HB 310 - UTILIZATION OF GROUNDFISH Number 0555 AMY DAUGHERTY, Legislative Aide to Representative Austerman, stated that HB 310 is straight forward, it removes pollock from the statute and in its place but the word "groundfish" in. Section 3 is amended to include pollock in the definition of groundfish, thereby extending the waste laws on pollock to all groundfish. She explained that it is part of a movement started by federal fisheries management. She referred to a letter in the committee's packet that concerns Amendment 49 to the Fishery Management Plan. It states the need for regulations to govern shore based processors regarding the Improved Retention/Improved Utilization program (IR/IU). The federal regulations are contingent on actions by the state of Alaska. She referred to a statement by the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service that stated they believe Alaska will proceed ahead with the statutory changes in order to apply the IR/IU program to the onshore processors and NMFS is going to implement their regulations accordingly. Number 0632 MS. DAUGHERTY referred to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act's section on bycatch reduction. She explained that it states there should be "conservation and management measures to lower, on an annual basis for a period of not less four years, the total amount of economic discards occurring in the fisheries." She stated that HB 310 is the first step in a mutual effort between state and federal government to minimize the waste that occurs in the fisheries. Number 0673 MS. DAUGHERTY referred the committee to the third page of the federal regulations in their committee packet: "The Council has assumed that the state of Alaska will implement a parallel IR/IU program for shore-based processors. In testimony at the Council meetings, the state indicated its intent to implement parallel IR/IU regulations. Otherwise rejection of deliveries by processors would be the equivalent of discarding". She explained that we are forcing the processors to purchase some of the fish so that it can be utilized, instead of the normal practice of discarding them. MS. DAUGHERTY pointed out that there are also some regulations for pollock in place as there is currently the statutory authority to deal with pollock. She stated that there is the need for statutory authority to deal with Pacific cod and referred to Mr. Bruce to testify on HB 310. Number 0725 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, that he is in support of HB 310. He stated that he would like the committee to keep in mind that this is part of an effort by the managers in the agencies responsible for the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska and inshore waters to reduce the economic discards that are associated with the groundfish fisheries. He stated that it is a level playing field issue; when it was discussed at the council level there was concern expressed and general agreement that the onshore processors and the fishermen fishing inside state waters should abide by the same rules that the offshore harvesters and processors where abiding by. The state agreed to work towards that goal. He continued "And we have already through the existing statute that authorizes us to prevent waste of pollock, taken action, the Board of Fisheries has taken action to put in place exactly the same kind of regulations for pollock that exist in the federal arena." He stated, however, we can't go forward with Pacific cod at this point as far as regulation by processors because the Board of Fisheries lacks the statutory authority to take that action with Pacific cod. House Bill 310 would authorize the board on a case by case basis to specify a groundfish species for inclusion in this IR/IU program. He declared that the reason they have specified groundfish rather than Pacific cod, in addition to pollock, is because this program will evolve over time and the federal program calls for rock sole and yellow fin sole to be added to that list in the year 2003. He clarified that the intention is to move toward the reduction of economic discards in the groundfish fisheries and in all species overtime. House Bill 310 would provide the flexibility for the state to match the federal program as well as for the industry to adapt to it over a phased-in period of time. Number 0855 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked what the concept of including other species of fish in the waste treatment does economically to the fishermen and processors. Number 0882 MR. BRUCE stated that there is certainly an economic cost to the industry for doing this and those issues were discussed extensively in the NPFMC arena. He stated that Mr. Lauber could address the nature of those discussions. He explained that the Department of Fish and Game contacted a group of 22 different representatives from both the fishing groups and processors in the state to involve them in the development of the legislation and regulations. There was near unanimous support for this; their view is that they are willing to undertake the cost to improve conservation and have better utilization of the resource. He continued that the cost to some operators is not going to be that significant because they have the ability through meal plants to deal with fish that have been discarded in the past. Others will have to modify their operations to do this. He stated that with the exemption of one group there is support for going forward with HB 310. He declared that there is a cost issue but one that the industry is willing to bear and it is not an obstacle that can not be over come. Number 0959 RICK LAUBER, Representative, Pacific Seafood Processors Association; and Chairman, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, stated that members support HB 310. He stated that it is necessary in order to be in legal compliance. He continued that a vast majority of inshore operators have been in compliance with this bill for many years. He ascertained that it has been very helpful because without the pollock bill regarding full utilization, there would have been a great difficulty to convince factory trawlers to stop roe stripping. He stated that they would take the roe and discard the carcasses in the Bering Sea. He stated that they have successfully passed, through the council and the Secretary of Commerce, a ban on roe stripping of pollock. He stated that in order to have comparable regulations on shore as the council has imposed offshore for improved retention and utilization, it has become possible to implement requirements for at sea processors to retain all of their pollock. He stated that as mentioned by Mr. Bruce by the year 2003 it would be expanded to other fisheries. He believed it was the state's intention to do this now so that in the year 2003 there would not need to be another amendment. He added that it is not a major problem for most of the onshore processors as they are already in compliance. Number 1150 CHRIS BLACKBURN, testified via teleconference from Kodiak that Jeff Stephan, who could not testify, and herself both support HB 310, as it is important to stop waste. She stated that we are in the year of the ocean, and in a time when people are concerned about the care of the ocean. She explained that not only is HB 310 a way to make the fish come onshore, it is a great incentive for fisherman to avoid small fish. She is already seeing larger mesh sizes and other changes in fishing practices to avoid bycatch. She hoped that the state will take the advice of Mr. Lauber and pass the bill to be in compliance with the federal standards at the state level, as it would be terrible to see Alaska have less conservation than the federal government. Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HB 310 with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal notes. Number 1252 CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if there was an objection, hearing none, HB 310 was moved out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.