HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 21, 1999 1:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair Representative John Harris Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Reggie Joule Representative Mary Kapsner MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative Carl Morgan OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Alan Austerman COMMITTEE CALENDAR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Board of Fisheries Virgil L. Umphenour - North Pole Grant J. Miller - Sitka Dan K. Coffey - Anchorage - CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED HOUSE BILL NO. 116 "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 104 "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 116 SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Harris Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/26/99 324 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/26/99 324 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS 4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 104 SHORT TITLE: ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Austerman Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/19/99 260 (H) FSH, RES 3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 3/08/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 104(FSH) 3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP 3/10/99 408 (H) DP: KAPSNER, MORGAN, WHITAKER, HUDSON 3/10/99 408 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 3/10/99 408 (H) REFERRED TO RES 4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD 4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries 878 Lynnwood Way North Pole, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 456-3885 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of Fisheries. GRANT MILLER, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries P.O. Box 6097 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Telephone: (907) 747-7870 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of Fisheries. DAN COFFEY, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries 207 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 274-3385 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of Fisheries. SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director Cordova District Fishermen United P.O. Box 939 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-3447 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about imbalance on Board of Fisheries and spoke in opposition to Mr. Umphenour's reappointment. RUSSELL NELSON P.O. Box 161 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-2370 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. DALE BONDURANT 31864 Moonshine Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-0818 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. ROY ASHENFELTER P.O. Box 1969 Nome, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-5730 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Kawerak, Incorporated, in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour to the Board of Fisheries; testified on own behalf in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour and Mr. Coffey but was neutral on Mr. Miller's. JERRY McCUNE 211 Fourth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2820 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Copper River fisherman that Mr. Umphenour is biased, Mr. Coffey has done a great job, and Mr. Miller is organized and represents commercial fishing interests on the Board of Fisheries; requested one more person on the board who understands mixed-stock fisheries. TERRY HOEFFERLE Bristol Bay Native Association P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone: (907) 842-5257 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Bristol Bay Native Association in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. REUBEN HANKE P.O. Box 624 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-5097 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. JOE HANES P.O. Box 3132 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-6388 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. ANDY SZCZESWY 198 Hillcrest Avenue Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-9439 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour, Mr. Miller and Mr. Coffey to the Board of Fisheries. BARBARA CADIENTE NELSON 1625 Fritz Cove Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-3448 POSITION STATEMENT: During confirmation hearings, testified that she would like to see two more commercial representatives on the Board of Fisheries. JIM ELLISON P.O. Box 55590 North Pole, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 488-3569 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 116. ROBERT WELLS, Director Division of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources 1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 745-7200 POSITION STATEMENT: Informed members that he will work on HB 116 during the interim with Representative James, sponsor, and Co-Chairman Ogan. DICK ZOBEL P.O. Box 872683 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-5640 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116. BOB FRANKLIN, State President Alaska Farm Bureau P.O. Box 75184 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Telephone: (907) 488-7738 POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that HB 116 be pushed through legislature. REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 116. BRENNON EAGLE P.O. Box 576 Wrangell, Alaska 99929 Telephone: (907) 874-2162 POSITION STATEMENT: Urged passage of HB 104. RAY CAMPBELL P.O. Box 23219 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 247-3626 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 104. LIZ CABRERA, Researcher for Representative Bill Hudson and Committee Aide, House Special Committee on Fisheries Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 108 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-6890 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained synopsis of changes in CSHB 104(FSH). MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Alaska Department of Fish and Game 8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109 Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079 Telephone: (907) 789-6160 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 104. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 99-27, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Ogan, Sanders, Harris and Whitaker. Representative Barnes arrived shortly after the call to order, and Representatives Joule and Kapsner arrived at 1:14 p.m. and approximately 2:30 p.m., respectively. Representatives Masek and Morgan were excused. CONFIRMATION HEARINGS Board of Fisheries CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would consider three appointees to the Board of Fisheries. After all had testified and answered members' questions, the committee would hear public testimony on all three. [Committee packets contained a resume from each appointee, plus documents in support and in opposition, in varying combinations.] Number 0167 VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. A board member for five years, he believes there is a lot of work to be done, he said, and that the board has made a lot of improvements in the last couple of years. He would like to continue to be part of the process. CO-CHAIR OGAN invited Representative Austerman to join committee members at the table. Number 0287 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that the only negative comments he had heard were regarding Mr. Umphenour, although he had never met him. He referred to a memorandum in the packet from Bob Martinson, dated April 20, 1999, which said Mr. Umphenour's cussing and false statements in front of the public put the board into executive session, and that he clearly has a conflict of interest in dealing with matters of concern to Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation (PWSAC) and/or matters relating to the Copper River fishery. Representative Harris noted that those entities are in his district, and he asked Mr. Umphenour to respond. Number 0453 MR. UMPHENOUR replied that he doesn't know anything about cussing in public, or causing the board to go into executive session. Nor has he ever knowingly made a false statement. He said he tries to have his facts straight, so that what he says is true and correct, and it is hard to address such a general allegation without knowing what incident was being referenced. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he doesn't know the specific incidents, either, and is just going on information given to him. Number 0568 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed members that he'd also received several complaints regarding Mr. Umphenour, although his own relationship with him has been excellent in Mr. Umphenour's years on the board. The complaints alleged the inability to look at the overall fisheries in Alaska, particularly the ground fisheries, and that he had made some brash statements regarding their ability to do clean fishing, for example. Representative Austerman asked Mr. Umphenour to state his position on Alaska's ground fisheries. MR. UMPHENOUR responded: You've obviously been talking to hard-on-bottom trawlers. I don't like hard-on-bottom trawling, because it's not a very responsible means of harvest. If you talk to Duncan Fields, that represents the villages in Kodiak, you'll find that I've been very supportive of their concerns, as well as the concerns of the smaller vessel groundfish fishermen in the Area M and the Chignik districts. And I've done everything I can to ensure ... that the fisheries don't become overcapitalized, and give the small vessel - which are primarily Alaska resident fishermen - fair opportunity to harvest the allowable catch, rather than the big trawlers coming in and scooping up the catch, and, in the process, having unknown amounts of bycatch, and unknown damage to the habitat of the crabs, primarily the Bairdi and the king crab in the Kodiak area. I think that pot fishing and jig fishing is a much more responsible method of harvest, and it gives people - the smaller-vessel fishermen, such as in all the villages around Kodiak, and many of the residents in Kodiak city, as well as Chignik, Sand Point and King Cove - a much better opportunity to participate in the harvest of that resource, in a much more responsible manner. Number 0814 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether Mr. Umphenour had no problem with trawl fisheries, then, other than hard-on-bottom draggers. MR. UMPHENOUR replied: Trawl fisheries have their place. However, I don't think hard-on-bottom trawling has its place anywhere, Representative Austerman. I reviewed all the information that's available to the board, and to the council, and I just can't see hard-on-bottom trawling as being a responsible means of harvest. I have a friend that's a skipper for Tyson on one of the very large factory trawlers that's operated off Kodiak waters, and he told me until we eliminate hard-on-bottom trawling, the crabs will never come back in Kodiak waters. Number 0868 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the information Representative Harris had discussed came in a letter referencing the 1996 board cycle meeting in Cordova. MR. UMPHENOUR explained: The people in PWSAC don't like me, and there's a good reason for it. PWSAC owes the state of Alaska in excess of $28 million. Currently, the [division] of investments has extended their loan with no interest. ... PWSAC I don't feel has operated in a responsible manner when it comes to the production of chum and pink salmon. As high as 97 percent of the harvest - and this was in 1996 - of chum salmon harvested in Prince William Sound was hatchery-produced. I feel ... that it's irresponsible to mass-produce salmon from hatcheries to the detriment of the wild stocks, because the board is mandated, by the constitution of the state and by the legislature, to manage salmon resources in such a manner that the wild stocks take priority over the enhanced or the hatchery-produced stocks. ... Number 1043 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Umphenour to comment further on the accusation that his cussing and false statements had put the board into executive session. MR. UMPHENOUR replied that to the best of his memory, the board didn't enter into executive session during the meeting of December 1996, which was in Cordova. He added: I do know that some of the driftnet fishermen that fish inside the barrier islands of the Copper River - and the water is two-to-ten-feet deep, and they're using drift gillnets that are 29-feet deep, and they're using them in a manner ... that you would use a beach seine, and they are seining the king salmon out - that they are causing a problem with genetic diversity of the king salmon stocks in the Copper River, because they kill between 95 and 100 percent of the king salmon present in the district when they do that. And knowing that king salmon, whenever they are getting accustomed to the change from salt water to fresh water, that they spend seven days to two weeks milling in and out of the mouth of the river, ... I don't think that's a responsible way to fish. And because I was one of the people that caused that fishery to be restrictive a little bit, to allow king salmon to get up the river unmolested, then some of the commercial fishermen that are involved in that practice - and actually do not like me, because they consider me a threat, because they don't like responsible fish management - they would like to be able to kill every last fish, and they don't care if the sport fishermen and the personal use fishermen and the subsistence fishermen get restricted upriver, as long as they can catch all they can catch at the mouth of the river first. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were further questions from the committee. He then called upon Grant Miller. Number 1259 GRANT MILLER, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via teleconference from Sitka. He said he believes this board has done a commendable job. He appreciates having been part of this team for the last three years and would like to continue. Noting his involvement in the sustainable fisheries committee since its formation, he concluded, "I would like to see that project through to completion, and with the development of a sustainable fisheries policy for the state." Number 1322 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked why Mr. Miller volunteers for this. MR. MILLER responded: Well, I think that the makeup of this board has been such that ... it's been a little bit inspiring to tackle some of these issues and challenges. I appreciate working with these guys, and I realize, too, that ... if the three of us did not continue, I think that some of the things that were left on the table - such as sustainable fisheries - would have to be picked up by people new to this board. It would put a greater burden on Dr. White, who has been, also, a part of the sustainable fisheries committee since the beginning. And for those reasons, I think, I chose to go ... another term. Certainly there's times when I wish I wasn't a part of this process, but I think that more often than not, when I walk away from a meeting cycle in one of the communities, I feel pretty good about what's been done. So, until that changes, I think that I still look ... towards these meetings in a positive way. Number 1409 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired about Mr. Miller's involvement and expertise in fisheries in Alaska. MR. MILLER replied that he started fishing 31 years ago. On the East Coast, he used fish traps, then fished on hard-on-bottom draggers, scallopers, and did some gillnetting for mackerel. He moved to the West Coast, where he began trolling and seined for anchovies for bait. He trolled for salmon first in California and then in Alaska, where he moved in 1977. He believes it was in 1980 that he began gillnetting for herring. He then diversified, longlining for halibut and getting into the herring bait business. Mr. Miller informed members that he has also used his Merchant Marine license to operate tenders and processors, and to run those boats back and forth between Dutch Harbor and Seattle, for example. Number 1524 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked how Mr. Miller feels about the compatibility of sport fishing and commercial fishing. Commenting that it seems Mr. Umphenour is fairly opposed to the hatchery system in the state, he also asked how Mr. Miller feels about that. MR. MILLER replied that he thinks there is a potential for compatibility, and it has been demonstrated. He stated: But I think that ... that compatibility is going to be at risk if we don't get a handle on the growth of the sport industry. You can't take a ... fully allocated resource and continue to have one user group continue to expand, and expect that the resource, or the others that are using that resource, are going to continue to exist harmoniously. It's not going to work that way. We're going to have to either get a moratorium ... on charters, or some kind of ... annual limit on sport anglers, some way to have a little bit of restriction of growth in the sport industry, if they're going to remain compatible on into the future. In terms of the hatchery, I believe that, of course, each hatchery ... has developed over time and gone in different directions and, depending on where they are, have had different challenges. Some ... have handled the mitigation of wild stock impacts quite well. ... Others may not have, or ... circumstances may have changed, ... where perhaps their production now conflicts with wild stock. But ... I think it's always been the intent of any hatchery within the state ... to not produce fish in an area where wild stocks are impacted. ... I also believe that, due to circumstances, oftentimes beyond the control the hatcheries, the economics of the state have been such that they've gotten into debt, and, ... in their attempts to get out of debt, produced more fish. Of course, that created [a] downward spiral, in terms of the value received for those fish, so that more had to be produced, and they got further into debt. Somehow or other, we need ... to deal with that debt situation. And I think we talked to someone from the state not too long ago, who said that they had ... redone all of those debts, and every one that was out there now, they felt that they were going to be able to repay. ... Those are some of the worst-case scenarios. We still have others, such as NSRAA [Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association], who have paid their debt back ... to the state and are operating in a ... much more fortunate situation. And possibly they should be an example to some of the others, if at all possible. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Article VIII, Section 3, of the constitution, regarding common use. She stated her belief that most Alaskan sport fishermen use the fish they catch to fill their freezers and to feed their families, although there is a commercial sport fish business. She stated, "I don't disagree with controlling the commercial sports fish business, or any other, as long as we maintain the sustained yield principle." She asked how Mr. Miller can say that one user group should be controlled more than the other. She further asked whether there isn't an obligation to control commercial catch, as well. MR. MILLER responded: I believe in almost all the situations, the commercial industry already has ... its limitations, either restrictions in numbers of permits, or quotas. They're the only group that ... their growth has been stopped. Perhaps their ability to catch may have increased somewhat, just due to technology. But as a user group in general, more people that come up here to use, to utilize, this resource, as a sport fisherman, ... there is no way to stop that. And when you have an already-allocated resource, then that comes from someone else. The commercial fishermen ... catch a lot of fish, but those fishermen produce fish for the people who cannot afford to come to Alaska and catch fish, or people who do not live here, or who live here and cannot afford to go out and catch fish to put in their freezers to eat. The commercial fishermen provide fish for all those others consumers. And I believe this as to be access to the common property. Number 1859 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES agreed that happens, at a price. She believes seasons and bag limits are now imposed on all the fisheries, she said. If not, she asked that Mr. Miller tell her where that is. MR. MILLER responded that he doesn't believe there are annual limits, as such, in every area. This allocation issue comes before the board because of increased usage - more and more people are trying to get more and more of the product. Every time that happens, they must reallocate away from one user group to another expanding user group, and that is his concern. Number 1931 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that there were problems on the Kenai River before. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were other questions from the committee, then called upon Dan Coffey. Number 1993 DAN COFFEY, Appointee to the Board of Fisheries, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he has been on the board with the other two appointees for more than three years. A lot of work done regarding Alaska's fisheries needs to continue, he said, and three areas will take a lot of board work in the next three years: sustainable fisheries; a board process that has evolved to the point where the board is now able to handle the volume of work which it has; and substantial issues related to the federal takeover of subsistence fisheries. MR. COFFEY mentioned the board's diversity, then stated, "Mr. Miller and I don't agree on all issues, but Mr. Miller is a thoughtful spokesman for his position. And I listen to him and find wisdom in some of the things he says, and I believe he finds it in some of the things I say. And the same with Mr. Umphenour. What I've found ... over the past three years is that this diversity of opinion ... has been a benefit. And what I find most helpful is the willingness to listen, and the willingness to work together." MR. COFFEY noted the board's long hours, for concentrated periods of time. He believes his organizational ability is helpful to members in having a successful process. "Although there's many who disagree with our decisions, we do take the process through to the conclusion, ... with what I hope to be sound and reasoned regulatory decisions," he said, indicating a desire to continue because there is still work to be done, to preserve this method of doing business. He believes the process is valuable. It permits tremendous public participation, as the people in the fisheries get to participate in the regulation of these fisheries, and their interests get heard, balanced and tested against one another. MR. COFFEY concluded, "Myself and these other gentlemen that I work with are of the same mind. And so, we wanted to come forward as a collective, so to speak, because we each bring some diversity and some different ways of looking at things to this process, but we all are committed to an open and public process that leads to good regulatory results. So, I would hope that I would have the opportunity to finish that work with Dr. White and Mr. Umphenour and Mr. Miller and others." Number 2178 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER suggested that the other appointees could be categorized, one as being in favor or more sport-oriented and subsistence-oriented fishing, and the other as being in favor of more commercially oriented fishing. He asked how Mr. Coffey would classify himself regarding those two categories. MR. COFFEY replied that his background is mixed, and he was a commercial fisherman before going to law school. He expounded: What I try to do is bring a perspective to the fishery, rather than just a mind set going in. In some areas - many, many areas of our state - the commercial fishery interests predominate. There is little or no sport fishery. In other areas, the subsistence fisheries predominate. In Southeast and in Southcentral here, where I'm from, in Anchorage, there's huge conflicts between sport and commercial. Generally -- and my sense there is the problems come because the sport fisheries have increased in participation, because more people are engaged in them, and because businesses have arisen out of those. And so, you have allocation fights, and you have to balance the competing interests between the two. ... The end result is ... that frequently the commercial fisheries, because ... they've harvested the bulk of the resource over time, they're the ones who must surrender a portion of that resource. I don't find that to be improper or inappropriate. ... In Cook Inlet, I have a friend who's a processor, and he told me 20 years ago the drift fleet had wooden boats, 100-horse-power engines, and if they brought in 2,000 pounds of fish, they considered it a great day. He said now they've got high-powered boats, they have their own air force, although we took that away from them this year, ... and they expect to harvest two million pounds. So, their technological abilities have grown tremendously, and their ability to harvest fish has grown tremendously. And, at the same time, the department, through its conservation efforts, has increased the catches tremendously, particularly in Cook Inlet, so that I have no problem in that particular fishery saying, "Wait a minute, this is where the people - a large number of people - live, and we ought to afford those large number of people the opportunity to harvest fish for their table, be they personal use fishermen or sports fishermen." So, in Cook Inlet, I'm more concerned with the sport fishery than I am with the commercial fishery. And I think that says it as best I can, sir. Number 2341 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if there were further questions, then opened public testimony on all three appointees. Number 2402 SUE ASPELUND, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), testified via teleconference from Cordova, informing members that CDFU is composed of Prince William Sound and Copper River families dependent upon commercial fisheries. She said the United Salmon Association (ph) of Prince William Sound had asked that the following comments be accepted as representative of their position, as well. She stated: These appointments are by far the most critical issue facing the small, independent fishing families who comprise Alaska's second-largest income-producing industry. The Board of Fisheries' actions and decisions affect our daily lives and ... currently have an enormous impact on our abilities to sustain both our resources and our livelihoods. As we discuss the many issues that surround the Board of Fisheries and its function, one of the greatest concerns to emerge is the composition of the board, an issue that you have the opportunity to address through your confirmation process. We felt it appropriate to define the [criteria] required of any member, and these are as follows: It is imperative that informed, competent and fair-minded individuals be appointed. The successful appointee must be knowledgeable of, committed to, and have respect for the public processes established at statehood for regulating Alaska's fisheries resources. A clear understanding of the board's regulatory and statutory authorities is requisite. The qualified appointee must be an unbiased decision maker, willing and able to fact-find to make the best decision possible, based upon available information. And an appointee, at the very least, should maintain respect for those people represented by the process. It is our belief that the current board is imbalanced. Most of the decisions made by the board are nuts-and-bolts regulations governing the orderly prosecution of the commercial fisheries, decisions that affect commercial harvesters of the resource most intimately, yet only one person out of seven currently serving on the board has extensive experience as a commercial fisherman - Grant Miller. The issues facing the state's largest private-sector employer are diverse: competing demands on an already fully utilized resource, global market concerns, quality, cuts to resource management budgets, interactions between a variety of jurisdictional authorities, fisheries failure, the pending federal subsistence takeover and more. These concerns demand the knowledge, skills and abilities that come from a broader scope of experience than currently exists on the board. We are strongly opposed to the reappointment of Virgil Umphenour to the board. We've not seen the criteria above demonstrated by Mr. Umphenour during his tenure on the board. CDFU is certain that after thoughtful application of the guidelines detailed here, you will come to the conclusion that the Board of Fisheries process, and Alaska's fisheries resource users, would benefit from a change in membership. Mr. Umphenour has just provided you with a perfect example of why CDFU cannot support his confirmation, when he made inaccurate and negative assertions regarding the beliefs and opinions of Copper River fishermen, in the response to questioning during this session. Number 2571 RUSSELL NELSON testified via teleconference from Dillingham in support of all three appointees. He stated: I found Mr. Virgil Umphenour to be an honest, knowledgeable and hard-working member of the Board of Fisheries. I'd like to support for Mr. Umphenour, as I've learned a lot working with him. I don't recall him ever cussing during a meeting, and the board of fish has never gone into an executive session, for any reason, while I've been on the Board of Fisheries. Mr. Umphenour's a great advocate of conservation of ... fish stocks, in all areas of the state of Alaska, and I hope you will support Mr. Umphenour in his bid for reconfirmation. Mr. Grant Miller has a wealth of knowledge in the area of commercial fishing, which I've drawn off of considerably in this last year. Mr. Miller works well with the Board of Fisheries, and I'd like to give him my support in his bid for reconfirmation. Mr. Dan Coffey brings to the Board of Fisheries his background as a lawyer. This I have found to be of great value while making regulations and working with other issues on the Board of Fisheries. It would be hard to find a replacement for Mr. Coffey ... in organization and in the writing of regulations. I would like to support Mr. Coffey in his bid for reconfirmation. Number 2642 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated: I support the reappointment of all three members. I have not agreed with any of the board members all the time, but I do agree with what the board tried to accomplish in the recent meeting in Soldotna. It is the first time which they did move in support of the need to manage all discrete stocks on a sustained yield basis, and not a continuation of maximum harvest of the largest stocks. This has been a major failure, especially in the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries. In the past years, I observed that the boards were always weighted in favor of commercial fishing, even when the boards were combined as a fish and game board. It was time for the board to be more fairly divided, to represent all public interest. I believe the present board is more representative of the general public interest. I think all the men are sincere and really work hard on this. Number 2786 ROY ASHENFELTER testified via teleconference from Nome. He first spoke on behalf of Kawerak, Incorporated, in favor of reappointment of Mr. Umphenour. He then said he would stay neutral on Mr. Miller's reappointment, but wants to show personal support for reappointment of Mr. Umphenour and Mr. Coffey. He said Mr. Umphenour brings to the board a very candid and up-front point of view; he supports the Western fisheries; and he has shown support for subsistence fisheries, which is important for the Nome region. Mr. Ashenfelter expressed belief that Mr. Coffey, whom he has watched over the last years, has done a very good job in organization. He concluded by indicating that all three appointees have done a good job of following the laws applicable to the board. CO-CHAIR OGAN called on Mr. Reid in Cordova but was informed that Mr. Reid had stepped out and planned to return. Number 2864 JERRY McCUNE came forward on his own behalf as a Copper River fisherman. He had heard some disturbing things that aren't true from Mr. Umphenour, he said, then acknowledged how tough the job of board member is. Mr. McCune told members the Copper River's small run is protected by the commercial fishermen, who depend on it heavily; they have sat out many days to ensure that the run is sustainable. Furthermore, a drift gillnet cannot stay in those small tributaries, as the water runs out fast in minus tides. Nor does he believe the king salmon are a problem. Mr. McCune stated, "We finally proved that after we got some money from sport fish and the [commercial] fish division to do the ... index studies on king salmon." He said there was record escapement of kings last year. There have been record king runs the last three years, and he believes the managers are very good managers. TAPE 99-27, SIDE B [Numbers run backwards because of tape machine] MR. McCUNE recalled that 40 years ago there were only 800,000 fish, whereas now the escapement goal is 650,000 "to accommodate all the other users." He believes PWSAC has done an excellent job for commercial, sport and subsistence users. He explained, "We run a hatchery, egg boxes, on the Copper River, that produces about 300,000 reds, which all users have access to, and the fishermen pay for. Now, we do have a small chum run, that we started years ago. It started with the earliest chums in the sound, so it would not conflict with any wild stocks. And that is fished by the drift gillnetters ... in June, because that's why we picked that stock. And if you want to know the truth about this whole thing, this all started with this chum roe, because Mr. Umphenour does sell chum roe, (indisc.) chum roe. ... I will stand by any statement that some of the statements Mr. Umphenour has made [have] been very inflammatory towards the Copper River fishermen and PWSAC, very biased." MR. McCUNE said he believes Mr. Coffey has done a great job, is very organized, and knows his issues when he comes there. Mr. Miller, a commercial fisherman, is also really organized, he said. Mr. McCune expressed appreciation for the board and suggested the system works well. However, he believes the industry is trying to say there should be one more person on the board, for a total of two, who could make sense of these mixed-stock fisheries. Although the other six members may have had past fishing experience, they are not full-time fishermen and don't understand some of these fisheries. Number 2829 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had never heard the commercial fishermen beg the legislature for additional representation on the board, because it was always dominated by them at others' expense. MR. McCUNE agreed that the board was dominated by commercial fishermen for a time. He restated his request for another person experienced with commercial fishing who understands the mixed-stock fisheries. Number 2733 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the Kenai Peninsula Borough resolution in committee packets, which opposed the confirmation of all three appointees and suggested the appointment of two commercial fishermen "who have knowledge in large fisheries such as Cook Inlet, and that one of the appointees be a Cook Inlet commercial fisherman." She stated, "We all know that what 90 percent of this about is ... trying to make some fairness out of what has gone on in the Kenai for all these years." She asked whether Mr. McCune agreed. MR. McCUNE replied, "I think that they balanced the things in the Cook Inlet meeting, and that meeting is over, and they made some shifts." He said there has been a fundamental shift towards accommodating sport fishing and personal use, and he has no problem with that. He added that some of this is probably about personalities, and some is about how people perceived these tough issues. He then restated that he believes the industry would like another representative, as it has flip-flopped the other way from when the board had a commercial domination. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the only member she can specifically identify as being possibly connected to sports fishing is Dan Coffey. She believes that all the others, in some way or other, have had ties to commercial fishing. "And even him," she concluded, referring to Mr. Coffey. CO-CHAIR OGAN called upon Bill Reid but was informed that Mr. Reid had had to leave. Number 2583 TERRY HOEFFERLE, Bristol Bay Native Association, testified via teleconference from Dillingham, voicing the association's support for the reappointment of all three nominees. He said this particular Board of Fisheries has made an excellent start in the task that they have taken upon themselves, then added, "This is the most solid board of fish, I think, that I've seen in years of observing." He pointed out that each of these members is intelligent, fair, and contributes in his own way to the board's deliberative process. "Please reappoint them all," he concluded. Number 2523 REUBEN HANKE testified via teleconference from Kenai, specifying that he supports the reconfirmation of all three appointees. He said he had traveled to several meetings over the years, and nearly all the ones on the list this year. "I've seen these guys work together," he stated. "They do a fantastic job, and they've made great strides in improving and working toward better fisheries throughout the state of Alaska. So, I would be in favor of all three people - that's Virgil Umphenour, Grant Miller and Dan Coffey - and I urge you to reappoint." Number 2489 JOE HANES testified via teleconference from Soldotna, indicating he has been in involved in a fishery and guided there for over 20 years. He traveled to, he believes, every Board of Fisheries meeting this past fall. Mr. Hanes urged reappointment of all three members. Although he has opposed all three on some points in the past, overall he finds them to be very productive, thoughtful and, above all, caring for the resource. He suggested that much of the opposition comes from the tough decisions that they make, pointing out that in the past, not only in Alaska but in other fisheries, there have been people unwilling to make tough decisions, resulting in having no fish left. Mr. Hanes pointed out that in many cases the opposition comes from people who want to catch fish now and not worry about tomorrow. "And this board I've found to make very difficult decisions for the preservation of all fisheries for the future," he concluded. Number 2398 ANDY SZCZESWY testified via teleconference from Kenai, stating that he favors reappointment of all three members. In five years of participating in Board of Fisheries meetings, he has never seen a group of individuals work so well together. "I don't agree with everything that they do, but I think they do the best job that they can," he added. Number 2348 BARBARA CADIENTE NELSON came forward. A lifelong resident of Juneau, she told members she has been married almost 30 years to a commercial fisherman. They have four children and three grandchildren, for whom they have provided solely through income from commercial fishing. She said she was there on behalf of her father-in-law, Norville Olie Nelson, Sr. (ph) on the F/V Christian; Norville Nelson, Jr. (ph), her husband, on the F/V Star of the Sea; and her son, Norville E. Nelson III (ph), on the F/V Aleut Princess. Ms. Nelson indicated she had testified before the Board of Fisheries three times in the last nine years regarding king crab fisheries. While she had found them to be very hard-working individuals, she had felt at somewhat of a disadvantage in not having fair representation among the board members. MS. NELSON said she is in full support of Mr. McCune's comments, with one exception: She would like to see two more commercial fishermen added to this board. She reminded the committee of the recent economic summit, saying she got out of it that the legislature, and the state in general, need to be more knowledgeable of how the private businessman does business in the state, "and how we are major contributors to the state's economy." She stated, "Our vessels alone employ 12 other fishermen, and you multiply that by the number of their households, we affect many lives, and we are major contributors in our community, and in Southeast Alaska." MS. NELSON expressed the belief that their limited entry permits are personal property, suggesting that the Board of Fisheries, then, is their due process of law in seeing their property rights upheld or taken away. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the board be composed of a fair number of fishermen who can relate to their concerns, she said. "We not only have to deal with Mother Nature and all the other impacts of our risky business," she told members, "we have to deal with politics, and state and federal regulations that limit our ability to feed and clothe our families." MS. NELSON pointed out that her father-in-law was a commercial fisherman before Alaska even became a state. She told members, "It's amazing, and myself and my husband being indigenous people of Alaska, that we've even survived many of the impacts that have negatively affected our businesses. We're still here, and we're still hanging on. So, I look to the Board of Fisheries to be a fair and reasonable compromise of men and women who can address our concerns and represent our concerns when issues come before them." MS. NELSON concluded, "I came in here not knowing whether or not I would be in support of Mr. Coffey or Mr. Umphenour. I'd met them. I've found them to be hard-working. All that set aside, I still believe that we, as commercial fishermen, are not getting fair representation among the compromise of the makeup now of the Board of Fisheries." Number 2146 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then closed testimony. Number 2072 CO-CHAIR SANDERS made a motion to move the nominations of Virgil Umphenour, Grant Miller and Dan Coffey to the Board of Fisheries out of committee. There being no objection, the confirmations were advanced for all three appointees. HB 116 - BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the committee would hear testimony on House Bill No. 116, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an effective date." [Adopted as a work draft at the previous hearing had been version 1-LS0407\N, Cook, 4/8/99. However, members had been provided with a new proposed committee substitute, version 1-LS0407\S.] Number 2051 JIM ELLISON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that he farms, raises stock and fowl, and publishes the Alaska Farming Magazine. He has observed Alaska agriculture for more than 30 years, he said. Although it has had ups and downs, today it is a $53 million business. Although some say it holds the key to Alaska's future, it also can be damaged by political decisions. He finds that HB 116 helps to "plug that failure," and he fully supports it. "I cannot understand anybody that ever studied any of the history of agriculture in this state that would be against it," he concluded, suggesting that HB 116 will help the farmer, the consumer and Alaska's political future. Number 1974 CO-CHAIR OGAN turned over the gavel to Co-Chair Sanders and left briefly. Number 1947 ROBERT WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, spoke briefly via teleconference from the Mat-Su Legislative Information Office (LIO). Noting his availability to answer questions, he announced that he had committed to work on this bill during the interim with Representative James, sponsor, and Co-Chairman Ogan. Number 1903 DICK ZOBEL testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. He agreed somewhat with Mr. Ellison, in that much in HB 116 is beneficial to agriculture in Alaska. He himself has farmed in Alaska for 20 years, he said, and although he now works in the woods, he believes forestry to be an agricultural pursuit. Mr. Zobel reiterated his concern, voiced at the previous hearing, regarding inclusion of a soil and water conservation board in this bill. He said it is obvious, from the testimony of people in favor of HB 116, that this is a "production-agricultural bill," not a "soil and water conservation bill." He believes it totally ignores some founding principles "that most of us in the soil and water conservation movement are involved in." MR. ZOBEL referred to another's testimony about how the various board members would be from agriculture-producing areas of the state. He called to members' attention that the current statute, in particular, AS 41.10.65, "went out of its way to make sure that those areas of the state that are not primarily involved in agriculture do also have conservation issues." Thus, he said, there is membership from Southeast Alaska and Western Alaska, as well as from the prime agricultural areas. He told members: I think the statement that none of the local conservation districts would be affected by this bill further clarifies that somebody's missing the boat. The state natural resource conservation and development board is a local conservation district; it is the largest one in the state. And if you eliminate it, you eliminate a district from the state. And I think the authors of this bill, or the proponents of the bill, fail to recognize the unique relationship between the state board, the natural resource department, and the local districts. This unique relationship goes on and involves several federal agencies, through the districts and through that natural resource conservation board, which is also a district. ... The bottom line is that this board ignores that natural resource conservation board participation in being a local district. The state association of conservation districts [and] the natural resource conservation development board recommended that ... all the conservation references in this bill be deleted. We don't think this bill addresses those conservation issues, and, most certainly, two people from a conservation board could not do the ... current job that it is being done by five. ... An inclusion of 41.10 in this current bill - vague as it is, spotted as it is throughout the bill - simply does not address what the conservation districts have always done. Conservation districts have always strove to provide, through our relationship with several other federal and state agencies, a service to Alaska private land owners. We also provide those services to city, borough and state government. And this inclusion in this bill would not do a thing to either enhance -- and it is my personal opinion it would decrease the services that we would offer Alaskans. CO-CHAIR SANDERS turned the gavel back over to Co-Chair Ogan. Number 1616 BOB FRANKLIN, State President, Alaska Farm Bureau, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying it seems there is some opposition from other areas of the state, outside of the agricultural community; however, those concerns cannot be addressed unless it is known what they are. He sees this legislation as an advancement to the agricultural community. MR. FRANKLIN stated, "Now, the soil/water conservation district, or the board, definitely has some valid points in their representation. I think it remains to be seen whether it's sufficient or insufficient, because I don't think there's any basic understanding ... of what that board really, actually, does, and how it's really financed ...." He suggested that HB 116 needs to be pushed through, as it can provide the industry continuity and stability. He referred to SB 136 [which Representative James later said she believed to be SB 132]; Mr. Franklin said that was introduced without any knowledge of the industry. He concluded, "I think we're in a dangerous situation and, realizing that, I think we need this board of agriculture even more so, to protect the assets of the ARLF [Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund], the agricultural lands and the industry." Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, noted that HB 116 would be worked on intensively during the interim. She understands the concern of the conservation board, she told listeners, pointing out that this doesn't affect the soil and water districts at all. The only thing incorporated into this bill is the resource board that works within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). She stated: And they talked about the large district, that is, the district of Alaska that's not covered by other soil and water conservation districts. That board, for the amount of money that they have been using to operate, has been coming from the [Agricultural] Revolving Loan Fund. So, this is an agriculture interest. And the comment that only two soil and water conservation district folks on this nine-member board is not going to give them the same coverage that a five-member board [would] is not true, because what we have is two representatives on a nine-member board from the soil and water conservation districts, to a nine-member board, who will do the same things that the existing resource board does now, that is five members. So, I think it's a matter of understanding the principle and the basics of it. The issue that I've heard also is that conservation has more to do with lots of different land issues than agriculture. And that's true that agriculture is a small part of that. I think it's in the best interest of agriculture to broaden its perspective in conservation issues, if they want to be successful in agriculture in this state, because I think it's important that they understand all of the conservation issues around the state, whether or not it directly affects any of their operations or not, because there's lots and lots of land, within this state, that is not currently being used for anything, and might make some good agricultural land. So, I think broadening the agriculture into agriculture and conservation is a good idea. We'll continue to work on this. I urge anyone that has any questions or comments or concerns to discuss it with me. And my mind is open, and we want to have something that works in the end. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believes Mr. Franklin was talking about SB 132, which transfers all of the examination from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to the Division of Agriculture. Along with that comes some money, she said, but it is just another opportunity to use more of the ARLF without the permission of the Division of Agriculture. Although there has always been the desire to have farm issues, such as meat and milk, under the Division of Agriculture, they need to discuss whether to include fish and every other area, and to discuss how it would be paid for. Representative James said those are the kinds of concerns she has had since she has been in the legislature. It is her seventh year, and she has found no sympathy for any agriculture issues. This bill is to protect agriculture for its future. Number 1196 CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his intention to work on this over the interim. As a public comment had reminded him, this is the time when farmers are getting ready to plant. He suggested focusing on this after harvest, but perhaps meeting about it during the summer. [HB 116 was held over.] HB 104 - ENTRY MORATORIA ON PARTICIPANTS/VESSELS Number 1036 CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the final item of business would be House Bill No. 104, "An Act revising the procedures and authority of the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the Board of Fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game to establish a moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, participating in certain fisheries; and providing for an effective date." The bill had been heard previously. [Before the committee was CSHB 104(FSH).] Number 0996 BRENNON EAGLE testified via teleconference from Wrangell. Noting that he has testified in support of this legislation over the past couple of years, he emphasized the importance of giving this power to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). He has been through a convoluted entry process with the Southeast pot shrimp fishery, he advised members, which ended up with quite a few more people in the fishery than had historically participated, because the CFEC had to announce limited entry for the fishery prior to closing it. Anyone who participated during that small window of time was eventually allowed into the fishery, he noted, although since limited entry, those people have not participated. He believes the CFEC has been stuck with a poor process, which the power to do a moratorium would have alleviated. MR. EAGLE noted that this allows the CFEC to choose different dates, which he believes is a very good addition. However, he believes it would be a poor decision to disallow transferability of permits. He explained, "I make my living by fishing, and not allowing me to enter a fishery after it's been limited would greatly restrict how I could run my business; and I don't think it would be beneficial to the commercial fishermen in the state of Alaska, or to the other people that depend on us, as support industry." Mr. Eagle urged passage of HB 101. Number 0848 RAY CAMPBELL testified via teleconference from Ketchikan. Referring to previous hearings, he said there is an impression that this bill is directed at Bering Sea scallop and Korean hair crab fisheries. However, in looking at files, especially for the Korean hair crab fishery, it seems that the majority of permits in 1998 were held by nonresidents, on the gear license. On the vessel license, it appears that although many declare themselves residents, the vessel owners' addresses are out of state. He expressed hope that a CFEC representative could explain that. MR. CAMPBELL said he had asked previously how many other fisheries have been requested to be placed under this moratorium; he would like an answer to that, as well. He referred to the question of transferability of moratorium permits in the Southeast dive fishery. He told members that in looking at the transfers, it appears there is a tendency for medical transfers to go from residents to nonresidents; he suggested that committee members get numbers from the CFEC regarding that. Number 0643 CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that Liz Cabrera had provided a synopsis, dated April 20, 1999, of changes to the current moratorium statute under CSHB 104(FSH). He asked her to explain what is being repealed. Number 0567 LIZ CABRERA, Researcher for Representative Bill Hudson [sponsor] and Committee Aide, House Special Committee on Fisheries, Alaska State Legislature, mentioned that the memorandum was in response to Co-Chair Ogan's request regarding the repealed section. The synopsis goes through the entire bill, she indicated, showing the affected statutes and the applicable bill sections. Number 0443 CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Ms. McDowell whether any permits under moratoriums would be transferable. MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, answered that permits issued under a moratorium are temporary permits for the length of the moratorium. The only transferability is if somebody has already, in a given year, demonstrated intent and ability to fish that year, has renewed the interim use permit for the year, and then has some medical condition occur, such as a broken leg. Then that person can apply for an "emergency transfer of their ability to fish" for that one year. The process requires filling out an application for emergency transfer, which comes to the CFEC, as well as submittal of forms from doctors, and so forth. Those are the only transfers allowed for a moratorium permit. Number 0334 CO-CHAIR OGAN stated his understanding that this bill is a departure from previous legislation: It not only establishes a moratorium on use permits but also creates a vessel permit system. He asked Ms. McDowell to explain that. MS. McDOWELL explained that HB 104 doesn't create a vessel limitation program, but it allows a moratorium to be put on entry of new vessels into a fishery. Another piece of legislation speaks to the issue of creating vessel permits, she noted. This bill, HB 104, allows this process to be used in the same way that the legislature, in the last few years, has enacted vessel moratoriums on the scallop and hair crab fisheries. MS. McDOWELL pointed out that a vessel moratorium would only be used in a fishery where a moratorium on participants doesn't work. For example, in the scallop and hair crab fisheries, vessels tend to be large and to fish the outside waters; the vessels are often owned by someone who hires skippers, and there may be several skippers throughout a year. In that case, the legislature chose to limit the number of vessels, to avoid multiplying the number of vessels by giving a license to each skipper. In some fisheries, that system better gets to the purposes of the Limited Entry Act, which are conservation of the resource and avoidance of economic distress in the fishery. This moratorium bill would give the CFEC the ability to implement a moratorium on participants or vessels, or both, to get a lid on that fishery during the moratorium, while the CFEC assesses the situation and decides about a course for the future. Number 0103 CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to page 3, line 24, which says, "A permit issued under this section is a use privilege that may be modified or revoked by law without compensation." He asked Ms. McDowell to address that issue, as it relates to other limited entry permits. MS. McDOWELL said her understanding is that it just repeats what is under the law now for limited entry permits. The legislature had reserved to itself the ability to alter it, without compensation, at any time. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. McDowell considers it a property right. MS. McDOWELL responded that it is not, under law, considered a property right; it is considered a use privilege. She briefly discussed the repealer sections, noting that Sections 8, 9 and 10 simply adjust the sunset dates on the existing hair crab and scallop moratoriums, depending on whether the CFEC [testimony cut off by change of tape]. TAPE 99-28, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. McDOWELL said [Section 11] repeals the three sections in current law that are the old system of doing moratoriums, where someone petitions the commissioner of ADF&G, who then goes to the board, which then goes comes back to the commissioner, who then comes to the CFEC. It repeals those sections and replaces them with this new system. Number 0067 CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that this is an important issue, and he would like to deal with it when all members are present. He announced that HB 104 would be held over. ADJOURNMENT Number 0106 There being no further business before the committee, the House Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.