Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/2021 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB71 | |
| SB64 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 6, 2021
9:09 a.m.
9:09:16 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson (via teleconference)
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor; Ben Brown, Chairman, Alaska
State Council on the Arts; Sam Rabung, Director, Commercial
Fisheries, Department of Fish and Game; Ginny Eckert,
Professor of Fisheries Ecology, University of Alaska
Fairbanks; Heather McCarty, Chair, Alaska Mariculture Task
Force, Juneau; Julie Decker, Executive Director, Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation; Jeremy Woodrow, Executive
Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau; Nancy
Hillstrand, Owner, Pioneer Alaska Fisheries, Kachemak Bay.
SUMMARY
SB 20 OUT OF STATE TEACHER RECIPROCITY
SB 20 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SB 64 SHELLFISH PROJECTS; HATCHERIES; FEES
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 71 COUNCIL ON ARTS: PLATES & MANAGE ART
SB 71 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that committee would set SB 20
aside until the sponsor could attend the bill hearing.
SENATE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to special request registration
plates celebrating the arts; relating to artwork in
public buildings and facilities; relating to the
management of artwork under the art in public places
fund; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska
State Council on the Arts; and providing for an
effective date."
9:10:27 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of SB
71, and the intent of the committee was to hear the bill
and set it aside. After hearing from invited testimony, he
would open public testimony on the bill.
9:11:32 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR (via teleconference), thanked
the committee for hearing the bill. He relayed that SB 71
was drafted at the request of the Alaska State Council on
the Arts (ASCA). It was a bill that allowed the council to
raise funds from the sale of arts license plates, and held
the council harmless by disallowing a veto hold for funding
the council raised private funds.
9:12:32 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, addressed a
Sectional Analysis for Version I of the bill (copy on
file):
Sec. 1: AS 28.10.421(a), relating to fees paid to the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for vehicle license
plates, allows for an additional fee, set by Alaska
State Council on the Arts (ASCA) regulation, and not
to exceed $50, when a person chooses a new or
replacement ASCA artistic plate.
The subsection also provides that these additional
fees will be accounted for separately and that
the total amount that exceeds the costs of the
Artistic License Plate Program may be appropriated
to fund the ASCA.
Mr. Lamkin noted that in Section 1, the fee was intended
not to exceed $50, but clarified that the fee would not be
set at $50. He continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 2: AS 35.27.020(h), relating to the Art Works in
Public Buildings and Facilities program, adds a new
subsection to specify ASCA's management responsibility
for public artwork created under the program, to
include the management of the relocation, disposition,
or exchange of such artwork.
Sec. 3: AS 44.27.050(7), relating to the duties of the
ASCA, is a cross reference to the prior section,
specifying ASCA's management responsibility for public
artwork created through its programs, to include the
management of the relocation, disposition, or exchange
of such artwork.
Sec. 4: AS 44.27.053(a), establishes the Attorney
General being legal counsel for ASCA, similar to other
state agencies, and allows the ASCA to retain
additional legal counsel as needed, subject to the
approval of the Attorney General.
Sec. 5: AS 44.27.055(d), relating to the ASCA managing
its affairs, exempts from the purview of the Executive
Budget Act those funds received by ASCA from private
non-profit foundation partners.
Sec. 6: AS 44.27.080(a), relating to an ASCA-sponsored
competition for artistic plates design, from being
mandatory to being optional, every four years, at the
discretion of ASCA.
Sec. 7: AS 44.27.080(c), relating to the artistic
plate design competition, restores authority for the
ASCA to award the artist of the winning design a
monetary amount set in regulation, from the funds
generated by the artistic plates. This provision was
repealed in 2018.
Sec. 8: Provides an effective date of July 1, 2021.
9:15:59 AM
BEN BROWN, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS (via
teleconference), thanked the sponsor and his staff for the
work on the bill. He affirmed that Mr. Lamkin had addressed
the provisions accurately and succinctly. He commented that
the bill was somewhat time sensitive. He discussed the
current Alaska Artistic License Program, which involved
artist-designed license plates. He explained that the
plates were not like other special plates. There was a dual
purpose to the plates: to celebrate an Alaskan artist, and
to provide a small piece of visual artistic beauty on cars.
The program was originally structured with no additional
fee to Alaskans. The public response had been amazingly
positive.
Mr. Brown mentioned the National Arts and Humanities Act,
which dictated the calculation for state funding, and
explained that there was a minimum state contribution in
every state to trigger the federal match, which for the
arts council equated approximately $600,000. He noted that
much of the ASCA budget was from non-governmental sources.
Without the state contribution, the council would not have
access to funding partners such as the Rasmussen
Foundation. He relayed that the council wanted to earn some
income to help with the state match. He continued that
foundation funds could not be used to fund the state much,
however designated general funds (DGF) in the form of
revenues from the Artistic License Program, could do so. He
asserted that every dollar from an artistic license plate
signified an undesignated general fund (UGF) dollar that
did not need to be requested from state general funds. He
noted that other provisions of the bill were targeted
changes identified when the topic of the bill had been
raised.
9:20:47 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the total of state funds needed
for matching funds.
Mr. Brown specified that the council needed $686,000 to
trigger federal matching funds.
Senator Wielechowski asked for the approximate amount of
private funding or funds from nonprofit organizations the
council received.
Mr. Brown relayed that for FY 22, the governor's proposed
budget for the council included $685,100 in UGF, $10,900 in
DGF, $806,000 in federal funds, and $2,359,700 in
statutorily designated program receipts. He approximated
that about 54 percent of the council's overall budget was
coming from non-governmental foundation partner sources.
Senator Wielechowski referenced Section 5 of the bill,
which exempted the council from the Executive Budget Act.
He asked for the rationale behind the provision.
Mr. Brown explained that the provision was a direct result
of the council's experience from a few years ago when all
of the council's funding had been vetoed. He explained that
at the time, if the statutorily designated program receipts
had not been vetoed, the council would have been able to
stay in operation longer and not have had to abruptly shut
down and lay off all its staff, close its offices, and
erase its website. After the funds had been restored by the
legislature, he had met with the governor and his chief of
staff to discuss putting a provision in the statute to
exempt the component of the budget from the Executive
Branch Budget Act. He noted that the bill section was there
with the concurrence of the Dunleavy Administration. He did
not see the provision as problematic. The rationale was
that the funds were not governmental and did not need to be
subject to the act in the same way that state and federal
dollars were.
9:24:04 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Mr. Brown could discuss auditing
protocol for the council if Section 5 of the bill were to
go into effect.
Mr. Brown did not believe that being exempted from the
Executive Branch Budget Act would prevent the Legislative
Audit Department from looking at all funds received and
spent by the council. He noted that the council was
administratively housed in the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED). He elaborated that the council
could come up with any new procedures that might be
necessary if Section 5 became law along with the rest of
the provisions of the bill. He noted that there were
specific provisions that detailed how funds from the
National Endowment for the Arts could be spent. He thought
there might be additional steps to ensure transparency for
Legislative Audit or other entities but assured that the
provision was not to escape tracking but rather to prevent
private foundation funds from being vetoed by a future
governor.
Co-Chair Bishop stated he would reach out to the
legislative auditor for clarification on some of the
questions that had been raised.
Senator Wielechowski was curious how procurement would be
done with funds from private or non-profit organizations.
He asked if there were any related procedures in place at
the council.
Mr. Brown explained that ASCA had undergone a transition to
become a quasi-public corporation and ceased to be a
regular-line agency, it was already somewhat exempted from
the strictures of state procurement. He relayed that ASCA
had since endeavored to come up with a standalone code, but
at the current time, the council followed all of DEED's
current requirements. He continued that ASCA was farther
along with its personnel policy that the conversion to a
public corporation status allowed for. He noted that ASCA
only had three staff that were juggling the administrative
and finance tasks to run the agency, and unfortunately did
not have a dedicated finance person.
Mr. Brown continued to address Senator Wielechowski's
question. He qualified that ASCA was not in the same
position of a regular agency but continued to behave as one
with regard to procurement until such time that there was
sufficient staff to set up a separate set of procedures.
The change in procedure would be done in concurrence and
with the approval of DEED, and he was confident that the
change would satisfy the public's interest in ensuring that
procurement activities were legitimate and documented.
9:28:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
9:29:10 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop set the bill aside.
SB 71 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits and
shellfish enhancement project permits; allowing the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to market aquatic
farm products; and providing for an effective date."
9:29:28 AM
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the committee was hearing SB 64
for the first time. He intended to hear and hold the bill.
Senator Stevens, Sponsor, discussed the bill. He reminded
that fisheries around the state had been up and down, and
the bill was an attempt to rebuild the crab and clam stocks
the state had in the past. He thought there had been some
overfishing. He cited that the practice of planting crab as
proposed in the bill had been done successfully in Norway.
He noted that Norway had not previously had king crab and
the practice had been successful, while Alaska already had
the species naturally occurring. He though the bill was a
step forward for industry and would provide jobs.
9:31:43 AM
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, commented that the
bill was identical to a bill seen in the past. He reminded
that the purpose the bill was to strengthen and broaden the
fisheries portfolio in Alaska. The statutes were modelled
after existing programs for salmon hatcheries. There was
also conforming language.
Mr. Lamkin addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1: AS 16.05.730(c) Provides the Alaska Board of
Fisheries authority to direct the department to manage
production of enhanced shellfish stocks, beyond brood
stock needs, for cost recovery harvest.
Sec. 2: AS 16.10.400(b) Removes a flat $100 permit
application fee for new private nonprofit salmon
hatcheries, to instead be determined by the department
by regulation, as described in Section 3 of the bill,
below.
Sec. 3: AS 16.10.400 Conforming language consistent
with other fee structures set and adjusted by
regulation, requiring fees to approximately reflect
the cost of administering the application process, and
to be reviewed and adjusted periodically.
Sec. 4: Adds a new Chapter 12 to Title 16, "Shellfish
Stock Enhancement Projects"
AS 16.12.010 Provides direction to the commissioner of
the Department of Fish and Game on the issuance of
permits for private nonprofit shellfish fishery
enhancement projects intended to improve the yield,
rehabilitate stocks, or increase habitat for
shellfish. This subsection also directs the
commissioner to set an application fee and to consult
with technical experts in the relevant areas before
permit issuance;
AS 16.12.020 Provides for a hearing and public
notification and input process prior to issuance of a
permit;
AS 16.12.030 Describes terms and conditions for permit
holders to conduct their work, including cost recovery
fisheries, harvest, sale, and release of enhancement
project produced shellfish, and selection of brood
stock sources;
AS 16.12.040 Describes the revocation process should a
permit holder fail to comply with the terms and
conditions of the permit;
AS 16.12.050 Specifies that shellfish produced under
an approved enhancement project are a common property
resource, with provision for special harvest areas by
permit holders. This section also specifies the Board
of Fisheries to establish regulations relating to this
chapter;
AS 16.12.060 Directs the department to advise and
assist permit holders in their planning, operations,
and construction of facilities to a reasonable and
appropriate extent;
AS 16.12.070 provides department authority to approve
source and number of shellfish taken for use as
broodstock;
AS 16.12.080 places restrictions on how monies
receives from sale of shellfish may be used only for
operating costs associated with their facilities; AS
16.12.090 Relates to Cost Recovery Fisheries, and
provides a means by which a shellfish hatchery may
contract to either harvest and sell shellfish, or to
implement a self-assessment from amongst its
membership, for purposes of recovering operational
costs associated with the hatchery. AS 16.12.100 Gives
the department authority to inspect facilities at any
time while the facility is in operation; AS 16.12.110
Requires a permit holder to submit an annual report to
the department; AS 16.12.199 provides definitions for
"enhancement project," "facility," "genetically
modified shellfish," "hatchery," and "shellfish."
Sec. 5: AS 16.43.400(a) Provides the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission authority to issue special
harvest area entry permits to holders of private
nonprofit shellfish rehabilitation, or enhancement
project permits.
Sec. 6: AS 16.43.430 Defines legal fishing gear for
special harvest area entry permit holders.
Sec. 7: AS 16.51.090 adds marketing and promotion of
aquatic farm products to the powers and duties of the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI).
9:36:06 AM
Mr. Lamkin continued to address the Sectional Analysis:
Sec. 8: AS 16.51.110 conforming amendment, prohibiting
ASMI from promoting aquatic farm products not from
Alaska, a specific region of Alaska, or by a specific
brand name.
Sec. 9: AS 16.51.180(7) conforming amendment regarding
the definition of "seafood."
Sec. 10: AS 16.51.180 (8) is a new referential
subsection pointing to the existing definition of
"aquatic farm product" as described in AS 16.40.199,
which states "an aquatic plant or shellfish,.. that is
propagated, farmed, or cultivated in an aquatic farm
and sold or offered for sale."
Sec. 11: AS 17.20.049(b) Exempts shellfish raised in a
private nonprofit shellfish project from the
definition of "farmed fish."
Sec. 12: AS 37.05.146(c) Makes application fee
revenues received by the Dept. of Fish and Game from
the salmon hatchery and shellfish hatchery programs be
accounted for separately. Appropriations from those
program receipts are not made from the unrestricted
general revenue fund.
Sec. 13: AS 43.20.012(a) Exempts a nonprofit
corporation holding a shellfish fishery enhancement
permit from state corporate income tax when making
shellfish sales and engaging in shellfish cost
recovery activity.
Sec. 14: AS 43.20.012(a) Is a technical conforming
amendment required by prior session law and has no
impact on the policies being set in this bill.
Sec. 15: AS 43.76.390 Exempts shellfish harvested
under a special harvest area entry permit from seafood
development taxes.
Sec. 16: Establishes an effective date for the salmon
hatchery permit application fee change, as described
in Section 2 above.
Sec. 17: Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to
adopt implementing regulations.
Sec. 18: Establishes an immediate effective date for
Section 17 pursuant to AS 01.10.070(c).
Sec. 19: Is a technical, conforming effective date for
Section 14 concomitant with 2 CH 55, SLA 2013 and has
no effect on the policy set forth in this bill.
Senator Wilson asked how soon the industry would have
information about the fees.
Mr. Lamkin explained that stakeholders were all well-
informed about the proposed changes. He noted that there
was invited testimony that could further address Senator
Wilson's question.
Co-Chair Bishop read the list of invited testifiers.
Senator Wilson noted that sometimes it took a couple of
years for regulations to be developed. He wondered if the
fees would be similar to those already in statute and at
what point the industry would have the fee information.
9:39:58 AM
SAM RABUNG, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), explained that the fees
were one-time fees for a permit application. The salmon
hatchery program had only had 50 permit applications
processed since its inception in the 1970s. He thought the
one-time fee would have a small impact. He estimated that
considering inflation, the one-time permit application fee
would be in the range of $1,000, and the amount would be
determined through a public process.
Senator Wilson asked if the permits would be new permits,
limited entry, or if the permits would be open to all
applicants.
Mr. Rabung stated that the fee would be for new permits.
The permits did not expire but could be revoked. Any
qualified non-profit could apply for a permit.
Senator Wilson asked if there was a limitation on the
number of permits that could be issued. He wondered if the
department expected there to be a limit on the permits.
Mr. Rabung stated there was no limit on the permits, which
were somewhat unique. The permit applications would go
through a significant review process. He explained that the
permits would be somewhat self-limiting due to the fact
that there would not be practicality in issuing multiple
permits for the same location.
9:42:42 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if any of the scientists at the
department had expressed any concerns about the bill.
Mr. Rabung relayed that the areas of concern for the bill
would be the same as those for existing projects, such as
genetics, pathology, interactions, and management. The
department would ensure that there was sufficient comfort
to issue permits on a case-by-case basis. He thought many
people did not know that there were many ideas for the
existing salmon fishery enhancement program that were not
approved nor initiated. He expected the same would be true
for the proposed program.
Senator Wielechowski understood that scientists had
expressed concern about the program but the department felt
it had the necessary tools to ensure the safety of the
fishery.
Mr. Rabung answered in the affirmative and assured that the
department would be conservative and precautionary. He
reminded that the department was still tasked with
maintaining for sustained yield, which entailed maintaining
natural productivity, which was the primary charge.
Senator Wielechowski asked about specific concerns
expressed by scientists at the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG).
Mr. Rabung relayed that specific concerns had been related
to practices. He explained that the department would
prescribe the minimum number of brood stock to use in order
to not create genetic bottlenecks. The department
prohibited breeding for traits or doing anything to alter
the organism, which would be placed in the wild for harvest
by common property. He noted there were safeguards in place
including pathology requirements to prevent disease
transmission from the projects to the wild. He cited that
there was not a documented case of transmission from the
salmon hatchery program to the wild, and the department
intended to continue its positive track record with any
future projects.
9:45:48 AM
Mr. Rabung noted he was a member of the Governor's
Mariculture Task Force, which was established by former
Governor Bill Walker in 2016 and was reinstated and
extended by Governor Dunleavy. He referred to the DFG
mission statement that charged the department to protect,
maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant
resources of the state and manage their use and development
in the best interest of the economy and the wellbeing of
the people of the state consistent with the sustained yield
principle. He cited AS 116.05.092, which charged the
department to encourage the investment by private
enterprise in the technological development and economic
utilization of the fisheries resources, and through
rehabilitation, enhancement and development programs do all
things necessary to ensure perpetual and increasing
production and use of the food resources of state waters
and continental shelf areas.
Mr. Rabung continued explained that the work described in
the statute had begun under the Fisheries Rehabilitation,
Enhancement, and Development Division (FRED) of DFG until
1994 when FRED division was merged with the Commercial
Fisheries Division. He explained that with FRED division
gone, the department no longer conducted fishery
restoration, rehabilitation, or enhancement projects; other
than the Division of Sport Fish's hatcheries and stocking
program. He explained that the Division of Commercial
Fisheries still operated the pathology, gene conservation,
and mark tag and age labs, and had contracted out operation
of FRED's salmon hatcheries to private non-profit
aquaculture associations that operated at their own expense
as a service to common property users.
Mr. Rabung continued his remarks. He explained that DFG
provided permitting and oversight for statewide
aquaculture. The section was responsible for the salmon
hatchery program, the aquatic farming program, and
permitting research and educational projects statewide. He
explained that currently Alaskan mariculture was limited to
aquatic farming. He noted that aquatic farm product was
considered private property just as livestock, and
primarily benefitted private owners and business. In
contrast, fishery enhancement entailed restoration,
rehabilitation of natural production, which benefited the
common property fisheries rather than private ownership and
was what would be allowed if SB 64 became law.
9:49:01 AM
Mr. Rabung explained that restoration meant restoring a
stock in a location where it had been extirpated and no
longer existed, and bringing it back to a level that could
be naturally produced and sustained. Once restoration was
achieved, the project would cease. He explained that
enhancement signified producing additional numbers of
natural producing stock above what could be produced in
nature in order to provide additional harvestable surplus.
If the project ceased, the supplemental production went
away and the production of the stock would revert to what
could be naturally produced and sustained. He used the
example of the Alaska King Crab Research, Rehabilitation
and Biology Program (AKCRRAB), which planted juvenile king
crab from nearby stocks into locations which once supported
the stocks, until they were overfished. He recounted that
the only recovery tool DFG could employ was fisheries
closure, and with the passage of SB 64 there would be
another tool to try.
Mr. Rabung described collecting adult razor clams, inducing
them to spawn, and planting the juveniles on the parents'
beach as an example of a mariculture rehabilitation
project. He used the example of hard-shell clams in
Kachemack Bay and collecting and aggregating abalone in
Southeast to enhance spawning success. The technique had
been used in other parts of the world to improve
reproductive success but was not yet legal in Alaska
outside the department. He mentioned back-stocking sea
cucumber juveniles after a dive fishery as an example of a
mariculture enhancement project. The department typically
operated dive fisheries on a three-year rotation to allow
for the stock to recover and produce additional harvestable
surplus. He thought the process could be used for any
number of shellfish including geoduck and crab.
Mr. Rabung noted that targeting enhanced stocks could give
the opportunity for other stocks to replenish and recover.
He summarized passage of a law to allow for restoration,
rehabilitation and enhancement of shellfish stocks was one
of the priorities identified by the mariculture task force.
If SB 64 passed, the work would be subject to pathology,
genetic, and management oversight by the department. He
asserted that Alaska had the most stringent aquaculture
guidance in the world and was used as an example of best
practices while it minimized the negative effects on
natural production and maintained sustainability.
9:53:08 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the scope of a permit
granted to a non-profit. He asked the permit could be
limited to the placement of shellfish stock, not to include
the removal of another species such as sea otters.
Mr. Rabung stated that a permit would only be for placement
of juvenile stocks and could not be used to mitigate sea
otters.
Senator Wielechowski asked if the areas where stocking or
rehabilitation occurred would be closed to the public or
limited in access.
Mr. Rabung stated that the organisms produced by the
projects would be available to the common property for
harvest. There were provisions in the bill to allow for
cost-recovery harvests in a special harvest area to be
established. He thought the bill had an awkward way to
model after a salmon problem, since salmon returned to the
same place. A special harvest area signified a special area
that a project operator could harvest organisms to help
with cost recovery and would not exclude others.
Senator Wilson followed up on Senator Wielechowski's
comment and asked if the department had looked at funding a
group that could legally help eradicate the otter
population.
Mr. Rabung did not know of a project such as Senator Wilson
described and thought the inquiry would be best directed to
the wildlife conservation division. He thought the only
people that could legally harvest sea otter were Alaska
Natives.
Senator Wilson asked if the department had looked at ways
to incentivize tribal entities or other groups to help have
a better outcome for shellfish populations.
Mr. Rabung stated, "not to my knowledge."
Senator Wielechowski referenced Section 19, which allowed
for Section 14 to take effect in 2013, and explained that
Section 14 dealt with income taxes. He asked for
explanation and rationale for the section and asked who
would be affected.
Mr. Rabung believed the section was modelled after the
existing salmon fishery enhancement program, whereby non-
profits were not subject to state corporate income tax on
revenues generated through cost recovery.
Senator Wielechowski understood that the effective date was
2013 in Section 19.
Mr. Rabung suggested that if 2013 was shown in Section 19,
the date was most likely a holdover from the original
introduction of the bill.
Mr. Lamkin recalled that the date was a drafting
requirement that was technical and conforming in nature as
proposed by the Legislative Legal Division. He agreed to
research the matter further and get back to the committee
with the information.
9:58:07 AM
GINNY ECKERT, PROFESSOR OF FISHERIES ECOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), relayed that she was
a director at Alaska Sea Grant, and was also a member of
the Governor's Mariculture Task Force. She discussed her
background. She had been a shellfish expert working in the
state since 2000. Since 2007, she had worked on king crab
rehabilitation, including with the AKCRRAB program. She had
testified in support of the bill several times. She wanted
to speak to the need for rehabilitation of shellfish and
related that many of the native species (such as king crab)
had declined due to fishery overharvest. Many king crab
stocks had crashed in the 1980s and had not recovered since
even though the fishery had been closed approaching 40 or
more years. She thought overfishing was likely the cause of
the decline , and noted that there was a significant amount
of trawl bi-catch, including by foreign fleets that were
allowed prior to the 1970s.
Dr. Eckert continued her remarks. She discussed open king
crab fisheries that were declining such as in Bristol Bay,
with concern it could close as early as this year. She and
her colleagues had published over 30 publications on king
crab and had studied many factors to understand the
bottleneck for recovery. Much of the work had informed
fisheries management and helped to understand if placing
juveniles in the field would be successful. She considered
that the early life stage was a bottleneck to recovery that
could be addressed by hatchery rearing. She discussed
genetics and relayed that king crab and shellfish were
genetically very different than salmon. King crab
reproduced in the wild, and it was possible to maintain
genetic diversity. She discussed research that showed it
was possible to raise juvenile crab and place them in the
wild.
10:02:47 AM
Dr. Eckert continued her remarks. She used an example of a
successful program in Washington that involved raising
abalone in a hatchery and out-planting them in Puget Sound.
She thought the bill was needed to move forward with
rehabilitation on a larger scale.
Senator Wielechowski was curious about survival rates of
king crab.
Dr. Eckert did not have the survival numbers available. She
noted that a female king crab could release 100,000 embryos
per year, and for the population to be sustainable, only
two would need to survive and reproduce. She explained that
natural survival in the wild was very low. She offered to
provide more information at a later time.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Eckert to direct the information
to his office for distribution to members.
10:04:51 AM
HEATHER MCCARTY, CHAIR, ALASKA MARICULTURE TASK FORCE,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill.
She discussed her qualifications, and relayed she worked
with Central Bering Sea Fisherman's Association (CBSFA) in
St. Paul Island and was a co-chair of AKCRRAB. She thanked
the sponsor for the work on the bill. She recalled that the
mariculture task force was formed in 2016, and she had been
on the task force since its inception. She noted that the
task force had a goal of development of mariculture in
Alaska. The task force had focused on regulatory issues,
statutory issues, science and research issues, marketing
issues, and passage of the bill had been a priority.
Ms. McCarty continued her remarks. She mentioned the
importance of the marketing aspect of the bill. She
affirmed that CBSFA had long been a supporter of shellfish
mariculture. She discussed the Pribilof Blue King Crab,
which had been a tremendous resource that had been a part
of the economic base of St. Paul until the early 1980s.
There was a huge crab processing plant on St. Paul which
was a tax basis for the community. She mentioned the loss
of the red king crab in Kodiak. She hoped that through
AKCRRAB efforts, the crabs would be rehabilitated. She
thought the bill would put employ another tool to bring the
crabs back from near extinction.
Co-Chair Bishop thanked Ms. McCarty for her testimony.
10:09:57 AM
JULIE DECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (via teleconference), expressed
strong support for the bill. She asserted that the bill
would create a framework for shellfish enhancement and
would allow for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) to market aquatic farm products to further the
state's new mariculture industry. She thought the bill
accomplished two priority recommendations of the
mariculture task force. She discussed the mission of the
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation (AFDF) and relayed
that the foundation had looked toward developing
mariculture in an expedited way. She served on the
mariculture task force.
Ms. Decker continued her testimony. She discussed
sustainability, and AFDF's role in certifications of Alaska
salmon as sustainable fisheries, including the salmon
enhancement program. She noted that the management of DFG
incorporated a precautionary approach that prioritized wild
fish and minimized adverse impacts to wild stock. She
contended that DFG had extensive enhancement policies that
protected wild stock and fulfilled its constitutional
mandate to manage the state's fishery resources for
sustainability. She asserted that DFG would manage
shellfish enhancement with the same constitutional mandates
to protect wild stock, and AFDF supported the bill as a
part of DFG's sustainable management program.
Ms. Decker asserted that shellfish enhancement could
diversify and expand economic opportunity by increasing
harvests for sport, subsistence, and commercial use. She
cited the value that salmon enhancement brought to the
state's economy between 2012 and 2017 and thought shellfish
enhancement would similarly add to the state's economy. She
concluded that ADFD believed that growth of the mariculture
industry could play an important role in the economies of
coastal Alaska, and passage of the bill was central in
enabling the economic potential.
10:14:27 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:14:36 AM
JEREMY WOODROW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA SEAFOOD
MARKETING INSTITUTE, JUNEAU (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He read from a prepared statement:
The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute fosters the
economic development of Alaska's seafood resources. It
plays a key role in positioning Alaska's seafood
industry as a competitive market-driven food
production industry and functions as a brand manager
of the Alaska family of seafood brands. Recognizing
mariculture as an emerging maritime industry, with
tremendous opportunity for Alaska's coastal economies,
ASMI supports SB 64.
Mariculture involves cultivating marine organisms in
the ocean for food and other products such as oysters,
mussels, abalone or geoduck or seaweed such as kelp.
the practice does not require feed, fertilizer,
insecticides, herbicides, or antibiotics, making it
sustainable and inexpensive. Because of its economic
and environmental promise, the Alaska Mariculture Task
Force had identified the goal to build the Alaska
mariculture production into a $100 million per year
industry over the next 20 years. In order to increase
jobs and economic opportunity for fishermen and Alaska
businesses, the ASMI Board of Directors unanimously
supports SB 64 and legislative action to allow for the
marketing of mariculture products or aquatic farm
products as defined in AS 16.40.199 as ASMI is
currently prohibited from doing so. It was joined in
support of the bill by the Alaska seafood industry,
the Mariculture Task Force, the Alaska Shellfish
Growers Association, as well as many new Alaskan-owned
and operated businesses.
Not only does mariculture represent a significant
economic opportunity for Alaska, it offers the ability
for seafood companies to diversify their existing
portfolios. With the support and efforts of the
mariculture task force, small family businesses had
already proven products could be commercially viable
by selling boutique products while offering fishermen
opportunities to utilize their vessels and their
skills in shoulder seasons. If passed, ASMI plans to
include mariculture products in its effective and
lucrative consumer retail, food service, and food aid
outreach in domestic and targeted foreign markets. In
efforts to ramp up this burgeoning industry, ASMI will
lend the same expertise and outreach to this industry
as it has to Alaska's seafood industry for the last 40
years. Thank you for recognizing the value of Alaska's
maritime economy and for consideration of this
meaningful legislation to aid economic development
across Alaska's coastal communities.
Senator Wilson referenced a prior conversation relating to
the shellfish industry not paying an assessment and
mentioned equitability. He asked if Mr. Woodrow anticipated
that the shellfish industry would contribute to the
marketing of its product.
Mr. Woodrow explained that the ASMI board recognized that
the shellfish was presently a very small but promising and
growing industry. He qualified that at its present size,
any assessment would be miniscule and would not make an
impact to ASMI's overall operation. He continued that ASMI
anticipated that as the industry grew as anticipated, at
some point an assessment would be created and then the
industry could be equal partners like the rest of the
seafood industry. He explained that the ASMI board as well
as the mariculture industry really saw the value of the
statute change. He emphasized that there were numerous
grant opportunities that ASMI could apply for if the bill
were to pass. He considered that the ASMI board thought
adding shellfish to its portfolio would be good for finding
new investors and buyers.
10:19:11 AM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, OWNER, PIONEER ALASKA FISHERIES, KACHEMAK
BAY (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill.
Her organization had been incorporated in Alaska since
1964, had fished since 1959, and fished most of the
different species in the state. She shared that she had
testified on the bill in a previous committee and had been
degraded by DFG for trying to share her concerns about the
bill. She thought that people in opposition to the bill did
not want to testify. She thought SB 64 diverted significant
DFG budget away from wild fisheries, and reduced general
funds away from the state's mandate of wild fish priority.
She thought there were major problems with sockeye salmon
in the Gulf of Alaska. She emphasized that wild fisheries
needed protection. She mentioned "major hatchery strain" in
Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet. She mentioned major
strain in Southeast Alaska. She cited that the Alaska
Hatchery Research Program was showing productivity was less
than half of hatchery fish than wild fish. She was
concerned about the legislature getting the appropriate
information.
Ms. Hillstrand continued her remarks. She cited that the
chief scientist at the recent March meeting of the Board of
Fisheries had stated that "we don't want to be caught flat-
footed," and that the state needed an academy of sciences
to assist in sorting through the problems. She thought the
legislature was only hearing one side of the story. She
referenced the 1991 legislative research request regarding
the effects of hatchery salmon on wild salmon. She thought
it was important to get more information about fisheries in
the state. She mentioned overharvest of crab. She had
concerns about AS 16.12.050 and thought the Board of
Fisheries was not being consulted when there was alteration
of hatcheries permits. She thought there needed to be more
public process and alterations of regulations with regard
to hatcheries alterations.
Ms. Hillstrand continued her remarks. She referenced AS
16.12.080. She reiterated that more information needed to
be in the enhancement report and wanted the legislature
having a balanced report. She mentioned a lawsuit with the
Department of Natural Resources. She worried about small
shellfish farmers and thought ASMI had a burgeoning focus
on corporate farms. She thought there were many unanswered
questions and more work needed to be done on the bill.
10:23:57 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked if Mr. Rabung had heard Ms.
Hillstrand's public testimony and if he had any comments.
Mr. Rabung thought Ms. Hillstrand made some very good
points, but thought she misunderstood the Board of
Fisheries' regulation she had referenced. He asserted that
there was no obligation for the department to run permits
by the board. He thought there was a mischaracterization of
the statute. he addressed the hatchery research program
that the department had been conducting since 2012 and
explained that the program was not complete, and all the
publications would not be out until 2024. He mentioned pink
salmon strays in Prince William Sound, and the finding that
there were fewer offspring returns if salmon stray-spawned
in natural streams. There were no results from the second
generation from the pedigree study. He thought it was
intuitive that a stray would have lower reproductive
success due to selective pressures. He noted that three of
the four highest wild stock returns of pink salmon in
Prince William Sound had been in the last ten years. He
noted that the department was doing a "deep dive" to look
for mechanisms, and to investigate whether the situation
was ephemeral. He noted that hatchery stocks were derived
from local stocks, which was unique to Alaska.
Mr. Rabung continued his comments. He mentioned the
Hatchery Scientific Reform Group had summarized work and
itemized improvements, which Alaska was already doing. He
discussed the success of salmon hatcheries in Alaska, and
thought it was hard to see the problem.
10:28:08 AM
Mr. Rabung addressed Ms. Hillstrand's comment about ASMI.
He thought it was important to protect small shellfish
farmers as referenced by Ms. Hillstrand. He thought ASMI
fees had a minimum income threshold. He referenced Ms.
Hillstrand's comment about budget and explained that the
department did not expect any cost from the proposed bill,
as the work would be absorbed by existing programs. He did
not anticipate a rush of projects, as projects needed to be
self-funded. He noted that the department also routinely
required new projects to start small in order to identify
unintended consequences and to allow projects to adapt or
be stopped.
Senator Wielechowski referenced page 5, lines 30 and 31 of
the bill, which iterated that the Board of Fisheries may
not adopt a regulation or take an action regarding the
issuance or denial of a permit. He asked for the rationale
behind the language.
Mr. Rabung that the same language was in the existing
salmon fishery enhancement statutes. He relayed that when
the statutes were written, it had been clear that the
permitting authority was given to the commissioner, and
allocation of the harvest was the authority of the board.
The separation was intentionally done to prevent mixing of
roles.
10:31:04 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
SB 64 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the upcoming
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:31:38 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 71 Arts Council Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 DMV License Plate Options.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 Sample Plates Plate Demand.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SSTA 3/9/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 71 |
| SB 71 ArtsCouncil_Support-Letter_KodiakArts_08March2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 71 |
| SB064_ShellfishEnhancement_Sponsor-Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/22/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB064_ShellfishEnhancement_Sectional_VersionA.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/22/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB064_Shellfish-Enhancement_Research Backup_PSPA-UFA Flyer_Pays-Its-Way.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/22/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB064 AFDF Letter of Support 2- Alaska Mariculture Development Plan.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/22/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 ShellfishEnhancement_SupportLetter_JEDC_09March2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 ShellfishEnhancement_SupportLetter_UFA_23Feb2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 64 - ASMI Support.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB 71 Public Testimony Rogers.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 71 |