Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/22/2019 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
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 | |
| SB91 | |
| SB90 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 22, 2019
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Chris Birch, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lora Reinbold
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to the development and operation of a
hydroelectric site at the Nuyakuk River Falls; providing for the
amendment of the management plan for the Wood-Tikchik State
Park; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 91 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 90
"An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buyback program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buyback program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 91
SHORT TITLE: NUYAKUK RIVER: HYDROELECTRIC SITE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HOFFMAN
03/15/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/19 (S) RES, FIN
04/05/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/19 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/15/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/15/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 90
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA; PERMIT BUYBACK
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
03/13/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/19 (S) RES, FIN
03/29/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/19 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
RICKY GEASE, Division Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 91.
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff
Senator Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes from version G to
version R committee substitute for SB 90.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 90.
FATE PUTMAN, Chair/Commissioner
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 90.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:33 PM
CHAIR CHRIS BIRCH called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Coghill, Reinbold, Kiehl, and Chair Birch.
SB 91-NUYAKUK RIVER: HYDROELECTRIC SITE
3:31:58 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced the consideration of Senate Bill 91 (SB
91). He noted that public testimony was heard and closed during
the previous hearing. He asked if committee members had any
final questions or comments.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if Mr. Gease from the Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation had any concerns regarding SB 91.
3:33:24 PM
RICKY GEASE, Division Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage,
Alaska, answered that the division supports the project running
through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process.
He noted that two other lakes were studied previously and were
shown to be unfeasible. He said passing SB 91 will allow the
FERC process to go through and the studies to take place. After
the studies are complete, the appropriate next steps will be
considered. He summarized that the proposed changes in SB 91 are
necessary for the FERC process to occur.
SENATOR REINBOLD voiced support for SB 91.
3:33:54 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI joined the committee meeting.
SENATOR KIEHL referenced the discussion in the previous hearing
that if the project were to be feasible and go ahead, the power
would run out of the park on straight, short lines. He asked Mr.
Gease if he was comfortable that the language in the bill covers
the necessary power lines to move the power from the project.
MR. GEASE answered yes; the division is comfortable moving
forward with the existing language.
3:35:02 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 91, version 31-LS0520\A, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note.
3:35:15 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced that without objection, SB 91 moves from
the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:35:23 PM
At ease.
SB 90-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA; PERMIT BUYBACK
3:38:26 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced the consideration of Senate Bill 90 (SB
90). He said public testimony was heard and closed during the
previous bill hearing.
3:38:52 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 90, version 31-LS0230\R, as the working document.
SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes.
3:39:15 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee meeting.
CHAIR BIRCH asked Mr. Jackson to explain the changes in the CS
for SB 90.
3:39:58 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff, Senator Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reviewed the changes between
version G and version R of SB 90 speaking to the following
prepared document:
Sections 1, 2 and 3 are not changed
Section 4;
Page 2, line 17 and 18; Delete "Eastern Set Net".
Insert "Upper".
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced the maps in the bill packet and
asked if set nets are used on the western side of Cook Inlet.
3:40:59 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 90, explained that there are set nets on
the eastern and western sides and Kalgin Island, as well as the
northern district in Cook Inlet.
3:41:17 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL joined the committee meeting.
MR. JACKSON continued to explain the following differences
between version G and version R of SB 90:
[Section 4 continued]
Page 2, line 19; Following (d), delete "An individual
who holds an entry permit that entitles the". Insert
"An entry permit that entitled a".
Page2, line 21; Following "Inlet", delete "Central
District may not". Insert "administrative area does
not entitle that person to".
Page2, line 22; Insert "unless the commission
reassigns the permit to that administrative area."
New Section 5; Page 2; Following line 22, Insert
former section 7. This new section was revised to more
clearly define the process by which a permit is
reassigned and therefore valid in the new
administrative area. Terminology is clarified
regarding the districts and subdistricts of Cook
Inlet, using the same language changes as noted above.
The use of buoy tags is added as a means of proving
prior participation in the east side set net fishery.
New Section 6 is added which defines the appeals
process in the event an applicant is denied a permit
for the new administrative area.
Section 7 was formerly section 8. Language was added
providing the manner in which permit holders who are
in the appeals process may participate in the election
Section 8 was former section 5. New language has been
added which requires application to the program be
made within 30 days of new section 8 becoming
effective.
Adds a new paragraph specifying how a provisional
permit holder may participate in the election.
(c) If an applicant whose name is selected in the
lottery under this section has a provisional entry
permit provided under sec. 6(b) of this Act, the
commission shall set aside the funds to buy back the
permit but may not buy back the permit until a court
finds, in a final judicial determination, that the
permit must be reassigned by the commission to the
administrative area established under
AS16.43.200(c), enacted by sec. 4 of this Act. If
the court finds, in a final determination, that the
commission's determination not to reassign an
applicant's permit to the administrative area
established by AS16.43.200(c) was correct, the
applicant is not qualified to participate in the
buy-back program established by this section.
The following paragraphs of this section are then
renumbered.
Section 9; Changes reference to the section of the
bill which establishes the buy-back program.
Section 10; Removes the specific date by which the
chair of the commission must notify the Lt. Governor
and the revisor of statutes of the outcome of the
election.
Section 11; Remove all material and replace with
language repealing sections 1, 2, 8 and 9 on June 30,
2026.
Section 12; Delete reference to sections 5,6 and 11
and inserts section 8 to this conditional effective
date clause.
[Section 13; Effective date unchanged.]
Section 14; Delete reference to sections 5,6 and 11
and inserts section 8 to this effective date clause.
Section 15 is not changed.
3:46:02 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referenced section 5 of the original bill that
says the area to which the permit applies would not be usable
for a future permit that is issued to the area. He asked if that
same provision was in version R.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered yes; to participate [in the buyback]
both the permit and the piece of land that is attached to that
permit has to go into the drawing.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the language is clear and specific
in the previous version where it says:
(c) The commission shall cancel an entry permit
purchased under this section. The commission may not
reissue a permit or issue another permit in the place
of a cancelled permit.
He said he did not read that same language in the new section 5.
MR. JACKSON specified that section 5 is a renumbered section 7.
The new section 5 is merely the reassignment of the permits for
the new administrative area and the rest of Cook Inlet. He noted
that nothing will be done with the permits other than assigning
new permits for the new area. Participation in the buyback
program is where permits are cancelled and not reissued. Section
5 is the actual assignment of the permits and that is why the
section will not show permits being canceled.
3:48:20 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Senator Micciche to describe the ultimate
goal of SB 90.
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that the goal is to eliminate 200
permits and the associated fishing operations from the eastern
side of Cook Inlet. That will hopefully lead to greater returns
to the rivers, particularly King Salmon, and leave a more viable
fishery for the remaining operations. He explained that setnet
fishing on the east side of Cook Inlet became very profitable in
the 1980s and that caused people to migrate to that area. The
increased participation has led to conflict. The proposed
removal of 200 permits and associated operations from the east
side will bring the number of permits fishing that area in line
with what it was before the influx in the 1980s.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to address the fiscal impact of the
bill and the buyout amount of each permit.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the buyout amount for each permit
is $260,000. He explained that the amount is based on 10 years
of average income plus tax protection. He said SB 90 has no
fiscal note because the funding will come from sources other
than the state. Some private endowments have mentioned interest
for conservation groups and the federal delegation has been
approached for possible funding from federal programs which
participate in conservation efforts. He summarized that payment
will come from as yet unidentified sources; SB 90 just
establishes the system that allows the buybacks to occur.
3:51:35 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she was struggling with the idea of paying
200 fishermen $260,000 in the buyout and basically eliminating
the competition for the remaining fishermen. She noted that it
was unclear where the funding for the program would come from.
She recalled the considerable opposition voiced during public
testimony and opined that all opposition should be addressed.
She asked what is being done to address the considerable
opposition to the bill.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the legislation goes to a vote by
the impacted permit holders to ultimately decide if they are
interested or not. SB 90 has support in the 80-percent range. A
number of options were considered and this is what the user
groups settled on. He emphasized that pleasing everyone is never
going to happen.
SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection but noted her concern
about the unidentified funding. She said she would not impede
the progress of the but requested the finance members on this
committee to look carefully at the funding sources.
3:54:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI remarked that the buyback has a large price
tag, close to $50 million. He asked Senator Micciche if he
anticipated that the commercial permit buyback would result in
more fish moving up stream or if there would still be an
allocation issue dependent on the Board of Fisheries.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the east side set net area has
440 permits and the buyback will remove 40 percent of the total
in that area. Some of the remaining fishermen will catch
additional fish, but a lot more fish will get into the rivers.
CHAIR BIRCH asked if there were any other objections.
SENATOR GIESSEL objected for purposes of amending the bill.
3:57:49 PM
CHAIR BIRCH found no further objection to the CS and announced
that version R is adopted.
3:58:33 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved Amendment 1.
31-LS0230\R.1
Bullard
4/20/19
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR GIESSEL
TO: CSSB 90( ), Draft Version "R"
Page 6, lines 4 - 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) provide proof satisfactory to the
commission that the individual or an immediate family
member of the individual
(A) has held the entry permit that was
reassigned from the Cook Inlet to the administrative
area established under AS 16.43.200(c) since
January 1, 2009; and
(B) actively participated in the fishery
identified by the Department of Fish and Game as of
January 1, 2019, as statistical areas 244-21, 244-
22, 244-31, 244-32, 244-41, and 244-42 of the Upper
Subdistrict of the Cook Inlet Central District for
at least five of the 10 years preceding December 31,
2019; and"
Page 8, lines 18 - 20:
Delete all material.
Page 8, lines 21 - 22:
Delete all material and insert:
"(l) In this section,
(1) "commission" means the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission established under
AS 16.43.020;
(2) "immediate family member" means
(A) the spouse of an individual;
(B) another individual cohabiting with
an individual in a conjugal relationship that is
not a legal marriage;
(C) a child, including a stepchild and
an adopted child, of an individual;
(D) a parent, sibling, grandparent,
aunt, or uncle of an individual; and
(E) a parent or sibling of an
individual's spouse;
(3) "proof satisfactory" includes a shore
fisheries lease, an area registration, a buoy tag, or
previous submission of fishing statistics for the area."
3:58:41 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR GIESSEL explained that the purpose of Amendment 1 is to
prevent the process from being scammed. She noted that in 2005-
2006 there was a similar buyback in Southeast Alaska where
people who had not been fishing were offering permits for
buyback.
She specified that Amendment 1 will require an individual to
have owned their permit for at least 10 years and have fished it
for at least 5 of those years. She opined that this will prevent
savvy individuals from speculating on potential future buybacks.
CHAIR BIRCH asked Senator Micciche if he was amenable to the
amendment.
4:00:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that he did not support the amendment
because having to own a permit for 10 years would preclude a
huge portion of people that own east side set net permits from
participating in the buyback. He emphasized that which east side
set net permits sell is not the issue. The goal of the bill is
to take 200 permits out of the water and the amendment would
prevent a huge portion of the permit holders from participating,
which would make it less likely that the goal will be attained.
Furthermore, the opportunity to speculate was foreclosed by
eliminating the opportunity to buy a new permit for this area as
of December 31, 2018.
SENATOR MICCICHE emphasized that there is literally no
comparison between the proposed buyback and the one that
occurred in Southeast Alaska. The buyback in Southeast was based
on different values whereas the price for east side set net
permits is set based on 10 years of the average catch, plus tax
protection. The flat, $260,000 number was specifically selected
to keep people from gaming the system, he said. He also
clarified that an individual can own just one permit in a
fishery.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Fate Putman if it was possible to compare
the Cook Inlet and Southeast buybacks.
4:05:21 PM
FATE PUTMAN, Chair/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau,
Alaska, replied that the two buyback programs are distinctly
different. The Southeast buyback is federally funded via a loan
that fishermen pay back through a percentage of their earnings.
He also pointed out that permits in Southeast are valued at
$250,000 while the Cook Inlet permits are currently valued at
$17,000 to $20,000.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the buyback system in Southeast has
been scammed and how that might have happened.
MR. PUTMAN answered that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is doing a good job of managing the
Southeast purse seine fishery and the buyback and he does not
believe the program has been scammed.
SENATOR REINBOLD opined that the amendment from Senator Giessel
sounds reasonable where a person needs to hold their permit for
a certain amount of time as well as defining "immediate family
member". She asked Mr. Putman if he could support the amendment.
MR. PUTMAN answered that passing the amendment is a policy call
for the legislature and he will stay neutral.
4:08:25 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there is an annual cost to renew a
permit regardless of whether the permit is fished.
MR. PUTMAN answered yes; CFEC sets fees based on the value of
the permit and adjustments are made annually. The annual fee is
$75 for the permits that are currently valued at $20,000. In
2018 the value was $18,000.
SENATOR KAWASAKI opined that the amendment sounds like a
practical way to make sure people are not speculating on these
permits. He suggested that the hard date might make more sense
if 10-year tracking was available. This would help ensure that
people are using the fishing permits, not speculating.
4:10:49 PM
MR. PUTMAN said CFEC tracks exactly how much fish each fisherman
is catching. They know there are 440 permits in the upper
subdistrict that's referred to within Cook Inlet's four regions.
CFEC knows that 375 of the 440 permits made landings in 2018;
however, some landings are made by families with more than one
permit but just one member sells the fish. As currently drafted,
the legislation requires either a history of landing fish or
have the DNR permit to fish. Those are the things Senator
Micciche is trying to get out of the fishery.
He noted that 20 years ago the average fisherman made $100,000
in the fishery but the current average is $11,000. CFEC's
responsibility as a commission is to make sure that fishermen in
a fishery make enough money to support their family and an
$11,000 annual income from a permit is not sustainable.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if CFEC has volume data on the fishery.
MR. PUTMAN answered yes.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how many permits sell each year.
MR. PUTMAN said he would follow up with the information.
4:12:36 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL explained that to participate in the buyback the
amendment says the individual must provide, "proof satisfactory
to the commission that the individual or immediate family of the
individual" owns the permit. That proof includes one of the
following: shore fisheries lease, an area registration, a buoy
tag, or a previous submission of fishing statistics for the
area. Those requirements would exclusively prohibit someone who
was fishing the permit with other people, she said.
MR. PUTMAN concurred that one of the four items would qualify a
fisherman to vote in the buyback, to authorize the buyback, and
then to submit their permit for purchase.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that the four items are part of the
amendment as well. The amendment does not prohibit people who
are fishing their permit with other people where someone else is
sent to sell the fish.
MR. PUTMAN concurred.
SENATOR GIESSEL commented that the requirement in the amendment
for a 10-year ownership and at least 5 years actively
participating seems doable.
MR. PUTMAN reiterated that the amendment is a policy call and
CFEC will implement whatever the legislature determines to be
the best course of action.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if he owns a set net permit on the
eastside of Cook Inlet.
MR. PUTMAN answered no. He specified that to serve on the
commission an individual cannot have any involvement with
commercial fishing or commercial processing of fish.
4:15:01 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that a lot of the people she knows
fish but do not make their living from fishing; it is not their
fulltime permanent job.
MR. PUTMAN explained that he brought up the commission's
responsibility to make sure fishermen make enough money in the
fishery because the state constitution was amended in 1972 to
clarify that while there shall be no exclusive right of fishery,
the state can limit a fishery to prevent economic distress among
fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood. When
CFEC sees a situation where there are too many fishermen in a
fishery and none of them are making a living, then CFEC is not
protecting the economics of the fishermen who depend on the
fishery for their livelihood.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she'd like to focus on the amendment.
CHAIR BIRCH asked if he has a sense of how many permit holders
would not qualify to vote or participate, should the amendment
pass.
MR. PUTMAN answered that he would follow up with the
information. He reiterated that 375 of the permit holders
delivered fish and 440 of them have registered in the
subdistrict. Approximately 50 percent of the permit holders have
a DNR land lease.
4:17:29 PM
CHAIR BIRCH asked him to confirm that the permits are tied to a
specific piece of real estate, whether leased or not.
MR. PUTMAN answered yes.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there is a way to get more information
on the 75 leases that did not have to report to find out how
many are completely latent and if a person is just holding on to
the permit for the $75 fee.
MR. PUTMAN answered that the information is confidential but
CFEC knows exactly how much fish an individual fisherman caught.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked him provide the numbers to the committee
so that he can understand whether the 75 permits are being
utilized in some way or held.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that he asked about the volume of permit
sales because there will be very different incentives among the
voters if a significant number of permit holders can't
participate in the buyback. That potentially dooms the program
to failure, he said.
4:19:36 PM
SENATOR BISHOP opined that the bill could pass with or without
the amendment, but there is no guarantee there is ever going to
be any money to see if the legislation is going to be effective
or not.
MR. PUTMAN agreed that the funding source has not been
established for the buyback. He said CFEC has never done a
buyback in the 43 years of the commission, but Cook Inlet is an
area in need of a buyback and CFEC is prepared to do the buyback
if the money is secured.
SENATOR COGHILL offered his understanding that the intent is to
figure out how to get more nets out of the water so that more
fish get to the mouth of the rivers. He asked what other
fisheries will intercept fish before they reach the mouth of the
rivers in this area.
MR. PUTMAN replied that there is a purse seine fishery in the
lower part of the Cook Inlet and a drift gillnet fishery farther
up the Inlet, but most drift area fishermen at the top of the
water column. SB 90 is targeted to save King Salmon, a species
that swims at the bottom of the water column. Set nets are more
likely to catch King Salmon near shore than out in the water
column. There has been a surplus of sockeye in the fishery over
the course of years, but it's the King Salmon that are really
the problem.
4:21:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if limiting net depth is another way to
limit catching King Salmon.
MR. PUTMAN replied that is an issue for the Board of Fisheries.
The board decides on mesh size and the amount of net. The board
also authorizes permit stacking in Cook Inlet where fishermen
can own two permits and fish both at the same time on a single
site. He noted that most stacking provisions sunset, but the
board determined that the stacking provision is permanent in
Cook Inlet.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if any of the 440 permits are stacked.
MR. PUTMAN answered yes.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the buyback would split the stack or if
both permits would be purchased.
MR. PUTMAN offered his understanding then deferred to the
sponsor.
4:23:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE specified that a fisherman can put one or both
permits in for the buyback, individually, but a stacked permit
would not be available for purchase as a package.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if a fisherman who has a stacked permit can
sell one permit and still fish their permit on the eastside.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the permit would have to come
with a body of water, so one permit and that area of water would
go away. The fisherman would have the remaining permit without a
site.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the Kenai sports fishermen have
weighed in regarding SB 90.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that the buyback proposal was put
together and brought forward by the East Side Setnetters and the
Kenai Sportfishing Association as a solution for all user
groups. When the proposal was brought to him, he asked for a
survey of the setnetters and that 80-percent support convinced
him to bring the legislation forward.
CHAIR BIRCH asked the committee to confine their questions to
the amendment. He summarized that the amendment says that an
individual or family member must have the permit for the
preceding 10 years and have fished 5 of the 10 proceeding years.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if the Kenai Sportfishing Association
would support the amendment.
4:26:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE replied that he cannot speak for the Kenai
Sportfishing Association, but he is receiving numerous text
messages from the other organizers that the amendment does not
work. He said he is not sure the questions on the amendment are
being put into context. He pointed out that people speculate on
fishing permits all the time, but there has been no noticeable
increase in speculation on east side permits.
He said he knows that Senator Giessel is concerned about gaming
the system, but the reality is that someone who bought a permit
after December 31, 2018 cannot participate in this program. What
the amendment does is prevent a large percentage of permit
holders from participating in the buyback, whether they've owned
their permit for 2 years or 50 years. It doesn't matter. The
legislation organizers want 200 permits out of the fishery. Not
having the buyback does not solve the problem of not enough fish
in the rivers for the other user groups.
4:29:33 PM
CHAIR BIRCH asked if the 440 permits have 440 discreet pieces of
beach and if a stacked permit applies to two discreet pieces of
beach.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that stacking allows for more gear in
the same piece of property. Even if a fisherman has a stacked
permit, their other permit would not be usable on that site any
longer. The buyback truly does take that piece of real estate
and the set net out of the water. He agreed with Mr. Putman that
a very high proportion of the 440 permits are being fished.
He opined that the east-side fishery is 86-percent Alaska
residents, which is probably the highest of all fisheries in the
state. He said he suspects that the number is probably well over
375 The number of active permit holders will be found to be
higher than the 375 because of other family members that own a
neighboring permit and are delivering on the other person's
permit, which is legal.
SENATOR REINBOLD opined that actually using the permit 5 of 10
years for fishing does matter if the ultimate goal is to get
more fish into the rivers. She emphasized that the people who
are actually fishing are the ones you want out.
4:31:54 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that the "5 of 10 years" part of the
amendment does not work. He pointed out that a person who is
qualified could participate in the buyback for $260,000 and
afterwards buy a permit from someone who did not qualify for the
buyback. He reiterated that the goal is to take 200 operations
out of the water and the amendment dramatically complicates that
if it were to pass. Whatever portion cannot qualify, those
individuals will be a "no" vote. If support is 70:30 now, adding
20-percent "no" votes means there will not be a program and more
fish won't get into the rivers. He emphasized that whether or
not a fisherman purchased within the past 10 years is immaterial
to the program. You're still taking a permit and the associated
piece of land and are closing it to fishing. It truly takes that
gear out of the water, he said.
SENATOR REINBOLD noted that the amendment says active
participation for 5 of the last 10 years and it does not say
anything about buying a permit.
MR. PUTMAN explained that no one can fish commercially unless
they have a permit from CFEC. In the case of drift fishers and
people who have boats, there is a vessel associated with the
permit and they are not allowed to fish unless they have both a
vessel and a permit.
SENATOR REINBOLD said the bottom line is Senator Giessel's
amendment encourages the permit holders that are actively
fishing. She said the amendment makes sense because the permits
must be actively used.
4:34:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE emphasized that the amendment does not do that.
He reiterated that if the permits were owned by December 31,
2018, that operation could potentially be taken out of the
water.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that whether or not the permits are
used matters to her.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she understands the scenario where a 90-
year-old woman has owned a permit and different family members
are fishing it and she wants to sell. That is provided for under
the broad definition of "immediate family member." She specified
that the goal is not to exclude people other than those that
were speculating by buying permits at the last minute with the
thought of cashing in.
4:36:42 PM
SENATOR BISHOP commented that the goal is obviously to take the
gear out of the water, but the lease is gone too. He said he
would be interested in knowing how many people out of 440 are
eligible if the amendment were to pass.
MR. PUTMAN replied that he could provide that data in a few
days.
SENATOR MICCICHE reiterated that his concern is that the time
restriction in the amendment is arbitrary and does not do what
it is designed to do. He said if 20 percent of the permit
holders are not allowed to participate, there will not be a
program because there won't be enough votes to pass.
4:38:21 PM
SENATOR COGHILL opined that the numbers the committee requested
will help members decide. He said the buyback is probably a good
idea, but he does not understand where the money is going to
come from. He asked if the committee could hold action on the
amendment until there is more information.
CHAIR BIRCH replied that he does not have an objection to
Senator Coghill's request. He asked how that would work
procedurally.
SENATOR COGHILL suggested the committee hold the the bill with
the amendment pending in anticipation of receiving the
additional information.
4:40:48 PM
CHAIR BIRCH said he didn't object to the suggestion.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked why the commission allowed so many
permits if it's a limited entry fishery.
MR. PUTMAN explained that initially the limited entry fishery
gave permits to everybody with a fishing history in the Cook
Inlet and Kalgin Island area. Fishermen drifted over to the east
side because space was available, access is easier, and there
are processing facilities. Also, the Kenai and Kasilof rivers
have a high amount of sockeye, which most set net fishermen are
after. The intent of the bill is to segregate the east-side
fishery, limit the number of fishermen, and allow fishermen who
are in other parts of the fishery to continue to fish.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that the fisheries in the Kasilof River
were enhanced through some work by Ted Stevens a few years ago.
He explained that fishing on the western side of Cook Inlet is
difficult because processing is on the east side. When the big
returns come back to the Kenai and Kasilof rivers, delivering
and processing is easier on the east side.
He noted that the concept for the bill has been around for three
years. He said he understood the committee's effort and asked
that members process the pending information and think about a
better number that might do what the maker of the amendment is
looking for but does not kill the program.
SENATOR REINBOLD inquired why permits are permanent. She said
people have asked her why permits are not based on supply and
demand. She asked if taxing fish might be a way to get people to
pull out of the area. She opined that if oil is taxed then other
resources should be taxed as well. She said she wants to get
some of the issues addressed during the committee meeting
resolved before she votes on the final version of the bill.
4:45:25 PM
CHAIR BIRCH held SB 90 in committee with Amendment 1 pending. He
specified that the committee has asked to receive additional
information.
4:46:08 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Birch adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:46 p.m.