Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/10/1999 03:10 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 10, 1999
3:10 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jerry Mackie
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to assessment of discrete salmon stocks and to
discrete salmon stock assessment surcharges."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Brett Huber, Staff
Senator Halford
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 13.
Ms. Mary McDowell, Commissioner
Limited Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
8800 Glacier Hwy., Ste. 109
Juneau, AK 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT:
Mr. Rick Davis
United Fishermen of Alaska
2347 Kevin Court
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 13.
Mr. Dick Bishop
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 13.
Mr. Bruce Knowles
P.O. Box 873206
Wasilla AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 13.
Mr. Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 13.
Mr. Dale Bondurant
31864 Moonshine
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 13.
Ms. Nancy Hillstrand
P.O. Box 170
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 13.
Mr. John Merrigan
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
P.O. Box 232
Petersburg, AK 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 13.
Mr. Cliff Judkins, President
Alaska Boaters Association
P.O. Box 874124
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 13.
Mr. John Peckham
P.O. Box 8394
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 13.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-9, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 13-DISCRETE SALMON STOCK MGMT AND ASSESSMENT
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:10 p.m. and announced SB 13 to be up for consideration.
MR. BRETT HUBER, Committee Aide, explained that although fishery
management in Alaska has been successful over time in providing for
an abundance of harvestable salmon on a state-wide basis, record
catches alone don't ensure that we are fulfilling our
constitutional mandate for sustained yield.
This bill is different than last year's discrete stock management
bill. It doesn't mandate the Board of Fisheries to adopt and
implement discrete stock management in prescribed areas along
specified time lines. Instead, SB 13 mandates discrete salmon
stock assessment, leaving to the Board of Fisheries the
determination of which stocks are appropriate by applying criteria
such as biological health of the stock and the magnitude of user
conflicts.
MR. HUBER said that far too much of our fisheries management is
being driven by allocation battles in our most contentious
fisheries instead of by sound science and pertinent information.
The lack of information brings the same issues before the Board
year after year, leaving the issues unresolved and the user groups
unsatisfied. This bill mandates discrete stock assessment that
will allow the Board to target research on stocks in the fisheries
for which they most need the information.
MR. HUBER briefed the committee saying that Section 1(a) sets out
the purpose of the bill to establish a discrete stock assessment
program and provide a funding mechanism. Additional language
clarifies that this program is not intended to impact the
Department's base program. Section 1(b) specifies that a portion
of the cost of the discrete stock assessment program will be paid
by Sport Fish license revenues equivalent to $1 for each sport fish
license sold. Section 2(a) delineates the Board's responsibility
to determine the stocks for which discrete stock assessment is
appropriate and sets out the criteria to be considered in the
determination. Section 2(b)(1) delineates the development of the
annual list of discrete stock assessment projects and sets out the
criteria for the projects. Section 2(b)(2)provides opportunity for
public comment on the project list. Section 2(b)(3) provides that
the proposed project lists and corresponding costs be submitted to
the governor for inclusion in the Department's budget for the
following fiscal year. Section 2(c) requires the governor to
include the discrete stock assessment program in a separate BRU in
the Department's budget. Section 3 levies a $10 surcharge on
commercial fishing crew member licenses for the discrete stock
assessment program. Section 4 was language proposed by drafters to
parallel the surcharge language with the existing statutes
governing CFEC. permits.
He noted that the Limited Entry Commission has a proposed amendment
to delete this Section as well as lines 27 - 30 in Section 6.
Section 6 requires the CFEC to collect a surcharge on limited entry
permits and interim use permits totaling $500,000 for the discrete
stock assessment program. Section 7 provides the initial discrete
stock assessment list be prepared for submission in the FY01 budget
and the license surcharges begin in calendar year 2000.
Number 90
SENATOR PARNELL asked what the policy reason was for the $10
surcharge on the crew member fishing license.
MR. HUBER responded that the Department tried to apportion the cost
across the users by determining what kinds of programs would be
included in this list and what the potential benefit would be to
user groups. He said the Department would explain how the benefits
of the programs and the data gathering has to be commensurate with
the level of benefit to the user groups when dealing with federal
or ADF&G funds.
MS. MARY MCDOWELL, CFEC Commissioner, explained that their
amendment requests them to delete the provision on lines 27 - 30 on
page 3 which directs the Entry Commission to credit the $10 stock
assessment surcharge that fishermen have paid on a crew license
toward the stock assessment surcharge that persons would be charged
if they obtained a limited entry permit or interim use permit later
that same year. This was a new provision in the bill that the
drafter inserted in an effort to be consistent with another
provision in current law calling for credit of the fee paid for a
crew license against the annual fee paid for a permit, if a person
should happen to buy a crew license and then subsequently acquire
a permit in the same year.
The Entry Commission is in the process of drafting some
housekeeping legislation which proposes to delete that existing
credit provision along with cleaning up some other language in
existing licensing statutes which have become obsolete,
inconsistent, or unclear.
MS. MCDOWELL explained that under current law, a limited entry or
interim use permit in any fishery may be used by the holder to
participate in any fishery in Alaska as a crew member. This
allowance is widely known and used by fishermen. No fisherman has
ever requested a credit under the crew license fee credit that is
in current law. This is the provision the drafter intended the new
credit incentive to mirror.
Likewise, the new surcharge credit provision in SB 13 would provide
little or no benefit to the public, and yet the requirement for
CFEC to go through the motions of trying to implement and
administer it would take considerable time and resources. They
would have to try and match incompatible crew and permit data files
of the Entry Commission with those of ADF&G in an effort to find
any possible instances of eligibility for the $10 credit. In fact,
because vendors don't turn in records immediately, the necessary
crew license data from ADF&G isn't even compiled until a month
after the end of the year in which CFEC would be required to grant
the credit.
MS. MCDOWELL concluded by asking the committee to delete the
surcharge credit because it is not practicable or necessary.
Number 161
MR. RICH DAVIS, United Fishermen of Alaska, said they have tracked
the discrete stock management bill and oppose it now. UFA is not
comfortable with an increase in license fees to conduct work they
feel benefits everyone in the State whether they fish or not.
Other work that needs to be done in the State, such as assessment
of water flows and instream flow quantities, could be the next item
if the Legislature chose to charge the fishing industry for every
aspect of what the ADF&G does for their management.
MR. DAVIS said he also has the written comments of the United
Southeast Alaska Gillnetters who can't be here.
MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), supported SB 13.
They think it's important for the Department to implement plans
that will address problems of inadequate returns in salmon stocks
and believe the discrete stock assessment work will be a step
forward in that regard.
MR. BISHOP said that the AOC is taking a more active role in
fisheries work (mostly upper Cook Inlet) and have formed a
fisheries committee with former commissioner of ADF&G, Carl Rosier.
Number 224
MR. BRUCE KNOWLES, Wasilla resident, supported SB 13 completely.
He didn't think it could be implemented too soon especially in Cook
Inlet. Whenever he asks the Department why certain things can't be
done, the standard comment is, "We don't have the data." He said
many streams up there are suffering from low returns of chum
salmon. There were concerns for pink salmon until last year when
there was a healthy return. Chum salmon on the McNeil River are so
low that they are having concerns for the health of the bear stocks
around the river, their major food source. He would contribute
from his permanent fund dividend for this and volunteered to help
any way he could.
MR. GERON BRUCE, ADF&G, said the Department understands that this
bill sets aside a pot of money that could be used on a
discretionary basis to address research needs of stocks with
special or high concern. This is a good idea and they support it.
He explained that the Department's commercial fisheries management
program is primarily supported by general funds. There haven't
been any discretionary funds in that program for some time to
conduct this kind of research. Most of their funds are committed
to maintaining the core in-season management program.
The Division of Sport Fish also plays a major role in the salmon
management of the State, but their funding sources have some
restrictions on what they can be used for - both the federal aid
funds and the ADF&G funds. In addition, the sport fishery has been
growing very rapidly in the State and the Division is tasked just
to keep up with that growth.
MR. BRUCE said that this bill sets out a process involving the
Board of Fisheries in setting broad goals identifying stocks that
they believe they have insufficient information on. This process
occurs with the consultation of the Department and allows an
opportunity for the public to be involved. This would probably
bring in some groups that have not participated in the past, a
positive element.
The next step would fall to the Department to develop research
projects that would address the needs for additional information
for the stocks the Board has identified. This is a good process;
it keeps the Department in charge of the scientific research and
data collection.
Their overriding concern with the funding is that the salmon
program, at least in the Division of Commercial Fisheries, is
primarily dependent upon general funds (GF) which have been
declining and may continue to do so. Therefore, he requested
additional funds raised by this bill be designated in statute as
"designated program receipts" which takes them out of the general
fund category and puts them into a nongeneral fund category so
there is no confusion down the line. When these projects are
submitted as part of the Department's budget it represents an
increase in general funding from non-recurring revenue sources. It
is intended that these projects would be paid for by the users.
Making the funds designated program receipts is very consistent and
recognizes that these are recurring revenues and would not appear
as a budget increment which would result in a cut in some other
element of the Division's program, a worst-case fear. In addition
to program receipts, it could be some sort of continuing capital
improvement project (CIP).
MR. BRUCE said they are very aware and sensitive to the fact that
the users pay the cost of management. In the case of the Division
of Sport Fish, there is no general fund. It's all user fees. The
Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF) has a significant general
fund component, but the various taxes and license fees the industry
pays are more than double the entire GF element of the DCF budget.
The users are already paying and sometimes the general public
doesn't realize this.
One other concern is the additional stock assessment projects would
be included in the Governor's budget and it would look like he is
asking for an increment or he would have to cut something else out
of the base programs. MR. BRUCE said he couldn't suggest an
alternative.
Number 359
SENATOR PARNELL asked where the license fees go now.
MR. BRUCE answered that a portion of them go into the general fund
and a portion of them go into the fishermen's insurance fund.
SENATOR PETE KELLY commented that he thought designated program
receipts were one-time contributions to the general fund.
MR. BRUCE explained there are a number of different designated
program receipts; test fishery funds are not a designated program
receipt, but they are named in statute as a non-GF source of funds,
a recurring source of funds. It's an item that the Legislature
appropriates and provides authority for the Department to receive,
but it is an on-going source of funds that is built into the
Department's budget. Essentially the resources pay for certain
management activities.
SENATOR PARNELL asked what the Department would actually do with
the discrete stock assessment information.
MR. BRUCE explained that it would be provided to the Board and
would be used to develop better estimates of where the special
stocks are harvested, establish levels of escapement, set up weirs
and sonars, do genetic stock identification work, and sample
catches in fisheries. It could be used for the range of things
specified in the bill.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if the Administration supported SB 13.
MR. BRUCE answered they support putting together a discretionary
source of funds that could be used to address these stocks. They
support and recognize the need for additional research on stocks of
high concern in the State. They support the process of working
with the Board, the public, and the Department. They are still
concerned with the exact funding mechanism and how that would work.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if this was consistent with their
constitutional mandate.
MR. BRUCE replied that it is consistent with their basic mission
and their constitutional charge. The Department collects this kind
of information and uses it in its management.
Number 416
SENATOR PARNELL asked how they are addressing stocks of high
concern now and what other ways are there besides discrete stock
assessment.
MR. BRUCE answered that another way is through CIPs, for example,
one they got two years ago for work on stocks in upper Cook Inlet.
The funds will be gone after the end of this year. If there is no
additional source of funding, they have to either re-program from
within existing programs or they don't address it.
MR. KEVIN DELANEY, Director, Division of Sport Fish, supported the
process that would bring the Board, the Department, and the users
together through the existing Board process.
Last year, at the request of the Resources Committee they looked at
how much of their program is committed to doing stock escapement
types of work and it's a considerable part of their budget. This
bill adds a chance for more people to get involved in prioritizing
some segment.
SENATOR PARNELL asked what kind of criteria his Division provides
the Board with in determining which assessments are needed.
MR. DELANEY answered that to a large degree it is driven by the
issues that come before the Board of Fisheries. There are the
fiscal and realistic constraints of what you can accomplish. If
the debate before the Board is centered around consistent
restriction of a certain fishery or consistent failure to meet
either the escapement objectives or the allocation strategies in
that location, one of the questions becomes, "What happened, and
where can you look, and what pot of money do you look at that
question with?"
SENATOR KELLY asked if a discrete stock would be measured by the
tributaries of the creek rather than the larger creeks, like the
Kenai River.
MR. DELANEY answered that the term "stock" has a number of useful
definitions; one is manageable as a unit where they look at the
fishery they are talking about and the fish that are passing
through at a specific time and place and what actions they can
take, what precision they can expect from those actions. The other
extreme is where you go into a primary tributary and then off into
a secondary and tertiary tributary. There are also scientific
definitions of stock based on the genetic structure.
SENATOR KELLY asked how they are managing now versus managing for
discrete stock.
MR. DELANEY said that is a hard question, and having sat through
years and years of Board meetings and hearing many questions, he
knows there are far more questions out there about what's going on
with our various fish than we have answers for at any time. The
Department's ability is easily exhausted to give specific answers.
The Department tries to look at where the major fisheries occur and
at the major stocks that support those fisheries; they look at the
other stocks that are harvested at the same time those major
fisheries are being prosecuted. Then they look at a series of
escapement objectives for the species they have; in many cases they
have escapement programs for only the major species and perhaps
aerial indices programs or some lesser measure of escapement for
the other species. Often people ask questions the Department just
can't answer.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the bill reads the legislature "may"
appropriate the money back and she wanted to know what prevented
the legislature from saying they don't have enough money to achieve
their discrete salmon stock goals and to put the money elsewhere.
She noted the bill proposes to collect money from the already
distressed fishermen and maybe that money wouldn't go where it was
supposed to.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD responded that language, "the legislature may,"
is what is used in every bill from shared taxes on. It's
constitutionally up to the legislature to make the decision of
whether it's designated program receipts or general funds. It is
exactly the same appropriation process. Only the accounting
process makes the distinction.
MR. BRUCE said his concern is that this would compete with other
projects in their budget and because it has this special status, it
would probably prevail to the detriment of other established
projects. He didn't think it was as likely that the money would go
completely to another place.
SENATOR LINCOLN said it wasn't fair to tax fishermen and crew...
TAPE 99-9, SIDE B
Number 590
who are already having difficulties. She thought they should get
the money from other sources.
MR. BRUCE restated that the Department is very aware and
appreciative of the fact that the users have historically paid the
cost of management - and then some. They don't want to do anything
to jeopardize their willingness to do that.
SENATOR PARNELL asked what the benefits of an assessment were to
sport fishers and commercial fishers.
MR. BRUCE said the benefits to both are somewhat the same - better
management and better information about stocks that are subject to
a lot of pressure or that they don't have as much information on
right now as they would like to, will result in higher yields over
the long term which means more fish to harvest. Also, if there is
some downturn in productivity because of environmental conditions,
they will be able to detect it soon enough to respond.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why sport fishermen would pay the same fee as
commercial fishermen.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD answered that he didn't know why a sport fisherman
would want to pay so much more per fish than the commercial
fisherman is willing to pay, but he knows that they're willing.
MR. DALE BONDURANT supported SB 13 and discrete stock assessments,
especially in the Kenai/Kasilof areas. In 1987 the commercial
harvest was over 9 million fish, but only 66,000 got into the
northern district. In 1992 there was only one million fish and
66,000 got there. Last year, when it was shut down, there were all
kinds of fish in the northern district.
MS. NANCY HILLSTRAND, Homer, supported assessing discrete salmon
stocks. They are already seeing some stress on fish in the lower
Kenai, Deep Creek, Ninilchik, and the Anchor River. She is on the
Fish and Game Advisory Committee and has raised salmon for the past
18 years. She said it is critical to maintain genetic diversity.
She appreciated what they were doing in the legislation, but this
is only part of the complex puzzle to promote sustainability for
the long term. This legislature must seriously address a
comprehensive habitat integrity plan to go along with this. She
noted that there is major logging going on on the Kenai Peninsula
with very little protection for the salmon stocks.
MS. HILLSTRAND said she had seen the legislature ignore extremely
crucial pieces of the puzzle that will promote sustainability.
Number 476
MR. JERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, opposed
SB 13. The problem identified in the bill is lack of data for
fisheries management such as stock composition, i.d., escapement,
assessments, and establishment of escapement goals. One solution
that occurs to a number of people is to fund ADF&G at the levels it
needs for necessary research to carry out its constitutional
mandate of full utilization of fisheries under the principles of
sustained yield.
This legislation takes the distinctly different approach of taxing
fishermen in order to fund ADF&G to carry on its constitutional
mandate, but only on a few stocks selected by the Board of Fish.
ADF&G has the capability and expertise to choose its own research
projects, though funding seems to be the issue.
Presently, the Board of Fisheries can request ADF&G for data or
research to generate the data. This legislation seems to muddy the
distinction between the Board of Fisheries and the Department of
Fish and Game.
MR. MERRIGAN said that ADF&G supports this bill, but he couldn't
recall any time an agency would turn down a pot of a million
dollars.
This bill does not mention discrete stock management; however, the
end result of utilizing a collection of discrete stock data is
discrete stock management. What else is there to do with it?
Escapement goals are generally needed, but he has spent five years
representing Alaska at the US/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty and
can't recall any successful management for discrete stock or weak
stock management, at least as conducted in Canada and the lower 48.
Southeast Alaska fisheries are not conducted on discrete stocks;
the geography here is numerous small salmon streams with an
aggregate of production. Salmon streams number up to 5,000 and are
utilized in our mixed stock fishery. He thought they might be
called "indiscrete" stocks.
Southeast fishermen who have the majority of the permits that will
be taxed may receive very little benefit from this research.
Additionally, Southeast fishermen have already paid for this
information in the form of the Pacific Salmon Treaty which forced
large reductions and restrictions on our fisheries. But as a part
of the Treaty, technical committees were set up that compiled the
same data needs as identified in this bill. His association would
support increased fisheries research, but does not feel that this
legislation is the logical course for that research.
MR. MERRIGAN noted that the intent language has revenue coming from
the Division of Sport Fish, but the statute addresses only
commercial fishing. He noted that Senator Lincoln touched on the
impacts of taxes and he said that this tax would not break people's
backs, but unfortunately fishermen do not pay just one tax right
now. They are assessed one percent for ASMI, three percent for
aquaculture, permit and vessel renewal fees, and an upcoming three
percent fee in the IFQ fisheries. This is a poor time to be
accelerating taxes. Commercial fishermen are already paying their
way in terms of fees collected in State management.
MR. CLIFF JUDKINS, President, Alaska Boaters Association, said he
had been fishing in Cook Inlet streams for 36 years and strongly
supported SB 13. Whenever he has asked ADF&G how many fish a
stream can handle, he is invariably told they can't say, because
they don't have data on that species in that stream.
MR. JOHN PECKHAM, Ketchikan, said he purse seined for salmon and
opposed SB 13. He supported Mr. Merrigan's comments and added that
ADF&G is widely regarded as very successful at managing salmon and
he didn't know how successful they could continue to be if their
funding is continually reduced. Part of their job is to do stock
i.d. and data collection and it doesn't make sense to look at
spending more money on things that aren't directly related to their
core programs.
MR. PECKAM said he also participated in the Salmon Treaty and he
has seen funds available for use by other countries going into
determination of allocation issues as opposed to actually improving
management. It is frustrating seeing that amount of money going
into something that really doesn't help the resource; and in the
end it doesn't really stop the allocation arguments either.
In Southeast, his stock of concern is pink salmon, but it doesn't
have a lot of allocation issues and isn't a real conservation
problem. It could be managed for better quality and more fish, but
nothing would be spent on it under this bill, because it's not seen
as a political issue. So they will be taxed on trying to solve the
Kenai River's problems.
MR. PECKAM concluded that we could spend more money on our fish
resources and get more money for the State out of our fish
resources, but this specific use of a pot of money is not the best
use of additional funds.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD thanked everyone for their participation and said
they would take more testimony at another meeting. He adjourned at
4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|