams's justification for wanting to promote
the Pebble Mine with the social aspects that were mentioned and
the economy, but the fishery is a big part of the culture in
that area. He said he has concerns and doesn't see how there is
no conflict in Mr. Williams's position. He asked why Mr.
Williams wants to serve on the Board of Fisheries.
MR. WILLIAMS replied he has been involved in the fisheries for
many years as he described and over those years he was involved
with policies and how the fishery is managed and executed. He
said it started when he was serving on the Naknek/Kvichak Fish &
Game Advisory Committee, on which he served for nine years and
co-chaired for six years. His interest in participating didn't
come overnight. One of the most prominent leaders in Bristol
Bay asked him if he'd be willing to sit on the Board of
Fisheries, he related, even though the two of them have
differing opinions on the Pebble Project. He declined because
he was busy at that point in his life and didn't have the time.
The previous board member that he is now replacing was chosen.
Alaska has many resources, and the fisheries resource is very
important throughout all of the state and to many different user
groups, he opined. The state has other resources that are also
important to all Alaskans, and he takes the approach of an open
mind and being an approachable person. He can sit down and
critically think, take in public comment and public criticism,
and be effective at making decisions that are beneficial to the
state of Alaska as a whole.
MR. WILLIAMS apologized for leaving out Lake Iliamna and stated
it is the greatest lake in all of Alaska in his opinion. He
recounted that in 1996 the Kvichak River began having an issue
that created some conservation management that was important to
the Bristol Bay fishery as well as to the people around the
area. Some folks in the Lake Iliamna area were restricted in
their ability to harvest subsistence foods. That hit close to
home. That said, he continued, the Kvichak River failed to meet
its minimum escapement goal for many years. Now it is slowly
coming back, but there is still concern and issues around it.
These are issues he has addressed, and that is why he believes
he is qualified for this position.
12:13:59 PM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Mr. Williams has support from any
commercial fishery groups.
MR. WILLIAMS responded he doesn't know. In Bristol Bay there
are certain factions of groups. He said he does get a lot of
support from folks, a lot of encouragement regarding that.
CHAIR STUTES asked whether it is individuals in the groups.
MR. WILLIAMS answered yes, from individuals. It's important to
pay attention to individuals, he stated, because they aren't
always aligned with certain groups or certain activities around
groups; so, that is where he pays close attention. It's not to
disenfranchise groups or organized groups, but to highlight that
he's available to talk to anyone regardless of their
affiliation.
12:15:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested Mr. Williams to elaborate on his
business activity, his direct involvement in commercial fishing,
and how much influence Pebble has into his income.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that regarding his business activity he and
his wife own Bristol Bay Rentals, a real estate rental business.
He owns Maritime Industries, a service industry in the Bristol
Bay region and a small-boat storage. He requested clarification
on whether he is being asked to compare his income from the
Pebble Partnership to his income from his business and
commercial fishing activity.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes. She related that many of her
constituents are concerned that because Mr. Williams is on
Pebble's payroll, he will put Pebble before the interest of the
fishery. She asked Mr. Williams to justify this relationship.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that his Pebble income is less than half
of what he makes from his commercial fishing operation and, if
his business income is included, then it is even less. He said
he recognizes the concern. He emphasized that he has fished in
Bristol Bay for 30 years, his boys fish in Bristol Bay, his
family members fish in Bristol Bay, and there is nothing he
would ever do to compromise their ability to do that year after
year.
12:17:41 PM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether Mr. Williams owns any part of the
Pebble Mine or Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., such as shares or
something else along that line.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that through his job he has stock options,
but he has not exercised them.
CHAIR STUTES offered her understanding that Mr. Williams said he
does not own any shares in Pebble Mine or Northern Dynasty.
12:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Williams was on the
[BBRSDA] board at the time he filed the lawsuit against that
organization.
MR. WILLIAMS responded no, he was not on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Williams had previously
been on the [BBRSDA] board.
MR. WILLIAMS answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Williams resigned
because of the decision that he then sued [BBRSDA] over.
MR. WILLIAMS replied no, he served a three-year term and was not
elected back to the organization.
12:19:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she is aware that Mr. Williams has
sponsored proposals before the Board of Fisheries on several
occasions. As recently as 2018, she continued, Mr. Williams had
a board proposal to allow for permit stacking, which many
Bristol Bay fishermen support, especially ones who have permits
and do not live in the region; but permit stacking seems to be
opposed by most local permit owners and the smaller communities
around Bristol Bay. She noted that as a board member Mr.
Williams cannot sponsor that proposal, but asked whether Mr.
Williams is still interested in pushing for permit stacking to
be allowed in the Bristol Bay fishery. She further asked how
permit stacking would impact the region.
MR. WILLIAMS confirmed he sponsored the proposal for permit
stacking. The majority of folks in the commercial driftnet
fleet, he stated, look at permit stacking as a valuable tool to
achieve the optimum number as described by the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission and ADF&G in the Bristol Bay region,
as well as an important tool to manage and be financially
successful in the fishery. In 2015, price and ex-vessel value
drastically dropped to about 50 cents a pound. Ironically that
was when he was elected to the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood
Development Association (BBRSDA) - fishermen were scrambling to
figure out ways to bring value to their fishery. Commercial
fishery permit holders see this as something that is of value,
he reiterated. There is a difference of opinion in certain
factions in the region, but there is probably larger support in
the region for permit stacking than what has been portrayed to
Representative Hannan.
12:21:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she is trying to draw distinction
between Bristol Bay permit holders and Bristol Bay residents who
are also permit holders. She stated it seems that the resident
fishermen of Bristol Bay have not been supportive of permit
stacking even though many Seattle based permit holders are, due
capitalization costs and the idea of making a more efficient
fishery. But that money would be taken out of the region, she
continued, and the number of jobs would be decreased for local
crew. Noting that the proposal for permit stacking has failed
on several occasions, she asked whether pushing that proposal
again is one of the reasons for Mr. Williams getting on the
board.
MR. WILLIAMS responded no, that is not a reason for him to get
on the board. He said he supports that type of concept, but
explained he will be restricted in ways that he can participate
in the conversation on that. If someone submitted that
proposal, then he would probably be recused from it because he
currently fishes in Bristol Bay. He maintained that there is
large support from local permit holders in the Bristol Bay
fishery for permit stacking.
12:24:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he is aware of the long
tenure of work done by Mr. Williams in Bristol Bay. While he
might not always see eye-to-eye with Mr. Williams, he said he
knows Mr. Williams is knowledgeable on the issues. He asked
whether the decision to serve on the board at this time was
because Mr. Williams was asked to serve by another party or was
of his own volition.
MR. WILLIAMS answered he has been approached multiple times to
apply for this position. Ironically, people see his ability and
encourage him to do something of this nature, and that is what
he is doing.
12:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that Mr.
Williams is saying he was asked by others to serve on the Board
of Fisheries this go around. He asked which parties requested
Mr. Williams to put his name in.
MR. WILLIAMS replied he has had multiple fellow fishermen
encourage him to throw his name into the hat for this position.
He neglected to do it before because he had multiple things
going on in his life. Now he has found the time and can apply
some effort, so that is what he is doing.
12:26:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP inquired whether as a Board of Fisheries
member Mr. Williams would have any authority, jurisdiction, or
input on the Pebble Project permit.
MR. WILLIAMS responded no, he doesn't think the Board of
Fisheries will take up anything in relation to the Pebble
Project or the permit.
12:27:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that that is how he also sees it; he
doesn't see any decision-making authority over Pebble Mine
permitting. He related that he and Mr. Williams have known one
another for quite a number of years. As a lifelong fellow
commercial fisherman and fellow Alaskan in Bristol Bay, he too
is a fisherman who supports mining and fishing. He said he
supports the nomination of Mr. Williams and that Mr. Williams
has a sterling reputation. He added that he appreciates Mr.
Williams's comment of listening to everybody and being willing
to work with the other side because that pushes back the current
political climate to not do that. Every member of this
committee, Representative Kopp opined, has suffered in some
regard or the other for making hard decisions that were
necessary because he or she was willing to learn information and
based on that speak the truth and stick to it. He stated that
Mr. Williams possesses the integrity to do this job in a way
that is honorable and that will reflect well on both the fishing
industry and mining industry. He inquired whether Mr. Williams
would continue to support the Pebble Project if the project is
unable to meet the bar that the administration has laid down to
mitigate wetland and tributary damage.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that all projects in Alaska must go
through permitting processes. The state's representatives and
people have set that bar, he continued, and projects unable to
meet that bar ultimately won't get their permit. Currently, the
Pebble Project is going through the federal permitting process,
which is coming to a close, and mitigation standards will have
to be met. He stated he hopes that all projects are assessed
through a process vetted in science, not politics.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he appreciates Mr. Williams as a leader
showing up for his community and putting forward real solutions
over many decades.
12:31:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled Alaska's late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens
stating he isn't opposed to mining, but in reference to Pebble
the wrong mine for the wrong place. She stated she is putting
it in this context because she doesn't think she's alone among
Alaskans in this belief and that that's why the committee has
received over 500 emails opposing the appointment of Mr.
Williams. It's her job to listen to Alaskans and that's where
her opposition is also coming from. The governor has a lot of
power in making these appointments, she opined. One way to do
that would be to get the stakeholders together to try to remove
the conflict before the appointments were made and put together
a group that could be embraced by Alaskans and there are no
broad conflicts where it compromises the process. Regarding the
conflict over the Pebble Mine, she noted that there is already
an individual on the Board of Fisheries who previously worked
for Pebble Mine and that the commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation is also a former Pebble Mine
employee. She said she thinks Alaskans are saying there needs
to be separation from these conflicts and there needs to be more
trust in this process. She asked whether Mr. Williams is aware
of this high level of opposition to his appointment and how Mr.
Williams thinks he can be a successful board member when there
is such significant opposition and lack of trust by Alaskans.
MR. WILLIAMS confirmed he is aware of folks who are opposed to
his appointment to the Board of Fisheries. He said he has
reviewed a lot of the form letters and was amused that he would
draw such activity. While he respects the Alaskans who spoke in
concern of what they perceive as a conflict, he has some concern
about the lack of original thought as many of the documents he
reviewed were generated by some kind of a "robo-text" or form
letter, with letters coming from as far as New York, Montana,
and California. He hasn't calculated how many are from Alaska,
he continued, but recognizes that there are those who are
concerned, and he respects that.
12:36:00 PM
CHAIR STUTES pointed out that of the over 500 responses
mentioned by Representative Tarr, very few were from non-
Alaskans, most were from Alaskans who included their names and
information.
CO-CHAIR TARR argued that it's an unfair characterization
regarding a form letter versus a written letter. She pointed
out that people are currently homeschooling their children and
may not have had the capacity to type a thorough email. She
maintained that when [legislators] hear from Alaskans it must be
accepted as public testimony.
CHAIR STUTES agreed with Representative Tarr and stated that
however generated, [the emails] were from individual Alaskans.
12:37:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN related that of the first 100 letters
reviewed by her staff this morning, 96 were form emails and 24
were out of state. She pointed out that close to 60 percent of
[Bristol Bay] permits are owned by non-Alaskans, so she thinks
the intent behind Mr. Williams's earlier action with stacking
permits was to address a possible problem of needing to find
ways to ensure that Alaskans have more opportunities to own
these permits and keep Alaskans hired. Alaska's fish, she
opined, are one of Alaska's best resources and the commercial
fishing industry provides a lot of great paying jobs. It is
important that legislators find ways to support Alaska hire and
support the board in whatever it can do for Alaska hire. She
asked Mr. Williams about how many Board of Fisheries meetings he
has participated in in some capacity over the last 10 ten years.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that he doesn't have an exact number, but
it has been many. He explained that typically he actively
participates in each and every board cycle that pertains to
Bristol Bay and, if not, he listens by phone.
12:39:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether Mr. Williams recalls
the board taking direct action on the Pebble Mine during any of
the meetings in which he actively participated
MR. WILLIAMS responded that he does not.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN recognized that there has been a lot of
concern from Alaskans about the Pebble Mine issue. She said it
is important that lawmakers and others familiar with this
process reassure people that there are no instances in which the
Board of Fisheries would approve or deny any permitting or
anything pertaining to Pebble Mine. In looking at the resume of
Mr. Williams, she continued, it's clear that he has an extensive
background in commercial fishing and is a business owner in
Bristol Bay. Qualified candidates from the coastal region are
being looked for, and while Mr. Williams currently lives in
Anchorage, he presumably spends a lot of his time in the Bristol
Bay region. He is a well-qualified applicant to be on the
board, she opined, and he has done an admirable job of handling
himself despite opposition. The Board of Fisheries wants to
ensure that Alaska's fish resource is managed in the best way
possible and while there are differences of opinion, it is those
differences that make the process great and that are compiled
into making the best policy.
12:42:25 PM
CHAIR STUTES remarked that regardless of whether the letters of
comment are from in-state or out-of-state, they signify what an
incredible and impactful area the Bristol Bay fisheries are on
the whole of the United States as well as worldwide. There is
vast concern about maintaining that pristine area as a fisheries
area, she stated.
12:43:13 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 12:43 to 1:02 p.m.
1:02:04 PM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on the appointments of Abe
Williams, McKenzie Mitchell, John Wood, and John Jensen to the
Board of Fisheries. Today's testimony will be taken by phone,
she noted, and written comment will be accepted throughout the
month. She explained that a yay or nay vote cannot be taken in
the committee, but that there will be a floor vote at some point
and public comment will be part of the record.
1:04:03 PM
GARY CLINE, noted he is the regional fisheries director for the
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), but
qualified he is testifying on behalf of himself. He stated he
is a commercial fisherman and the father of a two-year-old son.
He purchased a Bristol Bay drift permit in 2018 and bought his
boat in June 2020. It took him a while to gain confidence to
invest in this fishery, not because he was worried about his
ability to succeed as a fisherman, but because he was so nervous
about the impacts of the proposed Pebble Mine. It deterred him
from buying into the fishery in 2012 because he was concerned
how the [proposed mine] would impact the region's salmon markets
and the ecosystem. Eventually he decided to not let fear
dictate his decisions and he bought into the fishery. He
couldn't be happier with his decision because he was able to
employ two of his brothers and a cousin throughout this summer.
MR. CLINE stated that as a new entrant he is deeply concerned as
to who is appointed to the Board of Fisheries. Within the last
several years he has attended various [Board of Fisheries]
meetings, along with some work sessions, and he served a short
stint on the local advisory committee (AC). He has learned how
important the Board of Fisheries is and how the board's
decisions could impact the livelihoods of fishermen. Given the
Board of Fisheries main role is to conserve and develop Alaska's
fishery resource, he finds it highly contradicting to elect
someone such as Abe Williams who works for the Pebble Mine, a
project that could impact the marketability of the region's
salmon, but more importantly destroy the ecosystem that the
fishery relies on. He said he therefore believes that Mr.
Williams should not be confirmed, nor anyone else who is
affiliated with the Pebble Mine project.
MR. CLINE pointed out that he is opposed to permit stacking and
increasing the vessel length. Permit stacking is not the answer
to increase the amount of permits into local Alaskan's hands.
He said he believes most locals feel this way, which is
highlighted by the public comments submitted throughout the last
Bristol Bay finfish meetings.
1:07:32 PM
ANTHONY ZOCH, Regional Fisheries Coordinator, Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), testified in
opposition to the appointment of Abe Williams. He stated that
it is appalling the governor would appoint someone to the Board
of Fisheries who currently works for the Pebble Mine,
particularly when the board's main role is to conserve and
develop the fishery resources of the state. This presents a
huge conflict of interest as a Board of Fisheries member should
not work for a highly controversial project that could devastate
the ecosystem of Bristol Bay and the economy of the salmon
fishery.
MR. ZOCH said it is heart wrenching knowing that the salmon
returns in other parts of Alaska have been very poor this year.
He related that Cordova has requested the state and federal
governments to declare an economic disaster. The sockeye
fishery in the Chigniks had one of the worst years in history,
he continued. He cannot imagine the hardships those fishers and
communities will face. [The Bristol Bay region] is very
fortunate that over 57 million sockeye have returned to Bristol
Bay and it is hoped that the salmon will continue to return to
support the local residents, fishers, and economy.
MR. ZOCH explained that one of the main reasons the Bristol Bay
fishery has been so resilient and sustainable is because of the
genetic diversity of the salmon populations that spawn within
the watershed. The Pebble Project, he continued, could destroy
certain salmon populations, which would damage the genetic
diversity of the two most prolific rivers in Bristol Bay, the
Nushagak and Kvichak. Furthermore, if Pebble Mine were to be
developed it could potentially disrupt the marketability of
Bristol Bay salmon for future generations. This would undermine
all the efforts that fishers have made to improve the quality
and value of their catch, including the marketing endeavors by
the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute and the Bristol Bay
Regional Seafood Development Association. Therefore, he stated,
it is crucial not to confirm Abe Williams or anyone else to the
Board of Fisheries who is closely tied to the Pebble Mine
Project.
1:09:51 PM
SHANNON DONAHUE, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC),
noted that SEACC represents constituents across Southeast
Alaska. She said SEACC is concerned with the sustainable
management of Alaska's fisheries and the communities that depend
on them. She stated she serves on the Upper Lynn Canal Advisory
Committee, but is not in any way speaking on behalf of the
advisory committee.
MS. DONAHUE testified against the nomination of Abe Williams to
the Board of Fisheries. She stated that his employment with
the Pebble Partnership is a conflict of interest that makes him
unfit to serve on the board that oversees the regulations of
Alaska's fisheries. She further stated that his nomination is
one of many examples of stacking high level positions that make
critical decisions on the management of Alaska's natural
resources with people deeply associated with the mining industry
who stand to profit over decisions that privilege resource
extraction over the sustainable management of Alaska's
fisheries. She said the appointment of Mr. Williams to the
Board of Fisheries would jeopardize Alaska's fisheries and the
communities that depend on them and urged that his appointment
be denied.
1:11:13 PM
MELISSA STERITZ, Eyak Preservation Council (EPC), testified she
works for the Eyak Preservation Council, a nonprofit, Native-led
organization based in Cordova that works to protect wild salmon
habitat and traditional ways of life. She said the Eyak people
of the Copper River Delta have millennia of history in the delta
and are the original rightful stewards of the lands and waters.
MS. STERITZ stated that the Eyak Preservation Council stands in
solidarity with the United Tribes of Bristol Bay in opposing the
appointment of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. As an
employee of the Pebble Partnership, she continued, Mr. Williams
stands to benefit from large-scale open pit mining in Bristol
Bay, which the council sees as a major conflict of interest.
Mr. Williams should not be allowed to sit on the Board of
Fisheries because of this conflict of interest. All of the
board's seven appointees should be people who are unbiased and
stand for a strong future for Alaska's wild salmon. She said
large-scale open pit copper mines like Pebble have a terrible
track record around the world of disasters and failures and this
cannot be afforded in any of Alaska's remaining wild salmon
fisheries. Salmon are more than a resource, they are relatives,
and the Eyak Preservation Council believes it is inappropriate
to appoint someone to this level of responsibility who has such
blatant conflicts of interest.
1:13:49 PM
BRIAN HIMELBLOOM, said he is a 33-year resident of Kodiak
Island. He offered his belief that there should be more
cultural representation like there was in the past, but that he
does support John Jensen's appointment.
MR. HIMELBLOOM expressed his concern about John Wood due to Mr.
Wood's limited fisheries experience. He questioned whether Mr.
Wood's previous service as staff to former state senator
Dunleavy may have led to the state contract where Mr. Wood
reports to now Governor Dunleavy and said he finds it
concerning. He maintained that Mr. Wood did not list the
contract or the [contract] renewal in his application, which may
affect fisheries employees since Mr. Wood is dealing with union
materials.
MR. HIMELBLOOM stated he finds McKenzie Mitchell's experience
skimpy and narrow. Because Ms. Mitchell had never attended a
Board of Fisheries meeting [previous to her appointment], he
recommended that she serve at the local advisory level, perhaps
in Fairbanks, because it would be more suited for her to learn
about Board of Fisheries issues.
MR. HIMELBLOOM allowed that Abe Williams has an excellent
fisheries pedigree, but said he is very concerned that Mr.
Williams is a highly paid Pebble Mine employee. This is a huge
conflict of interest, he stated, since it is known what Pebble
Mine is going to be if it happens. He further stated that Mr.
Williams is at odds with the majority of Bristol Bay fishermen,
and that he is troubled by the lawsuit Mr. Williams filed
against the BBRSDA. Given the stock options in addition to his
pay, he continued, Mr. Williams has a vested interest in the
wellbeing of Pebble Mine, which would overshadow the rest of the
board and would be a loss-loss to Alaska.
1:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN noted Mr. Williams told the committees
that he does not have any stock interest in the Pebble Project.
1:17:51 PM
SERENA FITKA, Executive Director, Yukon River Drainage Fisheries
Association (YRDFA), explained that her nonprofit organization
is comprised of subsistence and commercial fishers with the
mission of protecting and promoting all wild fisheries and
traditional cultures within the Yukon River drainage. Formed 30
years ago in Galena, the YRDFA board and alternates together
represent over 40 Alaskan communities within the Yukon River
drainage.
MS. FITKA testified that given the Board of Fisheries' current
membership and nominee panel, YRDFA believes the board does not
have fair representation of all of Alaska. The YRDFA board
highly recommends an appointee to the board who has the
qualifications of residing in a rural community and with
knowledge of those fisheries. To balance the Board of Fisheries
representation, she continued, there needs to be adequate
representation of subsistence interests and someone who has
lived or worked in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region.
1:19:20 PM
CHAIR STUTES clarified that Mr. Himelbloom stated Mr. Williams
has stock options, not that Mr. Williams is a stock owner.
1:19:39 PM
EVELYN CORBETT, stated she is a member of the Curyung Tribe and
a subsistence setnetter. Today, she said, she is representing
herself as a Yup'ik woman with responsibility to protect the
land and waters.
MS. CORBETT testified that she opposes the appointment of Abe
Williams because it tilts the tables of bias on the Board of
Fisheries. It is known that Mr. Williams is a supporter of
Pebble Mine, she said, and it is known that Alaskans are
overwhelmingly against [the Pebble Mine]. While economic
infrastructure is a reason given for the Pebble Mine, this
reason is not valid enough. "No amount of economic
infrastructure is worth risking our salmon, our clean waters,
our food sovereignty, and our livelihoods," she stated. She
continued:
What is Abe Williams? Is he a fourth-generation
fisherman of Bristol Bay or the director of regional
affairs for the Pebble Partnership? These two parts
of identity conflict each other almost entirely, there
is no way that they don't. I won't take the chance
that Pebble Mine is "safe." There are too many
instances where the government deemed things such as
mining safe and they devastated the lands and waters,
and nothing was done about it. It is not reasonable
to ask the residents of Bristol Bay and the rest of
Alaska to accept this nomination. There is obviously
a conflict between the salmon and the mine. "The
salmon are ours to care for and live by, and by
allowing this conflict into our space we are
disregarding that responsibility entirely.
1:21:39 PM
MALCOLM VANCE, said his winter residence is in McCarthy and for
the past 40 summers he has fished the Bristol Bay area. He
testified that he opposes the appointment of Abe Williams to the
Board of Fisheries. He stated that it is a travesty of power
that the Dunleavy Administration would allow such a conflict of
interest to infiltrate and become a member of the Board of
Fisheries.
1:22:58 PM
LINDSAY LAYLAND, Deputy Director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay
(UTBB), explained that UTBB is a tribal government consortium
that represents 15 tribal governments in the Bristol Bay region
and over 80 percent of the year-round population in Bristol Bay.
She said the consortium's mission is to protect the traditional
way of life of the Indigenous people of Southwest Alaska, who
are dependent on a healthy and pristine ecosystem and the
abundant wildlife and wild salmon returns that the region has
produced for millennia.
MS. LAYLAND testified that UTBB opposes the appointment of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries. She said UTBB does not
believe Mr. Williams is an appropriate fit for the board for
[two] reasons. First, though Mr. Williams is a Bristol Bay
permit holder, he has not lived in the Bristol Bay region for a
decade. [Six of the board's seven members] are recently
appointed and do not live in rural, coastal Alaska, she
continued. This is highly concerning given that the vast
majority of commercial, sport, and subsistence activities occur
outside of the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna, and Fairbanks
areas. Without adequate rural representation this current
makeup of the board cannot be trusted to accurately represent
the fishing communities.
MS. LAYLAND stated that the second reason Mr. Williams is not an
appropriate fit is that he is an employee of the Pebble
Partnership, a development project that threatens the very
ecosystem and habitat that Bristol Bay communities, culture, and
fisheries depend upon. Though Mr. Williams claims he may recuse
himself from decisions about Bristol Bay specifically, she
continued, there is no guarantee that his input on any issue
that the board takes up will not be swayed by the priorities of
the Pebble Partnership.
MS. LAYLAND maintained that it is ridiculous that two members of
this seven-member board are either previously or currently
employed by the Pebble Partnership. She urged the committees to
take a hard look at who is selected to represent the fisheries
interests of the state before moving forward with this
confirmation. She said it is clear from committee member
questions, to news articles, to op-eds, to public testimony that
the people of Alaska are concerned about Mr. Williams's ability
to separate Pebble from the Board of Fisheries. That this topic
is taking up so much time in these public hearings raises a red
flag and Mr. Williams should withdraw his name from
consideration.
MS. LAYLAND stated it is critical that the Board of Fisheries is
made up of a group of people who hold the trust of the people of
Alaska to make sound management decisions that are based in the
best interest of the state's people and the sustainability of
the state's fisheries. Even though Mr. Williams was qualified
to hold this position, she continued, he lacks the trust of
Alaskans and the trust of Bristol Bay. She urged the committees
to not recommend Mr. Williams's name for confirmation to the
full legislative body. She further urged that the legislature
and the governor seek a more qualified, less conflicted, in-
region representative to sit on the esteemed Board of Fisheries.
1:26:17 PM
JEFF SKRADE, testified that he opposes the appointment of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries. Presently a resident of
Wisconsin, he explained that he spent 48 years involved in
professional fishery experience in Bristol Bay. He arrived in
1971, worked his way up to area biologist in Nushagak and
managed Nushagak and Togiak salmon as well as Togiak herring.
He then worked 22 years for Peter Pan Seafoods before retiring
last summer.
MR. SKRADE explained that the board and advisory committee
process were set up through the Alaska Administrative Procedures
Act. He spent many years attending board meetings and advisory
meetings, he said, and this wonderful, painfully democratic
process works. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is flourishing
because of the involvement of the board and the people out
there. The participants have made many sacrifices over the
years, he continued, and "participants" is a key word. His
memory is that there has always been a Board of Fisheries member
and resident in Bristol Bay.
MR. SKRADE stated that while Mr. Williams is obviously very well
qualified, he is no longer a Bristol Bay resident and it's been
a decade since he's lived there. He said he opposes the
appointment of Mr. Williams. Image is everything, he continued,
and the mystique of the pristine Alaska wilderness contributes
to the marketability of Alaska's fish. The perspective of
people having a member of a group, this mine that is opposed to
a lot of the values in Bristol Bay, is probably the worst thing
he can think of.
1:28:58 PM
ROBERT HEYANO, noted that he is a lifelong resident of the
Bristol Bay region. He said his primary source of income is
from commercial drift gill netting for salmon and seining
herring in Bristol Bay.
MR. HEYANO pointed out that Alaska is a large state with many
commercial, sport, subsistence, and personal use fisheries. As
a past member of the Board of Fisheries, he said what he found
helpful in making an informed decision was the ability to
physically meet, listen, and interact directly with the public.
Detailed reports and comments provided by the Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G), and a diverse expertise and knowledge
from the other six members, contributed to the discussion and
debates. He added that he shares and supports the concerns of
the lack of Board of Fisheries representation from coastal
communities.
MR. HEYANO related that while recently reviewing the policy for
management of sustainable salmon fisheries he found reference to
habitat in 37 different paragraphs/sections. His takeaway, he
continued, is that habitat is an important factor when
considering management and regulation pertaining to fishery and
the resources.
MR. HEYANO maintained that Abe Williams has a history of
supporting the destruction of fish habitat in Bristol Bay by
supporting the development of the Pebble Mine. Based on the
importance of habitat and a diverse Board of Fisheries
representation from coastal communities, he urged that the
committees and the legislature oppose the confirmation of Abe
Williams.
MR. HEYANO expressed his support of John Jensen.
1:31:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN noted that several people have
referenced a lack of diversity of coastal communities. She
requested a definition of coastal community given that,
technically, Anchorage is a coastal community.
MR. HEYANO replied that in the past there was a representative
from the Kodiak region, a representative from Bristol Bay, and a
representative from the Southeast Alaska area. That was about
three of the seven board members. Currently there is only one
member from what he would consider a coastal community and that
is Southeast Alaska. There are enough seats on the board to go
around and diversification is important given the importance of
these fisheries to those communities where the fishery is
happening. It is important to the municipalities as well as the
residents residing in them.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether coastal community is more
geographic distance or different regions of the state versus
coastal communities or something off the road system.
CHAIR STUTES clarified that the issue is not only coastal
communities but rural coastal fishing communities. She said the
concern is that fewer and fewer of Alaska's fishing communities
are having representation.
MR. HEYANO concurred with Chair Stutes.
1:33:35 PM
STEVE HYAMS, said he is a resident of Anchorage and King Salmon.
He urged the legislature to reject the nomination of Abe
Williams. He encouraged the governor to find a more suitable
candidate who has the faith of the fishermen and Alaska's
populace in general in fulfilling the board's important role in
managing the state's fisheries. He stated that the basis for
his position is that the primary responsibility for the members
of the Board of Fisheries is to provide appropriate management
of these fisheries. He asked how someone could trust Mr.
Williams's approach to other areas of the state where resource
development threatens critical fisheries. He maintained that,
ultimately, the appointment of Mr. Williams gives Pebble yet
another boost to the detriment of Bristol Bay and that his
appointment is a deplorable use of Governor Dunleavy's position
of power.
1:35:45 PM
NELS EVENS, noted he is a lifelong resident of Alaska who has
participated in the Bristol Bay drift fishery for the last six
years. He has owned and operated his own vessel for the last
three years.
MR. EVENS said the Pebble Mine scares him because he knows how
many people rely on the fishery, how much people have invested
into it, and how much the communities of Bristol Bay rely on the
fishery. He stated he opposes the appointment of Abe Williams
because the appointee's connection to the Pebble Partnership and
the Pebble Mine is not in line with the Board of Fisheries'
goals of conservation and development of Alaska's fisheries.
The potential of that mine going in, he added, could be to the
detriment of the Bristol Bay fishery.
1:37:40 PM
JACK DONACHY, testified he is strongly opposed to the
appointment of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. He
quoted from the board's home page on ADF&G's website, which
states that the board's "main role is to conserve and develop
the fishery resources of the state." He drew attention to the
word "conserve."
MR. DONACHY stated that Mr. Williams's advocacy for and
employment with Pebble Partnership represents an extreme
conflict of interest. He related that he has asked Pebble and
its supporters whether they can show anywhere in the world that
a design like what is proposed in Bristol Bay has not done
significant damage to the watershed where it is sited.
Apparently, no such example exists, he continued, because no
party that he has reached out to has responded to this question.
The Pebble Mine will significantly damage the Bristol Bay
fishery, he said.
MR. DONACHY maintained that when asked a yes or no question
regarding stock ownership, Mr. Williams was evasive to declining
to provide a straightforward yes or no response, instead
referring only to stock options through his work. Mr. Williams
claims to communicate, but then immediately dismisses opposition
as "loud voices and robo-texts," he continued, and further Mr.
Williams is apparently choosing to ignore numerous polls
indicating strong statewide and regional Bristol Bay opposition
to Pebble.
MR. DONACHY stated that the nomination of Mr. Williams to the
Board of Fisheries is shocking given his advocacy for and
employment with Pebble. Mr. Williams's views do not comport
with the board's main role, he continued, and therefore his
nomination should be summarily rejected. What is needed, is a
conservation-minded, science-following representative who
actually lives in a coastal Southwest Alaska fishing community.
1:39:48 PM
JUDY GONSALVES, said she and her family used to live in the
Bristol Bay area and continue to fish there. She noted that her
children are taking over the fishing operation.
MS. GONSALVES testified that she is opposed to the confirmation
of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. She explained that
her concerns over his appointment are twofold. First is his
connection to and employment with Pebble Partnership. Second is
that while Mr. Williams comes from the Bristol Bay area he
hasn't lived there for some time, which relates to there being
rural coastal fishing regional representation on the board.
MS. GONSALVES maintained it's clear that [Governor] Dunleavy
stands on the development of the Pebble Mine, so this
appointment sort of makes sense put an additional pro-Pebble
person on the board. However, she pointed out, the primary goal
of the Board of Fisheries is to preserve and develop the state's
fisheries. She questioned how Mr. Williams could be an
objective, unbiased, and trusted board member with his current
employment and strong pro-Pebble stance. Mr. Williams has a
direct conflict of interest even though he says he doesn't, she
continued. Optics is everything - it's like hiring the fox to
guard the henhouse.
MS. GONSALVES stated that even if Mr. Williams were to recuse
himself from board decisions involving Bristol Bay issues, his
mining-over-fishery stance does not make him trustworthy.
Members of the Board of Fisheries need to be trusted by
Alaskans, she said. It sounds like Mr. Williams has a no vote
of confidence from myriad levels of fishermen in the Bristol Bay
area, be they sport, commercial, or subsistence fishers. She
asked whether members of the committees want to ignore that over
80 percent of the region is against Pebble Mine.
MS. GONSALVES argued that in the spirit of full representation,
there are plenty of smart, capable, and involved people living
in the Bristol Bay region who would make good members of the
Board of Fisheries. The Board of Fisheries has an incredible
responsibility to both represent rural areas and to have
trustworthy objective board members. If Mr. Williams is
confirmed there will then be two board members with direct and
clear Pebble connections, she stated, which doesn't sound
reliable, objective, or trustworthy.
MS. GONSALVES recalled the statement by Mr. Williams in his
testimony that with his 30 years of fishing, there is nothing he
would do to compromise his ability to continue fishing. She
said that statement confuses her because the advent of Pebble
Mine directly conflicts that potential
1:44:00 PM
OLIVA EDWARDS, requested that the legislature reject the
confirmation of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. She
said she believes that Mr. Williams holds a conflict of interest
with his current employment by the Pebble Partnership.
MS. EDWARDS offered her understanding that the Board of
Fisheries has not in the past, and likely will not in the
future, be in a decision-making position on the Pebble Mine.
However, she continued, Mr. Williams's apparent support of the
mine itself is cause for concern when it comes to other issues
that the board will address. She worries what other valuable
fisheries he might be willing to risk or decisions he might make
that are not in line with sustaining Alaska's fisheries for
future generations. Ms. Edwards urged that a replacement
nominee and future nominees come from rural fishing communities
to ensure that all Alaskans are represented on the board.
1:45:35 PM
CRAWFORD PARR, testified that he opposes the confirmation of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries primarily because the board's
job is conserving and developing Alaska's fisheries. Mr.
Williams, he continued, supports an organization that is
advancing a plan to do the opposite almost 200 miles of
streams would be destroyed in Phase I alone of the mine
permitting process.
MR. PARR stated that his opposition is also because a Pebble
employee being able to become a sitting member of the Board of
Fisheries lends some sort of legitimacy to the Pebble
Partnership as a group that has a stake in the conservation and
advancement of Alaska's commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries. This couldn't be farther from the truth, he said,
considering all the opposition to the partnership building the
mine in a sensitive area perched right above Lake Iliamna, with
tributaries leading into Lake Iliamna, the Mulchatna, and then
ultimately the Nushagak River.
1:47:27 PM
PHIL HILBRUNER, Owner, Lakeview Outfitters, stated he opposes
the appointment of Abe Williams. There is an obvious conflict
of interest with Mr. Williams being an employee of the Pebble
Partnership, he maintained. If confirmed, Mr. Williams will be
charged with making decisions that directly affect him
personally as well as his business and he cannot trust Mr.
Williams to do so.
MR. HILBRUNER recalled Mr. Williams's testimony about priding
himself on considering science and listening to people.
However, Mr. Hilbruner continued, the science has repeatedly
demonstrated that Pebble is too much of a risk to Alaska's other
resources. Regarding listening, he said peers and neighbors in
Bristol Bay, and people from across the state, are speaking in
opposition to Mr. Williams. He urged Mr. Williams to listen to
the people now and withdraw his name so that the look can begin
for a person more suited to the position.
1:49:35 PM
AMANDA JOHNSTON, noted she is an Alaska resident and Bristol Bay
fisher who is not a robot and not copying and pasting her
testimony. She is a real person with real concerns about the
future and management of Alaska's fisheries.
MS. JOHNSTON urged the legislature to [confirm] only those
people whose interests clearly align with the goals of the Board
of Fisheries, which are to protect Alaska's rivers and
resources. She stated that Abe Williams is in direct conflict
with such values. The idea of Mr. Williams serving on the Board
of Fisheries is a blatant and absurdly obvious conflict of
interest, she maintained. Wouldn't the Pebble Partnership just
love to have one of its paid employees sitting on a state board
that's meant to make important decisions about salmon fisheries?
Specifically Bristol Bay where the company wants to develop a
mine? Isn't it obvious why Mr. Williams is here now trying to
get on the board? Ms. Johnston requested that legislators
listen to their constituents and not [confirm] Abe Williams to
the Board of Fisheries.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she understands the concern people
have about Abe Williams's position with Pebble and that
testifiers feel there is a severe conflict of interest. But,
she continued, she would like to hear how people feel about John
Wood's direct connection with the administration through the
contract that he has. If legislators are supposed to take
testimony about Pebble in that light, she asked why it would not
apply to another board member and therefore she would like
people's insight on that as well and not just Pebble.
1:52:01 PM
CHAIR STUTES announced she must leave the hearing to catch a
flight but that she would like to provide her closing comments.
She stated she is deeply concerned over the governor's most
recent nominations to the Board of Fisheries and what it means
to the board balance.
CHAIR STUTES said that because the House Special Committee on
Fisheries heard Mr. Wood's confirmation earlier in the year, she
wouldn't rehash her statements. However, she continued, she
wasn't aware at the time and only recently became aware of the
disturbing revelation and precedent that a member of the Board
of Fisheries would be on contract to the state reporting
directly to the governor. If that isn't a conflict of interest,
she opined, then the statute needs to be revised.
CHAIR STUTES stated she has nothing personal against Ms.
Mitchell and Mr. Williams. She said she wishes Ms. Mitchell had
a bit more experience with board meetings and exposure to
commercial fishing and that she does not think Pebble's
employees should be on the board.
CHAIR STUTES explained that for her, this is about board
balance. She pointed out that if all the governor's appointees
were to be confirmed there would be: one coastal member and six
Anchorage/Fairbanks members; only one commercial fishing seat
and no subsistence seat; and one former Pebble employee and one
current Pebble employee. That isn't a balance that's reflective
of Alaska or its diversity of fisheries and viewpoints, she
opined. The Board of Fisheries has always been about a delicate
balance that no one is happy with, but that people can live
with. This isn't anything personal against the appointees, she
continued, but they would move a very imbalanced board even
further toward a sport fishing Cook Inlet centric body. User
groups deserve a fairer and equally represented board when it
comes to the allocation of this most precious resource.
CHAIR STUTES stated that strictly based on board balance alone,
she will be opposing the governor's nominations, with the
exception of John Jensen.
1:54:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.
[CHAIR STUTES passed the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.]
1:55:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that witnesses have signed up to speak
to specific appointees and the witnesses heard thus far had
signed up for Mr. Williams. She noted that for Mr. Williams
there were 17 additional people who had signed up from Sterling,
Anchorage, Wasilla, Petersburg, North Pole, Girdwood, Bristol
Bay, Fairbanks, and Homer, but they had dropped off the line.
1:56:48 PM
VIVIAN MENDENHALL, said she has lived in Alaska for 40 years and
is a retired biologist and environmental scientist. She was on
setnet crews in the Nushagak Bay salmon fishery for 12 years.
MS. MENDENHALL submitted that Abe Williams would not contribute
to the board's purposes of conservation and development of
fisheries, and that he has a major conflict of interest. Mr.
Williams clearly knows a lot about fishing and the people in his
corner in Bristol Bay, she said, but that doesn't mean he knows
and understands environmental science, including protection of
fish habitat. Mr. Williams has shown that he understands the
future needs of a mining corporation, she argued, but not those
of most people and cultures around Bristol Bay.
MS. MENDENHALL related that the Executive Branch Ethics Act says
the standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive
branch need to distinguish those conflicts of interest that are
substantial and material. Mr. Williams, she continued,
currently works for a mining company, which could, if approved,
damage essential fish habitat for Bristol Bay's largest and most
important salmon runs. Mr. Williams has shown that he is a
vigorous opponent of habitat conservation, she stated, given he
and five others sued the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood
Development Association (BBRSDA) for opposing the Pebble Mine,
and were paid to do so. The judge threw out the case in May
2020, she reported, because the BBRSDA has the responsibility to
maintain the marketability and the habitat for the salmon. She
said a government board should avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest, let alone a major actual conflict. She
urged that Mr. Williams's appointment not be confirmed.
CO-CHAIR TARR requested Mr. Williams to respond in writing to
the statement that he was paid to file suit against BBRSDA.
1:59:46 PM
KATHERINE CARSCALLEN, noted she is a lifelong Bristol
Bay/Dillingham resident and a lifelong commercial and
subsistence fisher. Most of her family also commercially fishes
Bristol Bay, she added.
MS. CARSCALLEN stated she is highly concerned about the
appointment of Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. She
posed the possibility that the governor is trying to send a
message to Bristol Bay and Alaskan fishermen by removing a
sitting board member in good standing from the region and
replacing him with a Pebble employee. She suggested the
committee backup the residents and fishermen by sending a return
message that they will not allow the Board of Fisheries to be
politicized. She offered her belief that committees are not
required to forward the names of appointees and urged that Mr.
Williams's name not be forwarded for a full vote.
MS. CARSCALLEN questioned the ability of Mr. Williams to be a
representative of the best interests of fishing communities,
given his dismissal of the testimony against his appointment and
laughing because there was an organization effort. Regarding
"robo-texts," she noted that her fishing group was created to
protect the Bristol Bay fishery from the threat of the Pebble
Partnership, the employer of Mr. Williams. The group paid $50
to sign up for an easy text service, collected text numbers from
its fishermen, and sent out an alert about this hearing. If
that somehow disqualifies the volume of fishermen and Alaska
residents who have called in to oppose his appointment, will Mr.
Williams dismiss grassroots efforts when he is a sitting Board
of Fisheries member? Ms. Carscallen stated that over the past
decade Mr. Williams has been one of the most prominent voices
pushing Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay region and in no way
represents the best interest of the region's fishermen.
MS. CARSCALLEN addressed the topic of geographic distribution on
the Board of Fisheries and that the board makes decisions
concerning fisheries for the entire state. She pointed out that
over the years state management has been consolidated and moved
centrally to save money, with a loss of ADF&G staff positions
within the Bristol Bay region. Therefore, she maintained, it
must be ensured that Alaska's public boards remain diverse and
representative of stakeholders.
2:04:13 PM
VERNER WILSON III, testified that he is a Bristol Bay sport,
subsistence, and commercial fisherman born and raised in
Dillingham. He said he commercial fishes with his brother and
father who has a permit and boat in Bristol Bay. He related
that he has known Mr. Williams for over a decade and is
concerned that Mr. Williams won't conserve the fisheries and is
concerned about previous efforts by Mr. Williams to reduce
fishing benefits to more Alaskans.
MR. WILSON urged a vote against appointing Mr. Williams. Given
Mr. Williams's controversial stance on conservation, he
continued, he thinks other fishermen from around the state would
be concerned about this nomination. He cautioned that if Mr.
Williams is for compromising salmon habitat in his own home
region for pay, he might bring that approach to other areas of
the state as well. Aside from supporting Pebble, Mr. Williams
supported permit stacking in the fishery, which would have had
profound negative impacts on fishing jobs statewide, especially
for young Alaskan fishers, by likely drastically reducing the
number of commercial deckhand jobs, for example. Mr. Wilson
argued that all communities that depend on the revenues of
fisheries should be concerned by Mr. Williams's stance, as
should businesses such as stores, restaurants, and airlines that
benefit from the broader indirect economic impacts that
fisheries bring to Alaska's coastal economies.
MR. WILSON offered his hope that anyone in this position be able
to discuss these important conservation issues and be
approachable and unbiased to the many Alaskans who need to feel
properly heard when talking to board members about their
livelihoods. He again urged a no vote on the appointment of Mr.
Williams. He further stated that he also has concerns about the
appointment of Mr. Wood.
2:06:33 PM
DIANE FOLSOM, said she is a member of the Curyung Tribe and that
she is testifying on behalf of herself and her family, all
active members of the Bristol Bay commercial fishery and
subsistence fishers. She noted she is shore support, and her
husband is captain of their commercial fishing boat and that her
family's subsistence setnet site is in Dillingham. They are
recent purchasers of a limited entry Bristol Bay commercial
fishing permit and a 32-foot commercial fishing boat, she
continued, and her family is multi-generational in the
commercial fishing industry.
MS. FOLSOM stated she opposes the appointment of Abe Williams.
His appointment would be a huge conflict of interest, she
maintained, due to Mr. Williams being an employee of the Pebble
Partnership. Mr. Williams is not a resident of the Bristol Bay
region and does not represent her interests, she argued, rather
he represents his personal interest in the Pebble Mine. She
urged the committees and [the legislature] to oppose the
confirmation of Mr. Williams.
MS. FOLSOM said she also opposes the appointment of John Wood.
Given that Mr. Wood is employed by the State of Alaska and
answers directly to the governor, she stated, he has a direct
conflict of interest by sitting on this board. She encouraged
starting over and looking for qualified applicants who reside in
the Bristol Bay region, who commercially or subsistence fish,
and who don't have conflict of interest issues.
2:09:22 PM
MARIEL TERRY, noted she is a born-and-raised Alaskan who splits
her time between Anchorage and Bristol Bay where she works as a
fishery scientist, and said she opposes the appointment of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries.
MS. TERRY expressed her concern with the prospect of someone who
is receiving payment and employment by out-of-state and
international corporate interests that are very misaligned with
the majority view of the region to which Mr. Williams would be
tasked to represent. She noted the Board of Fisheries was
established for purposes of conserving and developing fisheries
resources around Alaska. However, she continued, Pebble
Partnership, the employer of Mr. Williams, is attempting to
permit a development project that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers recently admitted would likely result in significant
adverse effects to the aquatic system. She offered her
understanding that it is a project in direct conflict with the
mission to conserve and develop the fishery resources of the
region.
MS. TERRY argued that a lengthy body of evidence suggests that
Mr. Williams has a clear and targeted agenda. For example, in a
2013 interview Mr. Williams advocated development of Pebble Mine
under the pretext that it would bring economic growth to the
communities of Bristol Bay. At the time he sounded like a great
candidate to hold a paid position with the Pebble Partnership,
which coincidentally is now what he does as their director of
regional affairs.
MS. TERRY stated she is concerned that an individual with such
an overtly political position would be tasked with objectively
synthesizing and incorporating scientific assessment provided by
scientists at the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). She
further related her concern that a person tasked with ensuring
the success of this large-scale and environmentally detrimental
mine that would be selected to represent a community that
opposes the mine by 77 percent, according to a recent poll by
the Hayes Research Group.
MS. TERRY urged the committees to reject the appointment of Abe
Williams. She added that she would like to see more
representation from rural, coastal fishing communities.
2:12:54 PM
MARK RICHARDS, noted he is a member of the Fairbanks Fish & Game
Advisory Committee, but is testifying on his own behalf. He
stated he supports the appointment of McKenzie Mitchell, given
her many accomplishments since moving to Alaska 11 years ago.
He said her accomplishments in the sport fishing and hunting
industry, along with her UAF credentials and work, show that she
is a fast learner and a hard worker.
MR. RICHARDS addressed statements made in opposition to Ms.
Mitchell that she isn't knowledgeable enough on issues at this
time to serve on the board and that she isn't from a coastal
community. As to the latter, he argued that one doesn't have to
be from a "coastal" community to serve on the board or to
experience impacts from Board of Fisheries decisions. Every
community in Alaska is a fishing community in some way or
another and is affected by Board of Fisheries decisions. As to
the notion that Ms. Mitchell is not yet experienced enough to
serve on the board, he pointed out that she has said she has
work to do to learn the process and the issues, and he has no
doubt she is capable and can learn. He further stated that it
would be great to get the perspective of someone who is younger
and is a woman to serve on the board. He urged that Ms.
Mitchell be confirmed in joint session.
MR. RICHARDS said he opposes the appointment of Abe Williams to
the Board of Fisheries. He stated it is audacious that the
governor would appoint a current employee of the Pebble
Partnership to the board. He recalled that last year the
legislature voted to confirm Ms. Carlson-Van Dort who five years
prior was also the director of regional affairs for the Pebble
Partnership. If Mr. Williams is appointed, he noted, both the
current and former directors of regional affairs for the Pebble
Partnership will be serving on the board, which looks bad. The
public must have some trust in the board's integrity and know
the board is not biased.
2:15:47 PM
ANNE CORAY KAHN, related that her family came to Alaska in the
early 1950s. She was born on Lake Clark, which joins Lake
Iliamna. The fish come up the Kvichak River and many fish spawn
in Lake Clark. Her brothers fished Bristol Bay in the 1950s.
MS. KAHN voiced her extreme opposition to the appointment of Abe
Williams to the Board of Fisheries. This appointment is
unconscionable, she stated, given Mr. Williams is a Pebble
Partnership employee. It is clearly another move by Governor
Dunleavy to appoint Pebble supporters to important political
positions. The governor used this same tactic when he appointed
Pebble supporter Jason Brune to head the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
MS. KAHN said she is even more outraged by this appointment now
that she has heard Mr. Williams speak. The lawsuit he brought
against the labeling of Bristol Bay salmon, she charged, was
clearly an attempt to undermine the importance of the wild
salmon market. Furthermore, his language is evasive, and he is
utterly unconvincing in his claim to not have a conflict of
interest regarding Pebble. Regarding whether the fishery can
exist with a mine, Ms. Kahn asked that the public be shown one
example of a large-scale open pit mine that is near a salmon
area that has not had detrimental environmental impact. She
again urged that the appointment of Mr. Williams not be
advanced.
2:19:09 PM
DONNA RAE FAULKNER, testified that during these stressful times,
Alaskans don't need more drama and controversy. While she
doesn't know Abe Williams personally and he may have great
integrity, she cannot support his appointment because as
director of regional affairs for the Pebble Mine he naturally
has a conflict of interest. Even if Mr. Williams were to recuse
himself from discussions, the appointment is still
inappropriate. Making controversial appointments is insulting
to Alaskans. It is already a highly charged political
environment and the waters don't need to be muddied further,
which sows more distrust with leadership and the process in the
state of Alaska. She urged that the appointment of Mr. Williams
be rejected.
2:21:00 PM
DON MCNAMARA, expressed his opposition to the appointments of
John Wood and Abe Williams to the Board of Fisheries. He urged
that local Bristol Bay people be appointed to the board rather
than Anchorage residents. He suggested that Pebble Mine is just
an amusement for Mr. Williams.
2:21:41 PM
RICHARD GUSTAFSON, spoke in opposition to the appointment of Abe
Williams. He related that he is a retired biologist, having
served over 30 years with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G). Early in his career he was in the headwaters of most
of the eastern side of Bristol Bay, which included Lake Iliamna,
and also on the western side. Pebble is a really bad thing, he
stressed.
MR. GUSTAFSON said the Board of Fisheries is a very important
process for the state. Residents need to have confidence in the
board's members, he continued, and the biologists that testify
must try to make the people understand the conservation moves to
apply to the fisheries. He stated that Mr. Williams definitely
has a conflict of interest and suggested that the governor look
into and appoint one of the many fishermen in the Bristol Bay
region.
MR. GUSTAFSON said John Wood seems to have a conflict of
interest given he is being paid by the State of Alaska and the
governor to serve on a board. Mr. Wood needs to do one or the
other because it doesn't pass the red-face test.
2:23:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether during his time with
ADF&G Mr. Gustafson ever testified directly before the Board of
Fisheries about any Pebble measures.
MR. GUSTAFSON replied that he provided testimony on some clam
issues in the Homer area. Mainly, he was the person in the
field collecting the data, so he wore out many pairs of hip
boots in Bristol Bay.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN reiterated her question.
MR. GUSTAFSON responded no, not about Pebble Mine. But, he
continued, he testified in many other instances, such as to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other places, about the Pebble
Mine.
2:25:26 PM
MAGGIE BURSCH, said she grew up in Homer and is a second-
generation commercial fisher in Bristol Bay. She bought her own
commercial fishing boat and permit seven years ago when she was
20 years old. Throughout her childhood Pebble Mine has been a
huge concern for her, she related.
MS. BURSCH stated she strongly opposes the appointment of Abe
Williams because she is dependent on fishing for everything in
her life. She pointed out that the Pebble Mine's proposed plan
includes a gas pipeline that would carry with it the possibility
of breaking during seismic action, which would threaten the Cook
Inlet fishery. Mr. Williams suing the BBRSDA because it is
helping to fund organizations that work toward salmon
conservation is very telling in where he stands on salmon
conservation, she said, and therefore Mr. Williams has no place
on this board.
2:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN praised Ms. Bursch for her endeavors in
the male-dominated commercial fishing industry.
MS. BURSCH responded that she has lived in other places in the
world and Alaska is a place where a young person can start a
business by money they make exclusively in that business, and
that is what she did with commercial fishing. She studied
economics, she continued, and having small businesses and family
run businesses is crucial and unique to this area and she would
like to preserve that.
2:28:05 PM
KALEB WESTFALL, related that he is a lifelong Alaska resident
and has lived in and commercially fished from Dillingham since
2001. He said commercial fishing put him through college and
puts food on his table.
MR. WESTFALL urged the committees to reject the nomination of
Abe Williams as well as any other nominees who have a conflict
of interest. He maintained that Mr. Williams is a "win at all
costs" kind of person. He recalled that Mr. Williams went from
being the president of BBRSDA to suing the organization, which
he had helped to build up. He further recalled a claim by Mr.
Williams that his involvement with Pebble started in 2010 and
recounted that in 2014 the 1,650 members of BBRSDA passed
opposition to large-scale mining. Mr. Westfall therefore
charged that this is testament to "a wolf in sheep's skin."
MR. WESTFALL recounted being at a BBRSDA meeting after Mr.
Williams had stepped down as president and at which Mr. Williams
touted the wonders of farmed salmon possibly starting in the
East Coast. In talking about conservation and development of
Alaska's fisheries Mr. Westfall said he would be interested in
how that would be done when Mr. Williams is thinking more
internationally and possibly specifically for Pebble Mine.
MR. WESTFALL shared that while he was an intern in 2007 for the
late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, the senator and interns would
have discussions. In these discussions, he reported, Senator
Stevens stated that he would never trade a renewable resource
for a nonrenewable resource, meaning the senator would never
trade salmon for an open-pit mine or anything else that was
nonrenewable.
2:31:52 PM
CHUCK DERRICK, President, Chitina Dipnetters Association (CDA),
noted that the CDA represents about 10,000 Alaska residents who
annually partake in the Chitina personal use salmon dipnet
fishery on the Copper River.
MR. DERRICK testified that CDA supports the appointments of
McKenzie Mitchell and John Wood to the Board of Fisheries. He
said both appointees are knowledgeable of the importance of
consumptive uses of salmon, whether personal use or subsistence.
He stated that both appointees support the high value these uses
bring to food security for the residents of Alaska and economy
for the entire state.
2:35:26 PM
CHUCK MCCALLUM, related he has been a resident of Anchorage
since 2002 and has been involved in the Board of Fisheries
process since 1988. He noted he is a retired Chignik commercial
fisherman and the executive director of the Chignik Regional
Aquaculture Association (CRAA).
MR. MCCALLUM voiced his support for John Wood's appointment to
the Board of Fisheries. He said Mr. Wood has shown himself to
be a quick study of the complex management issues with a
willingness to view issues from an independent point of view.
Mr. Wood has demonstrated an ability to listen to and understand
all sides of complicated issues and achieve reasonable and
equitable management compromises. The Board of Fisheries, he
continued, needs intelligent, perceptive, and fair-minded
individuals like Mr. Wood. Alaska's natural fish resources are
vitally important and deserve highly qualified members like Mr.
Wood to serve on the Board of Fisheries.
MR. MCCALLUM also voiced his support for McKenzie Mitchell's
appointment to the Board of Fisheries. He related that he has
spoken to Ms. Mitchell about her appointment. While her resume
is admittedly a little slim, he said he thinks she is a hard
worker and will turn out to be a good member.
2:37:58 PM
ROBERT HEYANO, reiterated his support for the appointment of
John Jensen to the Board of fisheries. He said Mr. Jensen
brings diversity and provides representation for rural coastal
communities to the board.
2:39:05 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:39:28 PM
BEN MOHR, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association (KRSA), explained that KRSA is a charitable
nonprofit dedicated to ensuring sustainability of the world's
premier sportfishing region, which is Alaska. He registered
KRSA's support for the confirmation of each of the governor's
four appointees.
MR. MOHR stated he has observed John Jensen and John Wood at
Board of Fisheries meetings over the last year and both nominees
demonstrated a clear understanding that service on the board is
a public trust responsibility and their decisions answered to
all Alaskans. It is common to see multiple stakeholders
promoting proposals or amendments at these meetings, he related,
and both Mr. Jensen and Mr. Wood proved to be accessible to the
public and met with all different viewpoints during these
meetings. Mr. Wood's most significant character traits is his
desire for equity and inclusiveness, which he showed at these
meetings by constantly encouraging collaboration across sectors
in order to reach the ultimate goal of the Board of Fisheries,
which is to conserve and develop the fisheries resources of
Alaska. Mr. Jensen has served Alaska with distinction and for
many years in this role. Mr. Jensen's experience and knowledge
of Alaska's fishery sectors is an asset to the state.
MR. MOHR said Ms. Mitchell brings to the board a new and fresh
perspective that will serve Alaska well. Ms. Mitchell's
familiarity with Alaska's fisheries as a guide is an important
perspective and it deserves representation, he stated. Her
position as an academic with a knowledge of economies will also
influence her decision-making processes when it comes to the
core goal of the board to conserve and develop the fisheries.
Ms. Mitchell has an ability to help maximize the value of the
fishery for all Alaskans.
MR. MOHR offered his understanding that Abe Williams has been an
active participant in the Bristol Bay commercial drift fishery
for 30 years, often one of the most successful fishermen in the
district. He said Mr. Williams has experience with BBRSDA and
Naknek/Kvichak Fish & Game Advisory Committee. His knowledge of
the commercial fisheries in Alaska will be of value to the
board.
MR. MOHR said the Kenai River Sportfishing Association applauds
the willingness of each of these nominees to serve Alaska on the
Board of Fisheries. On behalf of KRSA he urged a positive
confirmation vote by these committees and the full legislature.
2:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN commented that Mr. Mohr's statement
about Ms. Mitchell bringing a new perspective to the board was
something she needed to hear. She related that when she got
elected to office, she had never held any other political office
before that, which she thought was good because it is important
to have new perspectives.
2:44:00 PM
SUSAN DOHERTY, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Seiners
Association (SEAS), related she is speaking on behalf of the 100
members of SEAS. She stated that SEAS supports the appointment
of John Jenson and highly recommends his confirmation. She said
Mr. Jensen has a wealth of knowledge about Alaska's fisheries
and has demonstrated his approachability, his knowledge
concerning complex user group dynamics, and a concern for the
fisheries resource as a renewable asset of the state and its
users. Additionally, Mr. Jensen is the lone voice of Southeast
Alaska and of coastal fishing communities.
MS. DOHERTY charged that the Board of Fisheries candidate
selection and confirmation process is broken. That names of
individuals with years of fisheries service around the state are
put forth as candidates yet not forwarded, while those with no
experience are forwarded, testifies that the system is broken,
she stated. Alaska's fisheries and fisheries resources are too
important to have people cut their teeth on.
MS. DOHERTY said SEAS believes that, unless being considered for
reappointment, no candidate should be able to sit and make
judgment decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods or
cultural opportunities of Alaska's people without first being
confirmed. She implored the House and Senate to correct this
issue by working together on legislation and/or amendments, or
the constitution if necessary. People who are given such power
should be seasoned, knowledgeable, and fully vetted by the
confirmation process. While she understands the reason behind
the current language, appointments made intentionally when there
is no time to confirm have overshadowed the intent. Expiring
terms are scheduled and not a surprise, she pointed out. The
selection, vetting, and confirmation process should start
perhaps a year from any given expiring seat to allow for a
seamless and consistent sitting Board of Fisheries.
MS. DOHERTY stated SEAS agrees that coastal fishing communities
are not adequately represented in the current slate of
appointees. She said SEAS understands that there are no set
seats, but argued that any Board of Fisheries that makes
resource decisions throughout the state should also have
balanced statewide representation to have any real credibility.
That a name like Robert Ruffner was not forwarded for
confirmation yet people with absolutely no knowledge or
experience are on the list of appointees today is criminal.
It's an indictment on the many people who depend on this process
for their livelihood and the health of the resources, whether
they are commercial, subsistence, or sports fishermen. She
thanked Mr. Ruffner for his service and years of dedication and
stated that his reappointment would have served to add coastal
fishing community representation, as well as much needed
experience and knowledge to the Board of Fisheries.
2:47:38 PM
FORREST BRADEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), explained that SEAGO represents the marine
recreational fishery in Southeast Alaska. He voiced SEAGO's
support for all four appointees being considered for the Board
of Fisheries and said SEAGO is looking forward to working with
them.
MR. BRADEN stated SEAGO has had personal experience with Mr.
Jensen in a variety of fisheries settings. He said Mr. Jensen
has a strong history with the board with lots of exposure to the
dynamics of Alaska's fisheries and a lot of experience in
decision-making. Mr. Jensen will be a good anchor for the board
moving forward.
MR. BRADEN related that he observed Mr. Wood at the both the
Upper and Lower Cook Inlet meetings during this past cycle. He
said Mr. Wood displayed a sincere desire to understand the needs
and issues facing fishermen regardless of user group. Mr. Wood
was prepared on proposals, he continued, and showed a tendency
to dig and ask questions to get through the things he didn't
fully understand. Further, he saw Mr. Wood change his position
on an issue based on new information. He didn't find that Mr.
Wood had allegiance to anything other than the facts and his own
conscience.
MR. BRADEN said Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Williams both appear to
have skill sets suited for the board. He stated that Ms.
Mitchell has enthusiasm for the seat and familiarity with
commercial, sport, and subsistence uses of fishery resources and
an educational background that should lend well to processing
conservation and allocative issues. While Mr. Williams has
taken flack today for his connection with the Pebble Project,
Mr. Braden continued, he personally finds it hard to believe
that Mr. Williams would knowingly jeopardize the fishery that
has supported him for decades. It seems like Mr. Williams has a
lot at stake, but it may boil down to a risk tolerance with
developing mine activity in the Bristol Bay region. He said he
thinks Representative Rasmussen was getting at the idea that
there is a separation from Mr. Williams's view of that situation
and his beliefs on the board.
2:50:15 PM
GEORGIE HEAVERLEY, related that she is a born and raised
Alaskan, a second generation commercial fisher, a drift gillnet
permit holder in Cook Inlet, and a member of the Anchorage Fish
& Game Advisory Committee. She further related that she is an
active participant in the Board of Fisheries process.
MS. HEAVERLEY maintained that the people of Alaska are losing
faith in the Board of Fisheries process. Several individuals
seeking confirmation to this board today, she continued, are
glaring examples as to the reason for this declining trust in
the system. She questioned how Alaskans are to place their
confidence in a board member that would be unqualified as shown
through Ms. Mitchell's inability to effectively prove her
fisheries knowledge, a board member who would be blatantly
biased toward irresponsible resource development as shown
through Mr. Williams's alarming conflict of interest regarding
the Pebble Mine, or a board in general that is currently
unbalanced like never before, representing sport-fishing
interests at the expense of commercial. Ms. Heaverley stated it
appears that no matter what the people of Alaska are saying,
what they are pleading, the Board of Fisheries will not listen
and instead vote in their own particular interest.
MS. HEAVERLEY argued that confirming Abe Williams does not mean
that the Alaska Legislature can check the box for commercial
fishing representation on the Board of Fisheries. It doesn't
matter that Mr. Williams has fished Bristol Bay for 30 years,
she said, it matters that he works for the Pebble Limited
Partnership. The lawsuit that Mr. Williams was involved in
against the BBRSDA was widely opposed by commercial fishermen.
To appoint Mr. Williams as a commercial fishing representative
that doesn't even have the support of the sector is an insult to
this process and an insult to Alaska's fishermen.
MS. HEAVERLEY urged the committees and legislature to consider
appointees who are knowledgeable in fisheries issues and who
currently live in Alaska's coastal fishing communities. Alaska
should exemplify the model of fisheries management, she stated.
As Alaska's leaders, consider whom you are putting through to
these positions of power.
MS. HEAVERLEY said she is proud to be a part of the young and
upcoming generation of Alaska commercial fishermen. Her
generation, she added, is asking legislators to stand up for
them and the sustainability and the future of their industry.
2:52:52 PM
STEPHANIE QUINN-DAVIDSON, PhD, Director, Yukon River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), said she
is a fisheries scientist and that she previously worked as a
research biologist and then a fishery manager for the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) on the Yukon River. She
stated she is testifying today in her official position as
director of the Yukon River Inter-tribal Fish Commission with
TCC and that the Fish Commission represents over 30 federally
recognized tribes along the Yukon River.
DR. QUINN-DAVIDSON related that the decisions made by the Board
of Fisheries directly impact the livelihood, and physical,
mental, and spiritual wellbeing of TCC's people. These
decisions need to be taken seriously, she stated, and she has
concerns with some of the responses the committees have received
from these appointees today that showed woeful inexperience
with, and knowledge of, Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) fisheries.
The AYK region is the largest subsistence region in the state,
she pointed out. On the Yukon River this year the people's
king, chum, and silver salmon did not return. The people do not
have the food that they depend on, and have depended on for
generations. She had to purchase salmon from Bristol Bay this
year so it could be distributed to the elders and those most in
need so that they have some food this winter.
DR. QUINN-DAVIDSON stated that the decisions made by the Board
of Fisheries are not just important; they are vital. The TCC
tribes in rural communities are already at a disadvantage of
participating in the board's public process. The advisory
committees that advise the board meet fewer times on average
than urban or road system advisory committees due to their
remote locations, cancelled flights, bad weather, and phone
connectivity problems. To prepare for and participate in a
Board of Fisheries meeting costs the Fish Commission $100,000 to
have its advocates participate in a weeklong meeting in
Anchorage or Fairbanks.
DR. QUINN-DAVIDSON said TCC believes the legislature should send
the administration back to the drawing board. She urged the
appointment of someone who is knowledgeable of, and has
experience in, the largest subsistence region of the state. She
further urged appointing someone who is actually qualified, not
someone who has simply floated by or flown into these
communities.
2:55:33 PM
KAREN HOFSTAD, offered her high recommendation for the
appointment of John Jensen to the Board of Fisheries. She
pointed out his experience and dedication to doing the right
thing for all of Alaska.
MS. HOFSTAD maintained that since statehood Alaska's Board of
Fisheries has been balanced with all users commercial, sport,
and subsistence. She said she finds it unbelievable that
Governor Dunleavy has not appointed any commercial fish
knowledge to the board given that seafood is by far Alaska's top
export, number one private employer. Governor Dunleavy wants to
tell the world Alaska is open for business, contracting with new
businesses to bring business to town, when he is working so hard
against Alaska's number one industry. She said her question is,
Why? The seafood industry affects all Alaskans and should not
be a political issue. There are many experienced Alaskans that
know of all fish types, she continued. The issue is balance,
not bias.
MS. HOFSTAD urged a no vote for Mr. Williams, the Pebble Mine's
lobbyist, and for Ms. Mitchell. Balance is needed and balance
means commercial fishermen, she said. Everyone is working
together, but there cannot be only one user group represented.
2:58:30 PM
GALE VICK, Member, Fairbanks Fish & Game Advisory Committee,
noted she is a fisheries and policy consultant in Fairbanks, a
52-year resident of Alaska, and a 40-year veteran of many fish
arenas in the state. She further noted that she was a
commercial driftnet fisher in Prince William Sound for over 20
years, a subsistence fisher in years past, and a recreational
and personal use fisher for over 50 years. She stated that
because of her work on the Yukon River and other rural regions
she is a very strong supporter of subsistence priorities in both
law and for food security. She is an advocate for increased
salmon science and monitoring as it relates to the continuing
loss of salmon size and run strength all over Alaska. As a co-
author of a recent scientific paper on this subject, she sees
this the predominant issue facing all fisheries stakeholders.
MS. VICK testified in support of the nomination of McKenzie
Mitchell to the Board of Fisheries. While Ms. Mitchell is new
to this process, she said the advisory committee believes Ms.
Mitchell will bring a unique combination of fishing, science,
and economics experience to the board. She said Ms. Mitchell
has illustrated her belief in subsistence priorities, has shown
a specific concern over the resource itself, has illustrated her
ability to critically review hard data and understand complex
relationships, and has energy and intellectual interest in
learning about all sectors in depth. Ms. Vick related the
advisory committee's belief that Ms. Mitchell is an effective
listener and a dedicated researcher who will take seriously all
Board of Fisheries petitions with knowledge and equity.
3:00:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR thanked the witnesses for their testimony [and
closed public testimony].
3:00:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN thanked the witnesses for their time and
for sharing their impassioned views.
3:01:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN offered her appreciation to the
witnesses. She expressed her alarm that nearly one-third of the
state's commercial fishing permits are held by non-Alaskans.
She offered her hope that in the future the number of permits
held by residents could be increased.
3:02:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked the witnesses. He requested that
another joint meeting between the two committees be held to
discuss this last year's fishing season. He pointed out that in
Southeast Alaska the fish runs were low, and the pandemic caused
a decrease in fish prices and there was a lack of fish on the
Yukon and in the Interior. He would like to see what could be
done to help out the communities and families in the fishing
industry using money from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act. He related he has heard from
a lot of people about needed relief from the poor salmon season.
3:04:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that she has heard from Commissioner
Anderson that the service industry, hospitality industry, and
fishing industry are the number one applicants for the business
relief. She said she doesn't know if that included the sport-
fishing folks who were impacted by the lack of tourists coming
to Alaska. She said she would follow up on Representative
Tuck's request.
3:06:36 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained the confirmation process by noting that
at the committee level the committees do not take a vote in
support or opposition of an individual. The committee action
today will result in a committee report that this confirmation
hearing was held, she said. Until the legislature reconvenes
and sets a time for a joint session these individuals will not
be taken up for a vote. She pointed out that appointments are
not stopped at the committee level. She closed the hearing with
the following statement:
The House Special Committee on Fisheries and the House
Resources [Standing] Committee have reviewed the
qualifications of the governor's appointees as shown
below and recommends that the names be forwarded to a
joint session for consideration. This does not
reflect intent by any of the members to vote for or
against the individuals during any further sessions
for the purpose of confirmation and that applies to
Mr. Jensen, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Wood.
3:07:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries and the House Resources Standing
Committee joint meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.