Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/15/2022 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 | |
| Presentation: Disaster Declarations for Alaska Fisheries by Deputy Commissioner Rachel Baker and Dr. Katie Howard, Fisheries Scientist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 15, 2022
10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Kevin McCabe
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: DISASTER DECLARATIONS FOR ALASKA FISHERIES BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RACHEL BAKER AND DR. KATIE HOWARD~ FISHERIES
SCIENTIST~ ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RACHEL BAKER, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an update on Disaster
Declarations for Alaska Fisheries.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the
presentation on fisheries disasters.
DR. KATIE HOWARD, Fisheries Scientist
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the 2021 Salmon Stock Status
Update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:02:24 AM
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Special Committee on Fisheries
meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Representatives Story, Ortiz,
Vance, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Tarr were present at the call to
order. Representatives McCabe and Stutes arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Disaster Declarations for Alaska Fisheries by
Deputy Commissioner Rachel Baker and Dr. Katie Howard, Fisheries
Scientist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
PRESENTATION: Disaster Declarations for Alaska Fisheries by
Deputy Commissioner Rachel Baker and Dr. Katie Howard, Fisheries
Scientist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
10:02:43 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
Presentation: Disaster Declarations for Alaska Fisheries by
Deputy Commissioner Rachel Baker and Dr. Katie Howard, Fisheries
Scientist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
10:04:40 AM
RACHEL BAKER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, presented to the House Special Committee on Fisheries on
disaster declarations for Alaska fisheries. She explained that
her role within the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is
related to state and federal fisheries coordination primarily
for groundfish, crab, halibut, and scallop fisheries in
conjunction with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). She
noted that the ADF&G commissioner has a permanent voting seat on
the NPFMC, and she serves as the primary alternate in his
absence. She reminded the committee that the State of Alaska
manages fisheries within zero to three miles offshore, and the
federal government manages fisheries from three to two hundred
miles offshore.
MS. BAKER stated that the matter of disaster declarations was
particularly relevant to the State of Alaska since several
disasters had been declared by the U. S. Secretary of Commerce.
MS. BAKER stated that fisheries are important to the state, and
natural variations occur with the amounts of fish harvested and
associated economic activity. She referred to the presentation
entitled, "ADFG Fishery Disaster Presentation 2.15.22.pdf,"
[included in the committee packet] and drew attention to slide
2, entitled, "What is a fishery Disaster," and summarized the
following bulleted points, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? Fisheries are an essential part of coastal
economies.
Fisheries are dependent upon the productivity of the
environment.
? Fisheries are subject to many factors, natural and
manmade, which can cause harm or failure.
? Fishery disaster declarations are a means to
financially assist individuals and communities
experiencing such loss.
? Fishery disaster funds are also used for research to
determine the underlying causes of the disaster and
prevent future disasters in the
fishery.
MS. BAKER stated that two federal statutes provide the authority
and requirements for fisheries disaster declarations, and she
drew attention to slide 3, entitled, "Magnuson-Stevens &
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Acts," and summarized the
following bulleted points, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) is the primary U.S. statute
governing management of fisheries in Alaska's
Exclusive Economic Zone, which is 3-200 miles off the
coast (EEZ).
• The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (IFA) provides
for grants by the Secretary of Commerce to States for
management of interjurisdictional fishery resources.
• The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under both
Acts to provide assistance.
• Recent Alaska fishery disaster requests were found to
meet the requirements for fisheries disasters under
both the MSA and the IFA.
MS. BAKER noted that all Alaska fisheries, not solely those
fisheries that are federally managed, are eligible for
assistance under the disaster declaration process. She stated
that the most recent [Alaska] fisheries disaster declarations
were determined to have met the definition of disaster under
both the MSA and the IFA.
10:09:42 AM
MS. BAKER explained that an affected fishery participant, a
local government, or a tribal entity will initiate the request
with a letter to the ADF&G. ADF&G will then conduct a data
assessment to determine the eligibility of a fishery under the
MSA and the IFA. She then drew attention to slide 4, entitled,
"Step 1: Initiating the Request," and summarized the following
bulleted points, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Pursuant to the MSA and the IFA, a Governor of an
affected state, or an elected or politically appointed
representative of an affected fishing community may
submit a request to the Secretary of Commerce.
? The Secretary may also initiate a review at his or
her own discretion.
? When a request is received, the Secretary will
provide an interim response to the requestor.
MS. BAKER explained that there exist three requirements to make
an affirmative declaration of disaster determination: the
existence of a fisheries resource disaster, as defined by the
MSA or the IFA; the cause of the disaster must be for an
allowable cause; and [evidence of negative] economic impact that
has stemmed from the disaster. She then drew attention to slide
5, entitled, "Step 2: Evaluating the Request," and summarized
the following bulleted points, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
? The Secretary will first review the best scientific
information available.
? The State of Alaska works with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide all pertinent
data.
? Review may include fishery characteristics, stock
assessment, estimates of mortality, and overall
effects in order to assess the existence of a fishery
resource disaster and its causes.
MS. BAKER elaborated on the allowable cause requirement and drew
attention to slide 6, entitled, "Evaluating the Request:
Allowable Causes," and summarized the following bulleted points,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Allowable causes under the MSA include:
• Natural causes
• Undetermined causes
• Man-made causes beyond the control of fishery
managers to mitigate through conservation and
management measures, including regulatory restrictions
imposed to protect human health or the marine
environment.
Allowable causes under the IFA include:
• Natural causes
• Undetermined causes
MS. BAKER noted that the recent Alaska fisheries disasters had
been determined to have occurred due to natural causes. She
explained that, while no exact natural cause for the disasters
had been confirmed, the department found that marine heat waves
and warmer ocean conditions in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering
Sea had existed since 2014 and had lasted until 2016 or 2017,
based on research.
10:14:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the term "undetermined
causes" would be further defined during the presentation.
MS. BAKER referred to a 2018 Gulf of Alaska pacific cod fishery
disaster in which undetermined causes had existed and which had
been approved. She stated that some of the natural causes that
had been cited in the request included ocean warming conditions.
She stated that the disaster determination approval letters were
brief in content. She stated that recent disaster declarations
had been approved due to natural conditions, including ocean
warming. She stated that it was unclear what difference existed
between disasters that had been declared under "natural causes"
and those under "undetermined causes."
10:16:28 AM
MS. BAKER elaborated on the third requirement, the [evidence of
negative] economic impact that has stemmed from the disaster, as
determined by the NMFS. She noted that the criteria were based
on data that shared overlap with the meeting of the other
requirements and was mostly scientific in nature. She stated
that data that may be used could include decline in [fish]
landings, and occasionally net revenue by vessel data. She drew
attention to slide 7, entitled, "Consideration of Commercial
Fishery Failure or Serious Disruption Affecting Future
Production," and summarized the following bulleted points, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The focus here is on available socio-cultural and
economic information to determine the existence of one
of the above events. Information may include:
• Fishery characteristics
• Economic impact
• Number of participants involved
• Length of time access to resource is restricted
• Documented decline of the resource
MS. BAKER drew attention to slide 8, entitled, "Determination of
a Commercial Fishery Failure," and summarized the following
bulleted points, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
If review of the economic information shows that a
significant number of participants have suffered
revenue declines that greatly affect or materially
damage their businesses, the commercial fishery will
be deemed to have failed.
The calculations are based on the loss of 12-month
revenue compared to average annual revenue in the most
recent 5-year period.
The following thresholds are applied when making this
determination:
• Revenue losses greater than 80 percent will result in
a determination of a failure.
• Revenue losses between 35 percent and 80 percent are
evaluated further.
• Revenue losses of less than 35 percent are generally
not eligible for determination of a failure.
MS. BAKER stated that there had been fisheries disasters
declared in Alaska that had involved less than 35 percent
revenue loss. She stated that this demonstrated that disaster
declarations are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and that
subsistence fisheries including bartering and trading impacts
were important in Alaska and would also be taken into
consideration.
MS. BAKER then drew attention to slide 9, entitled,
"Determination of Serious Disruption Affecting Future
Production," and summarized the following bulleted points, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Scientific information may indicate a sudden and
unexpected precipitous decrease in harvestable biomass
or spawning stock, size which causes a significant
number of persons to lose access to the fishery for a
substantial period of time, in a specific area.
• The same percentage thresholds used to evaluate
revenue losses for a commercial fishery failure are
applied in making this determination.
• Calculation based on the estimated decrease in
harvestable biomass or spawning stock size of the fish
targeted by the fishery compared to the most recent 5-
year period.
10:21:35 AM
MS. BAKER then drew attention to slide 10, entitled, "Step 3:
Making a Determination," and summarized the following bulleted
points, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? The Secretary will determine whether the evidence
supports a positive determination.
? The requestor is notified of the positive
determination.
? Congress may then appropriate funds for fishery
disaster relief.
? There is no standing fund for disaster relief
MS. BAKER explained that a determination may take a year or more
due to NMFS requirements that final revenue data be reported.
She further explained that, in the example of a disaster
declaration request in a particular year, final data for
commercial fishing revenue data is available during the fall of
the previous year's fishery, if it had been opened. She added
that some cases exist and ADF&G coordinates with NMFS in which a
disaster declaration request had been made when a fishery does
not open at all, and revised final revenue data is not
anticipated.
MS. BAKER explained that congress may appropriate disaster funds
once a declaration had been approved by the secretary. She
explained that the most recent approved disaster declarations
were currently awaiting congressional appropriation of relief
funds.
10:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether, when a fishery remains
closed, whether the federal government can make a determination
with the knowledge that no additional revenue would be reported.
MS. BAKER stated that there had been no official determination;
however, state and federal officials understand [that no
additional revenue would be reported] as in the case of the 2021
Yukon River salmon fishery [disaster declaration.] She noted
that the request had been reviewed and approved relatively
quickly and prior to the fall following the season in question.
10:25:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether there had been an instance in
which congress had received an approved disaster declaration and
elected not to appropriate relief funds.
MS. BAKER offered to research Representative Ortiz's question
and follow up with an answer.
10:26:26 AM
CHAIR TARR asked whether, to Ms. Baker's knowledge, it had been
considered that [congress] create a disaster relief fund so that
appropriation legislation not be required.
MS. BAKER answered that, while she had familiarity with the
question as it had been raised, she was unable to answer
definitively, and offered that Alaska's congressional delegation
could be asked.
10:27:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there exists any reason that
the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is the
entity to facilitate the distribution the relief funds because
Alaska is historically the last in the country to receive
appropriated disaster relief funds.
MS. BAKER answered that ADF&G shares the same frustrations with
the delays associated with the processes managed by the PSMFC.
She stated that ADF&G does not have adequate resources and
expertise to handle the administrative processes and funds
distribution in compliance with federal requirements. She added
that PSFMC has a working relationship with the NMFS to
facilitate the federal grant and disbursement processes. She
stated that there exist ongoing attempts to achieve a balance
between getting funds to affected individuals as quickly as
possible and maintaining compliance with the federal program
requirements. She added that there exist limited options for
grants administrators and, while PSMFC remains one option, the
department is seeking to identify alternative administrative
entities to distribute funds more efficiently for affected
Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether PSMFC was a private entity
who receives a percentage of the revenue that it distributes.
MS. BAKER answered that PSMFC is one of three interstate
fisheries commissions and she stated she was unsure of what
legislation had created such commissions; however, she did
confirm reference to the commissions in the MSA and, to her
understanding, it was not a private entity but a quasi-
governmental entity. She further added that the commissions
carry out tasks such as fisheries management data processing and
electronic monitoring in addition to handling the distribution
of disaster relief funds. She answered that the commissions do
recover overhead [costs] during the administration of disaster
relief funds distribution and she had been informed that the
rates charged were relatively low when charged to other
government agencies.
10:31:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS echoed the concerns raised
regarding the administrative ability and efficiency of the
PSMFC.
MS. BAKER next drew attention to slide 11, entitled, "Step 4:
Preparing the Spend Plan," and summarized the following bulleted
points, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
? Once an allocation is made for a particular fishery
disaster the Department of Fish and Game works closely
with affected stakeholders and requestors to develop a
spend plan.
? The spend plan forms the basis of the federal grant.
The spend plan should, to the extent practicable,
address the cause of the disaster.
MS. BAKER explained that the development of the spend plan and
the disaster appropriation have two purposes which are to assist
and mitigate impacts to fishery participants, and to reduce the
likelihood of future disasters where possible. She stated that
it had been a priority of ADF&G Commissioner Vincent-Lang to
include dedicated research funding within the spend plans. She
continued by drawing attention to slide 12, entitled, "Step 5:
Spend Plan Approval," and summarized the following bulleted
points, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Recent Alaska fishery disaster spend plans have
provided direct payments to fishery participants and
funds for research.
The Department of Fish and Game submits the final
spend plan which must be approved by NMFS, NOAA, the
Department of Commerce and the White House Office of
Management and Budget.
? Once approval is received the grant administrator
can begin drafting applications, open the application
period, and perform final audit before payments are
made.
MS. BAKER added that there exist no timelines in place for the
approvals described, and that delays in processing have been
identified during the spend plan approval phase.
10:34:41 AM
MS. BAKER, in closing the presentation, drew attention to slide
13 entitled, "Alaska Fishery Disasters" on which a chart
depicted the current fisheries disaster declarations in process.
She summarized the overview and stated that readers of the chart
should ascertain that the process takes approximately one year
to achieve a determination of disaster. She noted that the
funds distribution in process depicted on the chart from 2018
represents a typical timeline for the process.
10:38:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked how long the disaster program had
been in existence.
MS. BAKER answered that Alaska had been engaged in the disaster
declaration program dating back to at least 1995. She noted
that the MSA was enacted in 1979, but that she was unsure
whether the disaster program had been included in the original
MSA.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the frequency and volume of
disasters had existed throughout the program's known history.
MS. BAKER stated that, since 2008 2009, the volume and
frequency of disasters had increased throughout the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the increase in volume of
disasters was cause for concern for management to the maximum
sustainable yield, and concern for the economic and ecological
impacts from disasters.
MS. BAKER stated that it was unclear whether the increase in
disaster declarations was due to more disasters occurring or due
to more utilization of the federal disaster relief program. She
added that the governor's request for declaration of disaster
dated March 8, 2021, had acknowledged that warming temperatures
had been recorded in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska which may
be cause for concern.
10:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether there had been any argument
made that research and prevention could be more beneficial and
cost effective to prevent disasters from occurring.
MS. BAKER stated that she had heard indirectly of suggestions
such as Representative Ortiz suggested were being discussed and
she postulated that there may be pending federal legislation
that might address it.
10:43:27 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game,
added that oceanographic condition changes and that some
resources from disaster relief funds were dedicated to research
and data collection to determine the causes of disasters. He
stated that there were budget requests before the legislature to
fund marine science programs as well.
10:44:50 AM
CHAIR TARR asked how the budget for research allocations from
disaster funds were determined and what level of autonomy the
department has in that determination.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that, once a disaster has been
declared, a spend plan is developed that includes public input
and which is subject to NMFS review.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that she had the same question
regarding research in spend plans as had been posed by Chair
Tarr and encouraged transparency for fishers affected by
disasters.
CHAIR TARR asked whether there had been any discussion regarding
a state disaster fund for fisheries such as exists for
scholarships and fire suppression and whether that might be
possible.
MR. VINCENT-LANG postulated that establishment of a state
disaster fund program may be possible, and it would necessarily
consist of federal disaster funds.
10:48:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether it could be possible to
manage distribution of federal disaster funds within Alaska
government to expedite the distribution of funds more
effectively than had been taking place with PSMFC.
MR. VINCENT-LANG stated that, should PSMFC remain the
administrator of disaster funds for Alaska, additional PSMFC
resources be devoted to streamline its process. He added that
there had been some inquiry on whether it would be appropriate
for the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
to be the administrator and the matter was still under
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked the reason for the six-month public
process for the development of the spend plan and whether that
process could be expedited.
MR. VINCENT-LANG noted that disaster declarations may be made
while fishing season is in progress and stated that attempts are
made to balance public input with expediency. He stated his
belief that public input is important to the process despite the
department being allowed to develop a spend plan internally,
without public input
CHAIR TARR referred to slide 13 and asked whether spend plans
were available online.
MS. BAKER answered yes and offered to follow up with the
committee.
10:53:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for further explanation of
Section 312 and the review process, as it had been raised as an
area of concern with the process.
MS. BAKER explained that Section 312 of the MSA establishes the
requirements to qualify for a declaration of fishery disaster.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her hope that in future disaster
situations that ADF&G would advocate for finding an agency other
than the PSMFC to administer the funding.
CHAIR TARR directed attention to the next presentation [included
in the committee packet] entitled, "ADFG 2021 Salmon Stock
Status Update 2.15.22.pdf," and invited the next presenter to
begin.
10:56:21 AM
DR. KATIE HOWARD, Fisheries Scientist, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, drew attention to slide 2 of the presentation and
noted that 2021 had produced record salmon runs and shared the
information on slide 3, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Reports of salmon getting smaller and/or younger as
returning adults
? Kuskokwim River Historical
Chinook salmon runs mostly
age 5 and 6, but now seeing
runs mostly aged 4 and 5
? Norton Sound record low
size for chum and coho
? Yukon River record low
size of chum
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 4, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
2021 Chinook Salmon
? Below average to poor
statewide
? A few stocks have shown
improvements in
escapement from prior
years Unuk, Situk, Chilkat
rivers in SEAK
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 5, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
2021 Chum Salmon
? Average to poor runs
statewide
? Record low runs in Western
Alaska
? Below average runs in SEAK
and Kodiak
? Above average runs South
Alaska Peninsula
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 6, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
2021 Coho Salmon
? Below average to poor for
much of state
? Particularly poor in Western
Alaska
? Western Gulf of Alaska runs
were late and above average
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 7, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
2021 Pink Salmon
? Generally good abundance
statewide
? SEAK commercial pink
harvest exceeded preseason
forecast
? 3rd largest harvest of odd
year run in PWS
? Western Gulf of Alaska and
Bering Sea commercial
harvests average to above
average
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 8, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
2021 Sockeye Salmon
? Generally good abundance
statewide
? Average commercial
harvests in SEAK
? Above average commercial
harvests in central and
western Gulf of Alaska
? Above average to record
harvests in Western Alaska
? Chignik stocks weak
DR. HOWARD drew attention to slide 9 and explained that the
graph depicted escapement goals for all species statewide
from 2001-2021.
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 10, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Salmon Ocean Ecology Program (SOEP)
Who We Are:
? Initiated over 1 year ago
? Statewide Fisheries Scientist, AYK Marine Biologist,
Statewide Fishery Biologist 2
What We Do:
? Understand the marine life of Alaskan salmon
? Use this information to assist fishery management
decision making
? Answer pressing questions about what drives salmon
population dynamics
How We Do It:
? Build capacity and collaborations
? Support marine research programs
? Work to fill knowledge gaps
DR. HOWARD explained that the SOEP increased the research
capacity at the department to focus on marine salmon issues and
that the program works with other agencies including NOAA, the
United States Geological Service (USGS), non-profit
organizations, and international organizations to understand the
marine life of Alaskan salmon.
CHAIR TARR asked whether Dr. Howard was the statewide fishery
biologist and asked what the "AYK" acronym represented.
DR. HOWARD answered that she was the statewide biologist of the
program, and that the acronym was "Arctic Yukon Kuskokwim" and
was a research region included in the program.
11:03:44 AM
DR. HOWARD then shared the content on slide 11, entitled, "How
We Do It," and explained that the contents of the slide provide
information on two major research projects to understand the
marine life of salmon stocks with a focus on the juvenile life
stage. She noted that both surveys provide new information on
early marine ecology of juvenile salmon and vital ecosystem
data. She then read from the slide as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
How We Do It
Northern Bering Sea Ecosystem Survey
(NBS; NOAA and ADF&G):
? Assesses juvenile Yukon River and Norton Sound
salmon stocks since 2002.
? Forecast Yukon River Chinook salmon (3- years) and
pink salmon (next year). Efforts underway to create
similar forecasts for chum salmon.
Southeast Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring
(SECM; NOAA & ADF&G)
? Assesses juvenile Southeast Alaska salmon
stocks since 1997.
? Forecast SEAK pink salmon. Efforts underway to
create similar forecasts for other species.
DR. HOWARD drew attention to slide 12 and explained that both
surveys accomplish three goals: long-term monitoring of Alaskan
salmon at sea, identify survival bottlenecks that affect future
run sizes, and forecast run sizes from 1 to 3 years in the
future. She stated that there exists clear evidence that, for
chinook salmon in the Northern Bering Sea and for pink salmon in
the Northern Bering Sea and in Southeast, all factors affecting
salmon positively or negatively occurs very early in its life
cycle, prior to its first winter at sea.
11:06:20 AM
DR. HOWARD shared that other projects include a Southern Bering
Sea survey of juvenile chinook from the Kuskokwim River in
Bristol Bay and that additional funding was being sought to
continue that work. She stated that salmon sharks, known salmon
predators, were caught during survey work, and were fitted with
satellite and data archival tags to assess migration patterns.
DR. HOWARD directed attention to slide 14 and explained that it
contained information on new collaborations for which grant
funding was being sought to fill information gaps of the life of
salmon at sea. She stated that partner agencies were experts in
marine food webs and how species interact to further understand
the role of competition [for food sources] and changing stocks.
She explained that the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries
Association (YRDFA) was aiding in the engagement of local people
with historical knowledge of the area. She added that salmon
bone studies were being conducted and were more cost-effective
in supplying some of the data than the larger surveys.
DR. HOWARD drew attention to slide 15 and noted that there was
an FY 22 supplemental capital funding request to continue the
program.
11:10:12 AM
CHAIR TARR referred to slide 14 and asked whether the vessels
depicted on the bottom left of the slide were the vessels
participating in the International Year of the Salmon.
DR. HOWARD answered that they are the vessels engaged in that
research and she was to travel to join the research group in a
matter of days.
CHAIR TARR asked Dr. Howard to share what types of activities
she would be doing at sea.
DR. HOWARD shared that the survey was an ecosystem survey to
understand where salmon are, the condition of the salmon, how
salmon overlap with other species across the whole North
Pacific. She explained that samples will be collected for
laboratory analysis to determine which genetic stocks are found
in what location(s), odelith studies, and overall health of the
North Pacific Ocean analyses.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the research would be
working in collaboration with some Russian [research] vessels.
DR. HOWARD affirmed that Russia was involved in the research,
along with Canada, other U. S. states, Japan, and the Republic
of Korea.
11:13:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for additional information on new
findings regarding the first year of salmon survivability.
DR. HOWARD stated that there exists a clear indication that run
size is correlated with the first year of life for chinook
salmon from the Yukon River and pink salmon from the North
Bering Sea and Southeast. She stated that western Alaska chum
salmon had experienced a precipitous decline beginning in 2020
and [similar declines] had been observed in Japan and Canada as
well. She hypothesized that ocean heat waves in 2014 2016 and
in 2019 may have contributed to the decline and was among the
factors in the ongoing research that is being examined.
CHAIR TARR noted that, as depicted in the presentation, chinook,
chum and coho species had had lower performance while sockeye
and pink had performed better. She asked whether the trends are
reflected in the research that is being conducted.
DR. HOWARD she agreed with the correlation suggested by Chair
Tarr and added that factors exist consistently and occurring
over a broad [geographic] area.
11:18:35 AM
CHAIR TARR asked whether Dr. Howard held the expert opinion that
there may exist a "perfect storm" set of circumstances, and
whether she could summarize her opinion.
DR. HOWARD offered that the recent marine heat waves were
different than those recorded in the past. She stated that the
intensity, duration, and large geographic occurrence resulting
in the effects of heatwaves carrying on longer, often for years.
She noted that, though no heatwave was currently observed, some
of the effects of the previous heatwaves were still present.
CHAIR TARR asked whether, in addition to the capital
supplemental request, there was other information that the
presenters wished to share with the committee.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that, in addition to the supplemental
request, there were other requests that would fund genetic
research and research that would take place in the Arctic Ocean.
11:23:12 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:23
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ADFG Fishery Disaster Presentation 2.15.22.pdf |
HFSH 2/15/2022 10:00:00 AM |
Fisheries Disaster Declarations |
| ADFG 2021 Salmon Stock Status Update 2.15.22.pdf |
HFSH 2/15/2022 10:00:00 AM |
Salmon Stock Status |