Elizabeth Earl

Education health care costs a roadblock to budget reductions

As the Legislature battles over cuts in the fiscal year 2020 budget, K-12 education is set to be one of the biggest items of contention. Districts around the state are bracing for major cuts and layoffs, but working around one major cost item largely out of their control: health care benefits. School district representatives have repeatedly identified health care benefits as one of their major cost drivers for increasing significantly each year. High health care costs are a problem for all employers, but for school districts, which depend heavily on state and local funding, the cost is coming under increased scrutiny as Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy proposes cutting more than $300 million from K-12 education and municipalities wrangle with other cost shifts that could reduce their own contributions to their school districts. Health care in Alaska in general is the most expensive in the country, and thus in the world. With a limited market, remote geography and high cost of living, providers in Alaska regularly charge many times more than providers in the Lower 48. Some school districts self-fund their insurance plans, and though public education is one of the largest employers in the state, the insurance pools are still relatively small. It’s a thorny problem for school districts, said Tim Parker, president of the Alaska chapter of the National Education Association. “NEA-Alaska is a steadfast in our resolve to provide the highest quality education to every student in Alaska but health care costs continue to be one of the primary obstacles to creating an educational environment that will allow us to hire and keep the best and brightest educators in the country,” Parker wrote in an email. The cost of health care benefits is pushing down teacher salaries, making Alaska less competitive in attracting teachers to work in the state, said Dr. Dayna DeFeo, the director of the Alaska Center for Education Policy at the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute for Social and Economic Research. In a presentation to the House Education Committee, she outlined a number of the reasons education in Alaska costs so much, one of which is health care. “Alaska has a teacher turnover problem,” she said. “It’s like a perfect storm. In the Lower 48 … we have fewer teachers coming from the system. Alaska hires most of its teachers from the Lower 48. The economy in the Lower 48 is booming, so districts are adding positions and offering more competitive salaries. Since we import most of our teachers from the Lower 48, we are competing in a national market.” Salaries for teachers in Alaska, adjusted for the cost of living, are 23 percent less than the national average. However, the cost of benefits are 11 percent greater than the average, the fourth highest in the country, she said. When school districts start with a fixed budget, the increasing cost in one sector means cuts in another part. Other driving factors include energy and the cost of staffing schools in the smallest communities. Districts have been grappling with the cost of health care for a long time. One of the pitched solutions is to create an Alaska Health Care Authority, which would pool together all state, municipal and school district employees into a single state-run health care plan in a bid to increase bargaining power to negotiate with providers for lower costs. In 2017, a feasibility study estimated that a health care authority could save the state about $200 million annually. The Legislature has not yet taken any action to establish an HCA. Rep. Josh Revak, R-Anchorage, told DeFeo during the committee meeting that he would be interested in exploring the option to move all school district employees to the state’s insurance plan, which serves state employees and the Legislature. However, some administrators of current health care pools say this would be a mistake. Rhonda Prowell-Kitter, the executive director of the Public Education Health Trust, said a state HCA would likely be more expensive than anyone anticipated because of the state’s lengthy procurement process and other legal roadblocks, and in the future could be politically swayed depending on the feelings of another governor. “This idea of pooling together for health care services doesn’t really play out,” she said. “You would see Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare being very successful (if they did). They are not sustaining the hospitals. They need commercial payers to come in and sustain them. I would prefer the state look at cost containment strategies, not pooling strategies.” The Public Education Health Trust serves school districts of various sizes in Alaska with eight different plans. Over the course of the 20 years since its founding, the trust has been able to negotiate lower costs for plan members. The average cost of health care went up about 3 percent for members last year, Prowell-Kitter said, while for others it went up 10 percent to 12 percent. That results in savings. She cited examples from Oregon and Washington, where the states have established HCAs. Both states are now debating what to do as the funding has been undershot — Washington by about $900 million. Most of the Public Education Health Trusts’ ability to reduce costs is because of the trust’s ability to move quickly, Prowell-Kitter said. “We’ve pulled together and been able to have great successes in tackling this problem,” she said. “I feel that the tactics and strategies that we’ve implemented over the last four or five year is finally bending the curve.” One major move that has helped reduce costs in the last few years and may shift the tide of health care competition in the state is the introduction of BridgeHealth, a third-party medical company that negotiates discounts for patients in elective non-emergency surgeries to fly elsewhere in the U.S. for surgeries. For Alaskans, that means flying to Seattle and staying in a hotel for a surgery and still saving money compared to having the surgery done in Alaska. Prowell-Kitter said the providers in Alaska were upset at first but now are starting to negotiate as they have to compete with prices three, four or five times lower in Seattle. BridgeHealth Alaska Region Vice President Sarah Brown said the company has been in Alaska since 2007 but significantly taken off in the last five years or so. Nationwide, the company operates in 34 states, with 50 employers and approximately 600,000 employees. The company only contracts with Centers of Excellence and provides transparent costs to members and patients, which help them foresee costs. “To encourage competition and we make it easy,” she said. “The plan sponsor doesn’t have to negotiate with the facilities themselves. We do it for them … We try to make it seamless and easy for the three individuals involved in our transactions.” Prowell-Kitter said the program saved her members $1 million alone last year. While that money is being spent out of state with other providers, it saves the cost of health care premiums going up the following year. Fred Brown, the executive director of the Pacific Health Coalition, agreed that a state HCA would likely not pan out with cost savings. In Oregon, school districts have wanted to opt out of the Oregon Health Authority but have not been allowed to, leaving them with a disadvantage to compete for teachers as that plan becomes more expensive, he said. “If you know (the Alaska state government’s) procurement process at all, it’s cumbersome,” he said. “Nimbleness is a good term describing the ability of those who are parts of smaller plans not to be bound by the restrictions that exist in the state’s procurement process but being able to seize opportunities almost immediately as they present themselves and be able to obtain substantial savings.” The Pacific Health Coalition has had a similar experience with BridgeHealth, using the program starting in 2012 and saving significantly on non-emergency surgeries for its approximately 110,000 Alaska members, which includes members beyond just public education. Greg Loudon, who consults for Pacific Health Coalition in Anchorage, cited a recent example of a negotiation the coalition made with an orthopedic surgery practice in Anchorage to reduce charges for members of the coalition’s health plans. “We’ve used BridgeHealth as almost a tool with a very sharp edge to negotiate with the local providers,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we were able to negotiate a good deal with the local orthopedic surgeons.” Fred Brown, Loudon and Prowell-Kitter all cited some existing problems in Alaska driving up health care costs — the 80th percentile rule and a perceived lack of competition among them. However, all three also said they’ve been seeing some changes in the provider market due to efforts like BridgeHealth and their collective bargaining power. School districts have begun some of their own efforts as well: the Anchorage School District opened its own health clinic in 2017; the Fairbanks North Star Borough and school district employees are pooled together in a health trust; and the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District began offering BridgeHealth services to its employees in 2018. “We’re the innovators,” Prowell-Kitter said. “Don’t interfere with what’s working.” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Council committee struggles with federal Cook Inlet salmon plan

Two-and-a-half years after a federal court directed the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to develop a fishery management plan for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, there is still a lot of work to do. The commercial salmon fisheries of Alaska are primarily managed by the state, including in Cook Inlet, where part of the fishery takes place in federal waters. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council for years deferred management of the salmon fishery there to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, finally removing Cook Inlet completely from its FMP in 2012. The United Cook Inlet Drift Association and the Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund sued, saying the federal government had a responsibility to manage that fishery to ensure it complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the council reluctantly turned back to developing a management plan. Many of the commercial fishermen there have a longstanding dissatisfaction with the Alaska Fish and Game and the Board of Fisheries, stemming from a belief that the department’s allocation decisions governed by the board are politically rather than scientifically motivated and that the escapement goals for sockeye salmon on the Kenai River are too high. They sought to exercise federal influence over state management through the lawsuit, and now are running into roadblocks on federal authority to do so. The Cook Inlet Salmon Committee, which the council convened to gather stakeholder feedback on developing the FMP, has been hung up on philosophical differences at meetings. Council staff Jim Armstrong, who serves as the plan coordinator for the Cook Inlet salmon FMP, told the council during its meeting on April 7 that there are still some major points of disagreement between the stakeholder council members, the council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee and the council staff. “There’s a lot of frustration and they have perspectives on the way that these salmon fisheries should be managed and how escapement goals are set and the biological impacts of spawning stock reaching the carrying capacity, and they feel it has,” he said. “That’s the theme that has woven through my report and experience of these meetings. We’re not just going in there with an agenda and checking boxes. They’ve come in with a certain plan and we’re trying to reconcile that with what’s possible under the federal system and the council process. It’s taking some time.” One of the core tenets of the fishermen’s grievances is the belief that ADFG’s sockeye salmon escapement goals on the Kenai are too large, exceeding the carrying capacity of the system and thus reducing the overall return of fish as well as commercial harvests and therefore not delivering the required maximum sustainable yield. The committee requested a scientific analysis of how different stock-recruitment models fit the Kenai River and at what level the river could be considered overcompensated — essentially, how many sockeye salmon it would take for the stock to begin crashing rather than producing more fish. Dr. Curry Cunningham of the Fisheries, Aquatic Science and Technology Laboratory at Alaska Pacific University developed the analysis. The Kenai River is the largest sockeye salmon-producing system in Cook Inlet, replete with large lakes and gravel bottoms for sockeye spawning and rearing. Cunningham’s results concluded that an escapement of between 1.03 and 1.78 million sockeye would achieve a maximum sustainable yield of 2.97 million to 3.55 million sockeye on the Kenai River. After looking at multiple models, he found that the model that best fit the data from the river — called a Beverton-Holt relationship — offered limited support for overcompensation in the river. “Given that a Beverton-Holt function does not provide for overcompensation, this indicates limited evidence for the overcompensation hypothesis with respect to the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stock,” he wrote. This is not necessarily the same case for the Kasilof River, a separate but nearby stock. Upper Cook Inlet fishermen harvest both stocks of sockeye, and while the Kasilof River produces fewer sockeye, it is important to the commercial fishery and sustains a sportfishery of its own. Fitting a model to the data on the Kasilof, Cunningham wrote that the model does not confirm that the Kasilof is overcompensating, but that it can’t be rejected. His results suggested a maximum sustained yield of 629,000 sockeye for an escapement of 235,000 on the Kasilof. Cunningham’s findings about the Kenai River generally agree with ADFG’s calculations about escapement on the river. In a memo released March 26 detailing proposed escapement goal changes for Upper Cook Inlet, department staff indicated that results based on the traditional Ricker model indicate that the current escapement goal is too low and recommended raising the goal by 50,000 sockeye on the lower end and by 1 million on the upper end. Fish and Game noted that the data the department has doesn’t conclude anything about overcompensation but noted that escapements after 1979 are more consistent than those between 1968 and 1978, and so excluded the earlier years in model estimations. Using data from years 1979 to 2012, a goal that would produce 90 percent of maximum sustainable yield would be between 774,000 and 1.7 million sockeye, according to the escapement goal memo. The committee members have repeatedly said they wanted the federal government to influence the state’s escapement goal development, Armstrong said. “This was framed as a fundamental question, as in if this can’t happen, what’s the point of this whole exercise?” he said. “That’s not a committee statement, that’s just a flavor (of the discussion).” The state has jurisdiction over inland waters and out to three nautical miles from shore. The court decision doesn’t give the federal fisheries managers rights to manage inside the state waters, nor does it allow them to overrule state management of fish in those waters. That is another fundamental disagreement between the stakeholders and the council, Armstrong said; some members of the committee believe the federal government should extend its management into the freshwater salmon habitat. Some council members expressed frustration at the delay in the work so far. Council member Bill Tweit of Washington noted in his comments that the council has specific rules under federal law. “I think the more time the committee spends debating those kinds of issues, the longer this process is going to take and the longer it’s going to take to actually develop an FMP,” he said. “If the committee members want a salmon FMP, they’d be well advised to play within the boundaries of the ballfield that is the Magnuson-Stevens Act. None of us get to play outside those boundaries.” Committee member Hannah Heimbuch, who commercially fishes in Cook Inlet, told the council that there is still significant confusion among stakeholders about the council process, as the state management process is more familiar to them. “Some are fairly hopeless and think federal management is the only way to manage the fishery,” Heimbuch said. “Some are understandably frustrated that we even went down this road. And some are very confused … That all with a 40-year low harvest (of salmon in 2018). I think understandably there is a lot of emotion and tension. For me that meant selling my boat last week and leasing this year. “To the extent that the council would be able to do any community outreach that communicates that beyond the scope of the committee, I think that would be helpful.” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Battle brews over return of Johnstone to Board of Fisheries

Unsurprisingly, there is likely to be a tense vote in the Legislature over at least one of Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy’s appointments to the Board of Fisheries. A pair of resignations from the board added with the end of member terms give Dunleavy a chance to select a majority of the board’s seven seats with four up for confirmation. One — Marit Carlson-Van Dort of Juneau — drew some raised eyebrows because of past work with the Pebble Limited Partnership, and another — Karl Johnstone of Anchorage — sparked a fiery opposition from commercial fishermen and vocal support from sportfishermen. The other two, Israel Payton of Wasilla and Gerad Godfrey of Kodiak, drew little to no controversy. The members of the Board of Fisheries serve three-year terms and determine fishing allocation and opportunity in the state. The appointments are always controversial, with the governor selecting candidates and the Legislature interviewing them intensively before either confirming or rejecting them. While there are no dedicated seats on the board for either region or user group, stakeholders keep track of where members’ experience and interests lie and calculate the balance of the perspectives. This time, the commercial sector loudly objected to the governor’s appointments, saying the balance would heavily tip toward sportfishery interests. Bob Penney of Kenai, who has spent decades fighting for sport priority over commercial in Cook Inlet, was a major financial supporter of Dunleavy during the 2018 election. Johnstone, a retired Superior Court judge and a friend of Penney’s since the 1970s, was the main flashpoint of the group of appointments. Following seven years of serving on the board, he resigned in 2015 after then-Gov. Bill Walker told him he would not be reappointed after former House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, objected to how Johnstone handled the board’s interview process for candidates for commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Johnstone told the Senate Resources Committee in a hearing on April 10 that he was interested in taking up Board of Fisheries service again because he’s been keeping up with fisheries issues and he finds the work rewarding. “There’s an enormous amount of work involved if you do it right, and an enormous amount of time spent … I choose to consider the rewarding part of it, and that’s why I reapplied,” he told the committee. “I have the time and the energy and the desire to continue this work.” Johnstone comes with a heavy wake of controversy. During past service, records from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game showed that the department spent more money on lodging for Johnstone than any other member during board meetings in Anchorage, despite that Johnstone has a home in Anchorage. He maintains a home in Prescott, Ariz., and frequently travels out of state, though he told the Senate Resources Committee that he spends “much more time in Anchorage than I do elsewhere.” In 2000, he was publicly reprimanded by the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct for violating the legal parameters of hiring a coroner and was once recommended for nonretention by the Alaska Judicial Council in 1988 for being unqualified, ranking low in integrity, judicial temperament and overall performance. Within the fisheries world, he’s a polarizing character. Sportfishing advocates testified to the committee that he maintained a professional demeanor and always came prepared to meetings, running them fairly for the four years when he served as the chairman. On the other end of the spectrum, commercial fishermen ardently oppose his nomination because they say he is irreversibly biased in favor of the sportfishing industry and say that he created a hostile atmosphere at board meetings. A joint House Fisheries and Resources committee meeting April 15 attracted more than 100 commenters and ran for nearly four hours, with testifiers on both sides. The Senate Resources Committee meeting on April 10 similarly attracted a large number of testifiers on both sides, though the majority opposed Johnstone. The United Fishermen of Alaska, an organization representing 37 commercial fishing groups in the state, doesn’t usually endorse or oppose Board of Fisheries candidates because of the potential for repercussions if the person they opposed is confirmed anyway. In written comments to the committee, UFA noted it hadn’t opposed a board member nominee since 2006. Executive Director Frances Leach told the Senate Resources Committee that Johnstone’s record shows that he is aware of fisheries regulation processes through the board but has disregarded them. “We understand the risk that we are taking in opposing someone such as Mr. Johnstone because we understand there are repercussions that could cause us harm,” she said. “His blatant bias against commercial fishermen was illustrated heavily throughout meetings.” Commercial set gillnet fishermen on Cook Inlet’s east side have a particular axe to grind with him. As chairman, he oversaw an Upper Cook Inlet meeting in 2014 in which a board-generated proposal was introduced to set significant restrictions on setnetters paired to restrictions on the Kenai River king salmon sportfishery, which commercial fishermen saw as a violation of the public process because the proposal was introduced, deliberated and passed without public input during committees or public comment. A number of Kenai Peninsula setnetters testified against his reappointment to the board, with a number saying he used his position to belittle Alaska Department of Fish and Game scientists and members of the public. “My experienced with Judge Johnstone has been anything but fair and balanced,” said Ken Coleman, a Kenai-area setnetter. Though he’s been absent from the Board of Fisheries since 2015, Johnstone occasionally wrote in opinion pieces to Alaska newspapers focusing on fisheries. Some highlighted a belief that personal-use and sportfisheries needed to take precedence over commercial fisheries and referring to commercial fishing in the state as “the aged and fading sibling.” Sportfishing supporters wrote in and testified in support of all the candidates Dunleavy appointment, but particularly for Johnstone. The Kenai River Sportfishing Association hosted a letter-generating form on its website, producing a large volume of form letters from individuals, and other organizations noted that the Legislature awarded Johnstone a citation for his service on the Board of Fisheries in 2015. “We much appreciate that Chairman Johnstone prioritized managing for the sustainability of our fisheries resource first and foremost as well as his efforts to provide reasonable harvest opportunities for all user groups, particularly Alaska residents, most of whom do not own commercial fishing permits,” wrote Martin Meigs, the chairman of the Alaska Sport Fishing Association, in his public comment to the House Fisheries Committee. “People as experienced if (sic) fisheries and as dedicated and competent as Karl Johnstone are few and far between!” During the hearings, a number of legislators showed skepticism about Johnstone, in part because of concerns about how much time he spends in Alaska. Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, asked if Johnstone would release his 2019 Permanent Fund Dividend application — which details how many days a person spends out of state as a qualifier to receive the dividend — as a way of quelling public debate about whether he primarily lives in Alaska or Arizona. Johnstone, who said he was calling into the hearing from Arizona, said he did not have an objection but wondered “why you want it.” Applicants for the PFD who are gone from the state for more than 90 days must document their absences and must reside in the state for at least 185 days per year. According to Permanent Fund Dividend Division records, Johnstone did not apply for the PFD from 2002 to 2009, did apply for it while on the board from 2010 to 2015 and did not apply for it in 2016 and 2017 before applying for it once again in 2018. “By all standards, I’m a resident,” he said. “I do spend time outside Alaska. My interest in the winter at my age has waned a little bit, although I still enjoy it once in a while. I do travel quite a bit. I also travel to other states and countries in the winter … From every point of view I can think of, I’m a resident.” Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, who chairs the House Fisheries Committee, passed the gavel at the end of the April 15 meeting to explain why she would vote against Johnstone in the joint House and Senate confirmation hearing. Saying she was “morally and ethically compelled” to oppose him, she added that she understood the governor would not appoint a commercial fishing representative to the seat but wanted to at least see an appointment from outside the Anchorage area. “I firmly believe that Mr. Johnstone’s reputation and history of biases show that he is not the right person for this board,” she said. A few commenters said they opposed Carlson-Van Dort because of her work with Pebble, though others supported her because of her background in environmental science and familiar with fisheries. Payton, who currently serves on the board, attracted a number of supportive comments from both sport and commercial interests. The committees forwarded the names to a joint hearing for consideration. ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

State Labor Dept. teamed with Apple for coding skills workshops

The state government is trying to give Alaskans a leg up into tech industry work — specifically, coding. Coding describes a broad array of jobs, ranging from back-end web development to network engineering. Though coders are generally thought of in the context of technology companies like Apple or Microsoft, many industries now have jobs for people with coding skill sets. In March, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development hosted a set of workshops in Wasilla, Juneau and Anchorage titled “Every Alaskan Can Code” to introduce anyone to the basics. One of the things they learned was how accessible coding can be, said Department of Labor Deputy Commissioner Cathy Muñoz. “When you think of coding you think of a skill that’s complicated,” she said. “What we saw is that coding is accessible and that … coding affects all aspects of the economy. That was one of the main takeaways of this workshop—anybody can code.” The three workshops were co-hosted by Apple, which provide the personnel, Muñoz said. The Department of Labor approached multiple technology companies in search of a partnership to open up coding opportunities, and Apple showed “the most enthusiasm,” she said. Each workshop attracted around 40 to 50 people, with the largest turnout in Wasilla. The department intentionally scheduled them during spring break in Alaska’s school districts in an attempt to attract young people, but participants of all ages came, Muñoz said. Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy touted the workshops during his recent budget roadshow as an opportunity for economic growth. “Computer coding will help to diversify our economy and provide good-paying jobs for Alaskans anywhere there is an Internet connection,” Dunleavy said in a recorded video. While Alaska is not home to any major tech firms, proponents hope to attract employees who work remotely to live in the state while providing services elsewhere. That’s already the case in some of Alaska’s cities, like Juneau, where a number of remote workers share an office space downtown while working on their own various projects. Called Juneau Coworking, the space is an iteration of a well-established trend in the Lower 48 for online and remote workers who want to share a space with other professionals instead of working from home. Conroy Whitney, one of the founders of Juneau Coworking, said that was his own interest when he started the organization in Juneau. A remote technology worker himself, he relocated to the state in 2016 and spent a winter working alone at home near Talkeetna before trying out a coworking office space in Anchorage called The Boardroom. “I got plugged into the startup and entrepreneurship community,” he said in an email. “And most importantly, I was insanely productive! My freelancing career took off! That black and white contrast between that first winter working from home, and the subsequent summer working out of a coworking space, was what convinced me that coworking is really a game-changer.” After relocating to Juneau because of its geography, outdoor recreation opportunities and high-speed fiber internet connection, he worked on starting a similar coworking space in Juneau. April 5 marked Juneau Coworking’s six-month anniversary, with about 100 people coming to use the space from intermittently to regularly during that time. Though many of them are remote tech workers like Whitney, others are life or health coaches, he said. He noted that remote tech workers import paychecks to the state from elsewhere, as opposed to local jobs that circulate paychecks. “If I work with people in LA, Austin, and NYC, I’m exporting my time and experience, and taking money from those huge hubs and spending it at my local grocery store, restaurants, and theatre,” he said. “The fact that Alaska is naturally so spread out only works to our advantage: the same skills we use to communicate intrastate can be used to communicate globally.” Opportunity in remote areas is a huge issue for Alaska. Many Alaskans are spread out over a vast geographic region off the road system, with few local economic opportunities besides resource extraction, commercial fishing or government jobs. Muñoz said providing opportunity in rural Alaska is a major motivation for the Department of Labor’s coding trainings. Tech companies often end up turning to hiring foreign workers for positions that require coding experience because of the lack of the same skill sets and levels in the U.S. The Department of Labor wants to seize that opportunity, she said. “We see this as an opportunity to engage the public in a range of flexible work opportunities that can be done anywhere there is a high-speed internet,” she said. “There’s just a huge opportunity in this country.” High-speed internet is an issue for many areas of Alaska, as are energy costs. The places where high-speed internet is available and the cost of energy is lower tend to be the urbanized areas, such as Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, Juneau and the Kenai Peninsula. However, GCI has been building out internet infrastructure across Western Alaska as part of its TERRA network since 2011, and a new fiber optic cable system laid along the coast of the North Slope promises high-speed internet to communities from Nome to Prudhoe Bay. Muñoz added that the Department of Labor is feeling out interest among technology companies to host two-week coding academies in the future, and advised Alaskans to watch out for announcements of further opportunities in more communities. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Senators push for personal-use priority after board turned it down

Four senators have introduced a bill to set an allocation priority for personal-use fisheries in the state during emergency restrictions or closures. Senate Bill 99, introduced by Sens. Shelly Hughes, R-Palmer, David Wilson, R-Wasilla, Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, and Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, amends the statutes governing the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to require the Board of Fisheries to “place restrictions on all other fisheries before restricting personal use fisheries” when the department has enacted restrictions to meet a management goal. There are personal-use fisheries all over the state, ranging from spearfishing for whitefish in the Chatanika River to tanner crab fishing in Homer. The main sources of conflict, though, are the popular personal-use dipnet fisheries in Southcentral Alaska for salmon. Alaskans fished more than 20,000 angler days in the Kenai River dipnet fishery alone in 2018. Only Alaska residents qualify for the fisheries. SB 99, introduced March 25, is similar to a proposal struck down by the Board of Fisheries less than two weeks before. The group of senators had been working on the bill for some time before the board took up the proposal at its statewide meeting, but waited to introduce it until after the board members decided, Kawasaki said. Kawasaki said he’s been working on the issue of setting a priority for personal-use fisheries for several years, beginning when he served in the House of Representatives. “I was personally waiting for some kind of action by the board,” he said. “We waited for the board to turn down the proposal (before introducing it).” Despite living far inland, many Fairbanks residents drive the 6 to 7 hours south to fish at the Chitina personal-use fishery for sockeye on the Copper River. It’s a tradition for Kawasaki’s family, too, he said. But the unpredictability of fish availability and possible closures, makes it difficult for families to plan for that trip. If passed, the bill would not mandate fishery regulation, but would require that ADFG close personal-use fisheries last during times of conservative management. The board turned down the proposal 2-5, with the opposing members saying they felt it was unnecessary and would tie managers’ hands. Large numbers of commercial fishermen, particularly in Cook Inlet, testified to the board that pushing up the personal-use fishery would promote conflict among user groups rather than defusing allocation fights. This isn’t the first time the Legislature has debated the topic, either. Former Sen. Bill Stoltze and Rep. Mark Neuman, R-Wasilla, introduced a bill in 2015 that would have required the department to restrict sportfisheries and commercial fisheries before personal-use fisheries. The opposition then was similar, with concerns from the commercial fishermen and processors about the impacts to their industry as the demand for personal-use fisheries grows. There is no set allocation for personal-use fisheries, nor any permit cap. The group of co-sponsors on the current iteration of the bill all represent areas with a stake in increasing personal-use fishing opportunities. Wielechowski represents part of Anchorage, where many residents drive south to either the Kenai Peninsula fisheries or Chitina to participate. Hughes and Wilson both represent the Mat-Su Valley, where many of the residents drive to the Kenai River to participate. There is a personal-use fishery at Fish Creek, but the fishery is muddy and is not open every year, and dipnetters stand a greater chance at catching their limit on the more productive Kenai River, so many choose to go south. Wilson said he had been participating in the discussions with the other senators for some time before the board proposal came up. It’s important to his constituents, the majority of whom are “regular Alaskans,” he said. “We’re talking in times of emergencies and closures,” he said. “The greater impact is done by the commercial fishery. All we’re asking for is we want a priority for (personal use) fishermen. Please take a look at the smallest group possible that’s not making a real dent on the fishery.” The sponsors include two members of the Republican-led Senate Majority and two members of the Democrat-led minority. Kawasaki said the bipartisanship showed that fishing does not necessarily adhere to the same political lines as other issues. While the board is not subject to the same political structure as the elected members of the Legislature, it’s still a politically appointed and confirmed body and notoriously rife with politics. “It’s clear the Legislature is a political body, but the Board of Fisheries is a political body as well. The appointments to the board are some of the most controversial appointments we have,” he said. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican if you like fishing and your constituents like fishing.” Wilson and Kawasaki both said they hoped the bill could move through the Legislature despite the budget taking up the majority of the Legislature’s time. Wilson said he thought it would likely be next year before it could earn approval, though Kawasaki said he hoped it could get a hearing this year. So far, it has been referred to the Senate Resources committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Hilcorp delays Cook Inlet seismic work

Hilcorp will delay a planned seismic survey in Lower Cook Inlet this summer until after the peak of the summer season. The Houston-based company had planned to conduct a 3-D seismic survey in federal waters off Homer, where it holds leases on 14 federal oil and gas lease tracts. The seismic survey would have covered eight of the lease blocks, according to a survey plan the company submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. However, a number of snags held up the process. The company says the delay is in part due to holdups during the lengthy partial federal government shutdown, which spanned the New Year and lasted more than a month. Hilcorp also says it will delay its planned work until after the height of the fishing and tourist season. Those two industries are primary drivers of the economy in Homer and the surrounding area. Homer attracts tourists from all over the world each summer, many of whom come to fish for the region’s famously abundant Pacific halibut. A large commercial fleet based in Homer and the surrounding communities also fishes for halibut between March and November and for Pacific salmon during the summer season. Hilcorp external affairs manager Lori Nelson did not give a precise date when the company plans to take up the seismic work again, but that the company understands that “the waters of Lower Cook Inlet are a shared resource.” “We are actively engaged in discussions with our contractor to delay the survey,” she said in an email. “Our commitment to keep the community’s interests and concerns at the forefront will continue as we work to revise our schedule and work plan.” Hilcorp Senior Vice President Dave Wilkins said in a January presentation that the company expects the seismic survey to take between 30–45 days and would survey about 175 square miles. Unlike the upper part of Cook Inlet, Lower Cook Inlet has seen little to no oil and gas exploration in the last few decades. When Hilcorp bought its 14 lease tracts for approximately $3.03 million in 2017, it was the first time a federal oil and gas lease sale had attracted industry interest in the area since 2008. According to the survey plan submitted to BOEM, Hilcorp planned to contract with United Arab Emirates-based Polarcus and survey 24 hours per day with three- to five-hour data acquisition periods and 1.5-hour turning periods before performing another pass. The survey would be shot parallel with Cook Inlet shorelines in a north-south orientation with a total of 14 airguns. In addition to concerns about fisheries, Lower Cook Inlet is also home to a large population of northern sea otters and an endangered population of beluga whales, among other marine mammals and fish. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently collecting comments for a permit for incidental take of northern sea otters over a five-year period. The company applied for the permit in May 2018, according to the federal register, though the notice was not published until nearly a year later on March 19. The Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting comments until April 18. Cook Inlet beluga whales mostly spend their summer in Upper Cook Inlet, away from the proposed seismic survey area, according to Hilcorp’s survey plan. National Marine Fisheries Service surveys have shown that most of the whales spend their time near the Kenai River and further north in the summer. During an Apache seismic test in Redoubt Bay in 2011, 33 beluga whales were sighted during the work, according to the plan. In its initial plan, the company noted that the survey would be finished before the Lower Cook Inlet commercial salmon gillnet season opened in early June and that any effects would likely be temporary. “It is likely that commercial fisheries, charters and individual sport fishers would be able to use alternative fishing grounds,” the plan states. “Overall, impacts to fish harvests are expected to be minor, and limited to the immediate area of the surveys and to the hours of survey operations.” Hilcorp was scheduled to hold a public meeting in Homer last week but cancelled it. Bob Shavelson, a longtime environmental activist and the advocacy director for environmental nonprofit Cook Inletkeeper, said the company has not been very open with the community. “They’ve been very poor with their communications, especially with the commercial fishing fleet in Cook Inlet,” he said. “This is the first foray in probably 40 years in Lower Cook Inlet. If they hit reserves … you’re talking about the industrialization of Lower Cook Inlet.” Shavelson said Cook Inletkeeper may become increasingly involved with the proposed seismic survey in the future, as Hilcorp works to reschedule it.   Reach Elizabeth Earl at [email protected]  

ADFG proposes sweeping changes to Cook Inlet salmon goals

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s recommendations for salmon escapement goal ranges in Upper Cook Inlet are out significantly earlier than they have been in past years. Upper Cook Inlet, which reaches north from the Kasilof River, encompasses a number of heavily fished salmon stocks, including the Kenai and Susitna rivers. ADFG reviews the escapement goal ranges for the rivers every three years or so and makes recommendations before the Board of Fisheries takes up the proposals for the area during the in-cycle meeting. For several rivers in the Mat-Su Valley, ADFG is recommending decreasing the lower end of king salmon escapement goal ranges, meaning that fewer salmon would have to make it up the river before ADFG determines the goal had been met. On the Kenai and Russian rivers, the sockeye sustainable escapement goals would tick up slightly. The goals are recommended for the 2020 season, so the current goals would remain in effect for the 2019 season. The sustainable escapement goal for sockeye on the Kenai River, which is the largest sockeye salmon river in the region, would increase slightly to 750,000 to 1.3 million. The Kasilof River’s sockeye biological escapement goal would decrease slightly to 140,000 to 320,000 fish. The early-run sockeye goal for the Russian River — a popular sportfishing river on the Kenai Peninsula — would remain the same, but the late-run sustainable escapement goal would adjust to 44,000 to 85,000, which is an increase in the lower end but a decrease in the upper end. The sockeye salmon goals in the Susitna River drainage would remain unchanged. The king goals in the Susitna drainage would change substantially, though. ADFG is recommending consolidating and revising the Susitna River king stock escapement goals into four “sub-basins”: the Deshka River, the Eastside Susitna River, the Talkeetna River and the Yentna River. Consolidating the goals would have advantages over the current single aerial survey model as they are based on total escapement as opposed to an index, derived using stock-recruit analyses and could account for years in which surveys were not conducted, according to the memo. “Each sub-basin is unique in terms of geography, harvest and accessibility, and therefore the regulatory structure varies between areas; streams within each sub-basin tend to share the same set of regulations,” the memo states. The Deshka River would have a biological escapement goal of 9,000 to 18,000; the Eastside Susitna River would have a sustainable escapement goal of 13,000 to 25,000; the Talkeetna River sub-basin would have a sustainable escapement goal of 9,000 to 17,500; and the Yentna River sub-basin would have a sustainable escapement goal of 13,000 to 22,000. Alexander Creek and Chulitna River would keep their own separate sustainable escapement goals of 1,900 to 3,700 and 1,200 to 2,900 king salmon, respectively. The Little Susitna River arial survey goal would be lowered slightly to 700 to 1,500 kings, and the Crooked Creek king salmon goal would be increased slightly to 700 to 1,400 kings. The Kenai River’s king goals would remain unchanged. The coho salmon goal in the Deshka River would remain the same, while the Jim Creek and Little Susitna River coho goals would be lowered slightly; the Jim Creek goal’s upper end would increase, according to the memo. Escapement goals are complicated, with multiple types and methodologies for determining them. At its most recent meeting, the Board of Fisheries noted that there is significant confusion around how escapement goals are developed and why certain rivers have one type while others have another. The Upper Cook Inlet escapement goal memo was released several months earlier than originally intended, in part because of public requests for the goals to be released before proposals for the 2020 Upper Cook Inlet meeting are due. “The department recognizes the importance of releasing escapement goal recommendations earlier in the year so the public may submit proposals relative to goal recommendations before the deadline of (April 10),” the memo states. “Thus, department staff completed their review on an accelerated timeline, and developed recommendations for UCI salmon escapement goals.” Kevin Delaney, a former fisheries biologist for ADFG and currently a consultant for the Kenai River Sportfishing Association, said the early release of the escapement goal recommendations allows stakeholders to gather more information as they finalize their proposals and review them for the next year before the meeting in early 2020. “This is the first time ever (ADFG has) gotten them out before proposals were due,” he said. “That should be applauded.” The slight uptick on the Kenai River sockeye goal doesn’t necessarily shift any more fish toward the sportfishery, Delaney said. The recommended lower end of the goal is only 50,000 fish more than the current lower end, and the Kenai River can see 50,000 fish come through on a single day during the peak of the sockeye run. The lowering of the goal on the Kasilof River might be a concern, but the Kenai River is the major driver in the region for sockeye salmon, he said. “The big issue is the Kenai River, and 50,000 fish isn’t going to make a huge difference,” he said. The Kenai River’s sockeye salmon management plan is immensely complicated, with three management tiers based on the strength of the forecasted run and an in-river escapement goal as well as the sustainable escapement goal. The in-river goal is set at 900,000 to 1.1 million sockeye, which accounts for a sportfishery harvest of about 200,000 sockeye in the river above the sonar. The recommendation included in the escapement goal memo only updates the SEG; adjusting the in-river goal would be up to the Board of Fisheries, as that’s an allocative decision compared to escapement goals which are management decisions. Mike Wood, a Northern District setnet fishermen, said it was interesting how some goals decreased in the Susitna River drainage while others increased in the Kenai River drainage. The Susitna valley has struggled with decreasing returns in recent years, with closures for salmon fishing, and the users are concerned that not enough fish are making it past the commercial fisheries in Kodiak and central Cook Inlet to return to spawn. Wood said he was glad to see the department address goals in the Lewis, Theodore and Chuitna, smaller rivers on the west side, and noted that better genetics data from ADFG has helped the staff separate the Cook Inlet west side rivers into individual stocks. “I was glad to see that, because it does have implications,” he said. “They’ve kept the king salmon closed to anything above Tyonek for just about 20 years now to let more fish return to the Susitna River. It’s good to see the Chuitna is bouncing back, and it does make sense to lower it a little bit in the Theodore and not have it at all in the Lewis. The Lewis doesn’t even reach (Cook) Inlet anymore.” Lowering escapement goals for Susitna drainages is concerning, he said, in part because of the nature of the stream. Spawner-return analyses — which calculate how many offspring return on average per spawning salmon — have shown that the Susitna is not as productive as a river like the Kenai, and thus would need more spawners to produce the same volume of return, he said. Wood, who also chairs the Mat-Su Borough’s Fish and Wildlife Commission, said the group is looking at the recommendations and working on a Northern District management plan and how that connects to regulations on setnetters in the area. “Maybe things will come back they way they’re supposed to,” he said. “But just lowering our goals, our expectations, I don’t think is wise in general. I’m cautious of it. Does it mean that we should lower them and then allow people to kill more of them? I don’t think that that really works to the advantage of the fish.” Proposals for the Upper Cook Inlet meeting are due April 10. ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

ADFG leaders tout $11 billion return on agency spending

Though it’s a relatively small percentage of the state budget each year, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game wants to show that it’s a worthwhile investment. Each year, the state spends in the neighborhood of $65 million to $70 million from the General Fund to pay for the department. Combined with user fees and federal grants and matches, the total budget clocks in at about $197 million. According to a number of studies conducted in-house and by the McDowell Group, that supports an economic return of about $11.8 billion annually. It’s not a huge surprise, even though the numbers are large, said ADFG Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang. Some of the wages estimated in the industries certainly do leave the state, but much of it stays as well, he said. The numbers are useful to the department as well as for the public to know what the spending is bringing in, he said. “(About) seven or eight years ago, I think the department slowly started realizing we needed to have a better idea of what our return on investment was,” he said. “I think the Sportfishing Division did a study looking at its benefit to the state of Alaska, then the Division of Wildlife Conservation … not too long after the Subsistence Division got into it, then of course commercial fisheries has been doing it for a long time.” Commercial fishing is the largest private sector employer in the state, with about 60,000 direct jobs provided by the industry. The vast majority of those jobs are in salmon — about 60 percent — followed by groundfish, halibut and crab, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Sportfishing supports 15,879 jobs, while hunting supports 27,000, according to information provided by the department. Sam Rabung, the director of the Division of Commercial Fisheries, cited a McDowell report and noted that commercial seafood harvesting contributes about $5.2 billion in economic output to the Alaska economy annually in testimony to the House Finance Committee’s subcommittee on ADFG on March 14. “Managing our fish and wildlife resources comes at a cost that is dwarfed by the return on investment,” he said. “The comfish division’s budget is about $70 million annually, and about half of that is (general fund). But what that does for the state is the direct economic value of commercially harvested seafood contributing to the state’s economy.” Commercial fisheries contribute about $146 million annually in local taxes, fees and self-assessments while the sportfishing industry contributes about $246 million in taxes. Hunters and wildlife viewers paid a total of $3.87 billion in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars. Roughly $35 million to $37 million of the taxes paid by commercial fishermen are directed back into the Commercial Fisheries Division, while the rest goes into the general fund or to pay for other services like aquaculture through a self-assessed fee, Rabung said during the House Finance Committee hearing. Anglers and hunters also draw down federal funds into the state through license purchases. In 2016, the Legislature passed a bill to increase hunting and sportfishing license fees in response to a stakeholder-led effort to do so, thus allowing the department to access more federal match funds through the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson fund programs. According to ADFG, 281,823 Alaskans bought sportfishing or hunting licenses in 2018, or more than half of the state’s adult population. The department also enumerated the economic impact of subsistence resources. Alaskans harvest about 18,000 tons of wild food annually, according to the department. Calculated at about $6 per pound, subsistence provides between $200.8 million and $391 million in 2019 dollars each year, according to a 2014 report from the Division of Subsistence. Going into the fiscal year 2020 budget, ADFG received one of the smaller proposed reductions at about 5 percent. Vincent-Lang said he thought it showed that the department is already well-managed and provides a good return. “When you look at the department budget overall, we came out of the budget scenario largely intact,” he said. “We are having a good return on investment, and I think there was a good understanding by the governor’s office that commercial fishing, sportfishing and subsistence fishing as a key part of the Alaskan identity.” The department’s default is to manage more conservatively when less information is available to managers. However, cutting the management side can also cause the department to manage more conservatively, Vincent-Lang said. Significant reductions to the budget would certainly impact the economic benefit the department sees, but a significant increase doesn’t necessarily mean a significant increase either, he said. However, an increase in funding could result in increased opportunity in fisheries like herring or crab, which are currently conservatively managed, he said. Commercial fisheries are major drivers in communities across the state, especially in coastal communities where there are often not many other economic opportunities. Vincent-Lang said he is planning to work with processors to try to increase seafood processing capacity in communities like those around Norton Sound, where there have been harvestable surpluses of salmon in recent years but not very many processors to buy them. During the House Finance subcommittee meeting on March 14, Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, noted that the reductions to the department were concerning because the loss of funding could mean more conservative management, and thus lost opportunities for fishermen. “I would like to see you have not only a focus on the impact to the economy but the impact to the fishermen themselves,” Stutes said. “That should be the number one concern of this state: allowing these fishermen to go out and fully prosecute the fisheries. The state wins when that happens.” ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Road shows kick off in Kenai: Dunleavy advocates for budget while House goes own way

SOLDOTNA — The members of the House Finance Committee and Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy are both on the road this week, hitting many of the same communities but talking about two different budgets in two very different meetings. Dunleavy kicked off his roadshow in Kenai on March 25, talking to a crowd of about 150 people about his budget plan and the three constitutional amendments that accompany it. Three nights before, Reps. Gary Knopp, R-Kenai, Jennifer Johnston, R-Anchorage, and House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, hosted a packed meeting to gather public input before the House develops its own budget. The House Finance Committee is dispatching members to communities all over the state to hold town hall meetings. So far, the meetings have reportedly all been packed with residents; in Kenai, more than 200 people filled the Soldotna Regional Sports Complex to deliver public testimony. Johnston, who serves as vice chair of the House Finance Committee, said she kept a tally in her notes of what the testifiers supported. “I think it was fairly civil,” she said. Though people spoke both for and against Dunleavy’s proposed budget, the majority opposed the cuts and asked for the Legislature to look at taxes and using the Permanent Fund Dividend to pay for government services. Johnston said she noted a lot of support for reducing the PFD. These House Finance meetings are part of the process as the House builds its own budget, she said. The majority of people opposing the cuts mentioned concern about the reductions to K-12 education spending. The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, which operates 43 schools for approximately 8,800 students, is proposing to cut the majority of its extracurriculars and close five schools, among other cuts, to balance the budget. Pegge Erkeneff, the communications liaison for the district, told the committee members that that doesn’t even meet the cuts they expect. “I’ve been accused of (these projections) being a scare tactic,” she said. “I can assure you it is not. It’s still $5 million shy of $22.4 million if we implemented everything on this sheet.” Several people also noted that they appreciated the opportunity to speak at the House Finance Committee meeting, as Dunleavy’s planned meeting on March 25 would not be as open a forum. Dunleavy’s administration also received some pushback after it became public that his roadshow was organized and hosted by Americans for Prosperity. The governor’s meeting was held at the Cannery Lodge, a private facility in Kenai. Attendees were admitted by a Kenai Police Department officer and the gate at the front of the property was closed shortly after the meeting began. While there was no open planned public comment, attendees at the meeting submitted written questions that could be asked during a panel Q&A session. Ryan McKee, the Alaska state director for Americans for Prosperity, said the group approached the Dunleavy administration several months ago about doing a speaking tour with them and that the timing of the announcement just happened to fall as the House Finance Committee announced its own tour. Dunleavy has worked with AFP in the past, so the organization didn’t feel the meeting was out of place, McKee said. “The governor is going to be the one who goes out and does the big town halls; it’s not really our place to host that for him and have this big space,” he said. “We’d rather have this small space where we can have these questions asked … and everyone can walk away feeling like they got something. I’m sure he’ll have bigger events, but that’s not really what we were looking at.” Dunleavy said the partnership with AFP helped the state save money while enabling him to travel and speak to residents about the budget. The organization offered a venue and time, and the administration is willing to work with other partners, he said. “We didn’t want to spend money from the government to go and do a very expensive roadshow,” he said. “…I know there are some who would prefer we partner up with other outfits. Let us know who they are.” Dunleavy brought Alaska Department of Revenue Commissioner Bruce Tangeman, Office of Management and Budget Director Donna Arduin and Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson with him on the tour to talk about both his proposed fiscal year 2020 budget and long-term plans. Much of the discussion lingered over the Legislature’s spending habits, with Dunleavy asserting that the state’s problem is primarily overspending. One of his three proposed constitutional amendments would set a new state spending cap, tying it to inflation and the state’s population. The other two amendments — one enshrining the PFD in the state constitution and the other requiring a public vote before the institution of any new broad-based taxes — are also part of the administration’s long-term fiscal plan. While Americans for Prosperity doesn’t take a formal position on the PFD issues, the group strongly supports a spending cap and the vote before new taxes, similar to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights. “(This year), you’re having meetings, the House is having meetings — on the budget, we’re supporting the process,” he said. “The spending cap, we support that 100 percent, and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” Clarkson explained that the Legislature has to approve the resolutions for constitutional amendments by a two-thirds majority before they go to a public vote to be ratified. “If you have legislators out there who you are in contact with, you need to let them know that they should be voting for the governor’s amendments,” he said. Tangeman said what the administration has heard is that the House is starting with the fiscal year 2019 budget and planning to go closer to status quo and look at implementing taxes. “There is no way you can tax $7 billion out of our economy,” he said, referring to long-term projections of what would be required to pay for the budget at current annual increases if the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve account is depleted. Both Dunleavy and the House Finance Committee planned meetings throughout the week in various communities around the state, while the Senate began holding hearings on the first of the constitutional amendments on March 21. ^

PWS Tanner crab fishery gives winter season a boost

A rejuvenated Tanner crab fishery in Prince William Sound is showing positive signs of finishing out its second season in 30 years. The fishery opened for the first time since 1988 in 2017, operating on commissioners permits. A test fishery operated as an information-gathering pot fishery in the area in 2016 to a limited number of vessels. Based on Alaska Department of Fish and Game survey data, the stocks were good to go for another season this year, opening March 1 and closing either by EO or on March 31. So far, 11 vessels have landed about 16,850 Tanner crabs, totaling about 28,699 pounds. Harvest has been better than expected in two areas, said Jan Rumble, the area management biologist for commercial shellfish fisheries in Prince William Sound. One, in federal waters off of Cape Puget, had a harvest of 14,754 pounds and the Icy Bay/Whale Bay area harvested 7,042 pounds. “Fishing for the first week of the fishery has been more spread out than last year, and not as focused in one statistical area, with 10 statistical areas fished to date,” she wrote in an email. Fishermen in the area are feeling fairly optimistic about the catches and catch per unit of effort so far, said Chelsea Haisman, the executive director of Cordova District Fishermen United. “The weather has been the biggest buzzkill,” she said. “(One fisherman has) sat out 11 days so far. It’s been hardly any fishing at all. It’s part of the game, I guess.” There was enthusiasm on the docks when the fishermen first came in with the crab in Whittier, Seward and Cordova, she said. The catch provides a new seafood opportunity for residents before the summer fishing season kicks into gear. It also fills in some of the space for the Prince William Sound fleet before the summer salmon season starts — there are several quiet months right now around December and January, and the salmon season doesn’t start in earnest until early May, she said. “It sounds like right now, the fishery can keep going as long as the biomass is there,” she said. “The fleet is seeing some smaller crabs that they are releasing back.” Deliveries have been made in Whittier, Seward and Cordova, she said. Tanner crab, often marketed as its cousin the snow crab, is a fairly valuable product for fishermen. In 2017, the average ex-vessel price was $3.53 per pound, the highest price since 1994, according to ADFG records. The scientific species name of Tanner crab is C. bairdi, though another species of crab — C. opilio — is also often marketed as snow crab and sold for more than $4 per pound at the dock in 2017, according to ADFG. The commercial Tanner crab fishery in Prince William Sound boomed from 1968 until the late 1970s, when the catch began to decline before the fishery was closed in 1988. At its peak, fishermen brought in 13.9 million pounds, according to a March 2017 memo from Fish and Game. That was before the minimum carapace width of 5.3 inches was set, though. By 1988, fishermen only brought in about a half-million pounds, with little to no harvest in the Eastern District because there were fewer legal males available. The collapse of the stock could be due to overharvesting and changes in environmental conditions, according to the memo. The early fisheries on legal-size males were limited by season rather than by Guideline Harvest Level, which is the current limit set by the Board of Fisheries for Tanner crab fisheries. “Handling mortality of undersized and female crab may have contributed to the decline, particularly during fishing seasons of seven months duration, which encompassed some of the molting and mating seasons,” the memo states. “Changes in environmental conditions, documented on a Gulf of Alaska-wide basis, may have caused high mortality of Tanner crab larvae, impaired growth and reproduction, and coincided with increased production of crab predators such as gadoid fishes.” The fishery depends on daily call-ins from fishermen on the grounds for tracking and port sampling of the catch. At the beginning of this season, ADFG asked fishermen to call in faithfully to provide accurate information so the fishery can stay open. In the face of less information, ADFG tends more conservative in its management in the best interest of stocks. So far, fishermen have been providing regular reports, Rumble said. “The mandatory call-in compliance has been good and has allowed harvest and effort tracking by the statistical area; harvest has been relatively stable,” she said. “The fishery will continue to be closely monitored via the call-in reports and deliveries for the next weeks to determine if any management action is necessary.” At this point, Fish and Game feels confident enough in its information that there are no immediate plans to close the fishery early, she said. Without early intervention from Fish and Game, the fishery will close March 31. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Stakeholders seek ways to grow outdoor rec economy

A group of business owners and advocates are pushing for Alaska to place more of an economic stake in its outdoor recreation economy. Alaska boasts a massive number of tracts of undeveloped public land. Most Alaskans take advantage of all that land for various activities all year, and the summer brings tourists from all over the world, especially to fish. The founders of Confluence, an outdoor recreation advocacy group begun under the umbrella of the Valdez Adventure Alliance, think the state could advertise the outdoor economy better and enable more businesses to cater to it. A new study from the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Center for Economic Development establishes a numerical sketch for the industry’s impact as well. The study estimates that participants in outdoor recreation spend about $3.2 billion annually, excluding equipment purchases, and that the industry provides about 29,000 direct jobs and about 10,000 indirect and induced jobs. The report estimates that equipment purchases could be a similar sum. “A majority of Alaskans say that opportunities to get outside are a reason they choose to live or remain in the state, and a similar share of visitors come to Alaska to experience the great outdoors,” the report states. “Both locals and visitors spend money in the course of their activities that circulates throughout the state economy, making outdoor recreation a substantial industry.” During a House Resources Committee meeting on March 6, committee members heard testimony in support of legislation enhancing the outdoor recreation industry in the state. Lee Hart, one of the co-founders of Confluence, told the committee that Alaskans have long shown support for spending state resources on outdoor recreation, including taxing themselves for trail maintenance. “Since at least the year 2000, residents of this state have been clamoring for more access to the public lands and waterways that surround their communities,” she said. Nolan Klouda, the director of UAA Center for Economic Development, presented the study to the committee and noted that outdoor recreation is also an attraction for workers. An economic strategy for a geographically isolated state like Alaska may not necessarily be to attract firms, but to attract talented workers to live here because of the quality of life and thus lure the businesses to where the workers are, according to the study. Klouda said businesses often identify hiring talent as a major obstacle to operating. “Economic development increasingly is about attracting talent and keeping talent in your area,” he said. “Just the ability to hire any workers at any skill level that can fill the positions that you have, and Alaska businesses will tell you that that is a major challenge.” Exploring ways to attract and retain residents is one of four recommendations included in the report. The others include gathering better data about outdoor recreation consumers, adding an economic impact component to state recreation development and supporting entrepreneurship. The report points to efforts such as the Anchorage-based Launch Alaska and the Seward-based Alaska Ocean Cluster as examples of incubators for businesses in particular sectors. The study also references programs like the state of Vermont’s grant program for remote workers, which grants prospective residents up to $10,000 for living in the state while performing remote work, and to an effort in Valdez to start a telework center meant to attract tech workers from crowded, expensive areas like Seattle and Silicon Valley based on the local outdoor recreation opportunities available. In a handout presented to the committee, Confluence identified four priorities: raising awareness of emerging sectors, creating a blue ribbon commission to identify ways to reduce regulatory burden for outdoor industries, leveraging federal matches to fund outdoor recreation access, and management and preserving the Snowmobile Trails Grant Program. A number of stakeholders also wrote letters to the committee in support of the SnowTRAC program, in which snowmachiners pay an increased license and registration fee in exchange for maintained trails. Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposes reorganization for the state recreational trails program, under which the snowmobile trail grant program is administered, by eliminating a position, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Michele Stevens, who represented the Petersville Community Nonprofit Corporation, said the snowmobile trails provide more than just recreational opportunity — they are important for search and rescue operations, as people are less likely to get lost. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly member Dan Mayfield wrote a letter to Dunleavy that he was surprised that funding for the snowmobile trail program, known as SnowTRAC, was not included in the budget. “The money funds trail care, safety and grooming activities that, in turn, bring increased business through recreational visitation to each of the communities throughout the state who have qualified for these funds,” he wrote. “Failure to fund this program means the end of SnowTRAC, increased hazards on the trails, the failure of several non-profit organizations who work to support snowmobile activity and decreased business/revenue for communities up and down the trail system.” ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Cook Inlet oil infrastructure review moves into second phase

Two years after a major gas line in Cook Inlet leaked millions of cubic feet of methane into the water, the citizen agency charged with monitoring oil and gas activity is assembling a panel of experts to review information related to the region’s aging industry infrastructure. The Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council took on a project to conduct a risk assessment for the area’s oil and gas facilities about a year after Hilcorp, the operator of the leaking pipeline, announced in April 2017 that the leak had been stopped. The leak, which drew international attention, began in December 2016; the company said ice conditions made it too difficult to dive down and repair the line at the time. Later investigation indicated a rolling boulder — about 3 feet by 10 feet long, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation — at the bottom of the Inlet had damaged the line, which delivered dry natural gas to a production platform. The assessment included taking an inventory of existing infrastructure and its structural integrity. With funding from the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as well as its own dollars, CIRCAC began the first phase of a review in May 2018 and, on March 15, announced that it would move into its second phase. The CIRCAC and its sister organization in Prince William Sound were created by Congress after the March 24, 1989, Exxon Valdez disaster that spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil. The second phase involves an expert panel of independent experts: Dr. Christopher Dash, James Howell, Andrew Kendrick, Christopher Myer and Dr. Shirish Patel. All five are pipeline safety experts, and four have direct Alaska experience, according to a March 15 announcement from CIRCAC. “Myers has an intimate knowledge of Cook Inlet oil and gas operations, while Howell and Dash have worked on pipeline safety in other parts of Alaska,” the announcement states. “Kendrick has consulted on risk management and safety for pipeline projects throughout the country, and Patil spent 30+ years teaching and studying petroleum engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks prior to moving to a similar role in Saudi Arabia.” Tim Robertson, the co-owner of Nuka Research and Planning Group, the contractor managing the project for CIRCAC, said the operators are still reviewing the information gathered in the inventory but that part of it should be publicly available by the end of the month. “It’s going to put out by a website, and that website should be live by the end of the month,” he said. “There is a second level of the inventory, which is a little more proprietary for the operators.” Most of Cook Inlet’s oil infrastructure dates back to the 1960s, when the oil boom began there in earnest. Companies in the succeeding years patched and repaired platforms and pipelines there, handing them off to newcomers as each successive company sold its interest in the Inlet. Hilcorp, which bought into the inlet in 2012, controls and operates the majority of Cook Inlet’s infrastructure, with Marathon Petroleum operating the former Tesoro refinery in Nikiski and Cook Inlet Energy, Furie Operating Alaska and BlueCrest Energy operating units of their own. Robertson said one of the challenges of assembling the inventory so far has been the sales between companies. Nuka Research previously worked on a pipeline risk assessment for the North Slope, where the infrastructure has mostly been built by the current operators. In Cook Inlet, assets have been bought and sold multiple times over the years and records of maintenance have not been easily available. The operators have been helpful where they can, but they’re often busy and sometimes may not have the records themselves, he said. “Recent information is really, really good, but if you go back beyond about 1995, it’s really fuzzy,” he said. “Likewise, we’ve had some variability in repairs. Again, that’s been really hard information to find out in some cases.” The panel members have already met via teleconference and will meet face-to-face in Anchorage on May 8, Robertson said. This will also be a chance for the public to participate and gather more information about the infrastructure in Cook Inlet. CIRCAC plans to announce the details of the meeting in the future. So far, the timeline has been going about as Nuka expected, Robertson said. There have been some delays because of hiccups in obtaining funding from the state and because of the schedules with operators — including the Nov. 30 earthquake that rattled Southcentral Alaska. Moving into the second phase, Nuka is planning for the experts to spend the next month reviewing the information before meeting in May to discuss it. They will then provide feedback, which Nuka will review before the panel meets again around August or September, he said. Right now, they don’t have a prescribed set of deliverables they expect from the panel. They may take a different form than the North Slope pipeline review’s recommendations did, Robertson said. “We certainly want the expert panel to take ownership of their recommendations,” he said. “They’re all members of the industry … some from a worldwide perspective, others from a Cook Inlet perspective. They all understand the industry. We aren’t putting any bounds on recommendations at this point. I think at this point, they’ll be looking at best practices and information gathering.” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Ag industry frets over end of Alaska Grown, loan fund in budget

Some of the cuts in Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy’s budget would fall hard on Alaska’s farmers, even as they try to grow their sector into a larger part of the state economy. Farming is nothing new in Alaska. However, as Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted in her address to attendees at the Alaska Food Festival and Conference in Homer on March 8, most of the nation has no idea that there is any agriculture at all in the state. Farming in Alaska dates back to at least the 1920s, with people keeping their own gardens before and after that. But in the past three decades, farmers have been pushing harder to innovate and increase their presence with an eye toward providing more of Alaska’s food supply locally and toward exporting their goods. Farmers now grow everything from peonies to massive tomatoes to oysters in the state. However, Dunleavy’s budget includes a number of cuts to programs that would affect the industry. One of the major items is to significantly reduce funding to the state Division of Agriculture, which includes the highly visible Alaska Grown program. The budget would also zero out funding for the Agriculture Revolving Loan Fund, a state-administered fund issuing small loans to farmers for business-related expenses, and would eliminate the state agricultural veterinarian. Dunleavy campaigned on the promise that he would cut the state budget to match revenues without raising new broad-base taxes. His proposed budget cuts more than $1.2 billion, forgoing a number of federal match programs. “It was difficult to arrive at these decisions and it is certainly not easy news to share,” wrote Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Corri Feige in a Feb. 13 letter to staff. “However, it speaks far more to the state’s very significant fiscal challenges than it does to the good work performed by each of you.” The Alaska Food Policy Council, a group of food policy advocates, has been working on policies to advance food safety and local food availability for the past eight years. This year, members of the council were working on a farming pilot plan when the governor’s budget came out, at which point the focus shifted toward the impacts. “This year, I think everyone’s priority is the budget,” said Amy Seitz, a member of the Alaska Food Policy Council’s board and the executive director of the Alaska Farm Bureau. With significant cuts to the Division of Agriculture, the industry would lose an important link to creating opportunities to export their goods. Because of its geography, Alaska has long relied on trade partners in Asia; individual farmers may not have the ability to create those partnerships on their own, especially as foreign government entities may only deal with other government entities, Seitz said. Similarly, the Alaska Grown program is an important go-between for farmers to get their produce onto local grocery store shelves. Large grocery chains like Fred Meyer and Costco may not work with individual farmers who want to put their products on shelves there, and without that shelf space, farmers won’t be able to reach as many consumers. Alaska Grown has been an important partner to talk with the grocery chains and to help farmers with the paperwork, Seitz said. The “farm-to-institution” program would also disappear, as would the federal-state Crop Block Grant program. Accepting federal grants coming to the state would be difficult, as the Division of Agriculture usually accepts and distributes those — and with $16 million over the next four years provided to the state through the most recent farm bill, who would handle those funds will be unclear. The state dairy certification program would also be cut, impacting some operations already ongoing. The only operations that could then distribute local milk in the state would be through herdshares, which are fairly limited in scope. Essentially, the industry would be pushed back from its movement toward professionalism. “It would go back to hobby farming,” Seitz said. Outside the landscape of the proposed state budget, there’s optimism in the farming sector. The conference, attended by about 200 people from all over the state, featured items like connecting farms and consumers as a community food system, marketing, accepting food stamp benefits at farmers markets and food business financing. Discussions focused on opportunities to increase consumption and awareness of local foods and value-added products. The Alaska Food Policy Council advocates for state law changes that make food more affordable and available across the state, preferring local when possible. Bills like HB 16, which would allow for the sale of raw milk products in the state, would further the distribution of local foods, and the council is working on a farm pilot project that would allow farmers trying to get going to have access to shared kitchen facilities and other resources. The greatest obstacles aren’t necessarily getting people into farming, Seitz said, but rather “logistics and changing the attitude of people who are making policies.” The most recent farm bill, a sprawling piece of federal legislation passed in December, provides some other reasons for optimism. The reauthorization of the specialty crop grant program provides more funding for farmers in Alaska, who often grow crops like fruits, vegetables and tree nuts. Sen. Dan Sullivan, who gave a brief speech at the conference Friday, said his office supported that provision and hopes to continue facilitating farming in Alaska. “There’s a lot going on, and it’s positive, really positive,” Sullivan said. “We’re working on a lot of sustainable food security, but there’s a lot of areas where I think we’re just scratching the surface, particularly if you look at not just the farm on land but also … our oceans.” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Kenai borough outlines budget impact of losing oil property taxes

Though the community of Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula only has about 6,500 residents, its fire department boasts a $5 million budget. Most of that hinges on the fact that it’s the seat of the oil industry on the Kenai Peninsula. The community has reaped the benefits of local property taxes levied on the oil and gas properties nearby to pay for services since the first oil boom in Cook Inlet in the 1960s. That would change should the Legislature pass Senate Bill 57, Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy’s request to repeal municipalities’ ability to tax oil and gas infrastructure. The Kenai Peninsula Borough would lose out on about $14.7 million, or about 11 percent of its annual revenue. Impacts would ripple all over the borough, according to Borough Mayor Charlie Pierce. Nikiski’s fire department would lose about $3 million of its budget; to recover those expenses, the property taxes there would have to be raised to about 17 mills, or $17 on every $1,000 of property value. “You could see a Nikiski fire department with 17 mills to pay for the current level of services or a fire chief, an assistant fire chief and a bunch of volunteers,” he said. “…You cannot tax your way out of this.” The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly passed a resolution requesting that the Legislature amend SB 57 to simply reduce municipalities’ tax authority on oil and gas properties from 20 mills to 15 mills rather than eliminate it entirely. SB 57 has not yet been scheduled for any hearings in the Legislature. A second-class borough, the Kenai Peninsula is divided up into service areas, where property taxes are applied at different rates to pay for services like hospitals, emergency medical services and roads for its approximately 57,000 residents. Nikiski’s fire and emergency service area contains the oil platforms in the Inlet as well as Marathon’s refinery and the former Agrium plant, allowing it to collect taxes from that infrastructure and serving those platforms. But cutting 11 percent its total revenue would mean cuts elsewhere in the borough as well, Pierce said. The road service area, which incorporates the entire borough, also draws funds from the oil and gas infrastructure and would take a hit. Pierce noted the cuts would likely mean staff cuts, reduced services and delayed construction projects. While the Kenai Peninsula Borough is affected by many of the cuts, it’s not hit as hard by the oil and gas tax change as the North Slope Borough. The borough is home to the lucrative Arctic oil and gas fields and expected to collect about $313.7 million in property taxes from the 17.99 mill levy it applied to them in 2018, according to the North Slope Borough’s budget. The borough has to approve its draft budget by March 30, before it knows what the Legislature will do, so it’s planning for status quo at present. If SB 57 passes in its current form, the borough’s property tax revenue will fall to about $14.3 million, said Fadil Limani, the deputy finance director for the North Slope Borough. Much of the borough’s 95,000 square miles of area is on federal land and many of the residents live on Native allotments, making them exempt from property tax. The borough’s obligation to the North Slope Borough School District alone is $15 million, Limani said. “We’re facing extinction,” Limani said. “We won’t be able to survive if we don’t have the ability to tax … there’s nowhere else for us to tax.” The North Slope Borough is a high-cost place, with its villages scattered far and wide with no roads to connect them. The borough provides a number of services that others in the state don’t, including its own police force, search-and-rescue and wildlife management departments. The reductions in state services in Dunleavy’s budget and the cuts to its own revenue would send the villages back into a pre-modern lifestyle, Limani said. It would also limit the borough’s ability to issue bonds by damaging ratings; they likely wouldn’t be able to issue bonds at all, he said. D.J. Fauske, the government and external affairs manager for the North Slope Borough, said Dunleavy’s office did not discuss its plans with the municipalities before introducing them on Feb. 13. Instead of correcting the entire budget gap this year by cutting hard into the borough’s budget, he said the governor should take a slower approach and noted that the Permanent Fund Dividend paybacks included in the budget consume an enormous chunk of the state’s revenue. “They know the damage this will do to bond ratings,” Fauske said. “He’s not making any cuts. Where are some of the cuts (to operations) … if we don’t have a ferry system, why do we have state offices open in Southeast?” Municipalities all over the state have objected that the governor’s budget cuts at the state level but, instead of entirely eliminating expenses, shifts them to municipalities to provide. For those municipalities, that may mean local tax hikes to maintain the current levels of service. But for others, there is no way to make up that revenue. The Alaska Municipal League identified a number of items of concern in its response to Dunleavy’s budget, with some as cost-shifts and others as state preemption of tax collection. SB 57 is an example of state preemption, as is the proposal to stop sharing the fisheries business tax and fisheries landing tax, said Nils Andreassen, the executive director of the Alaska Municipal League. Dunleavy’s budget also proposes cutting the school debt reimbursement program and not funding the entire formula for public schools. Both of those are cost-shifts, Andreassen said, which the boroughs will have a hard time making up. The cuts to Medicaid are also likely to hit locally owned hospitals hard, especially in rural areas where Medicaid patients make up a higher percentage of the payer base. Not every municipality has the same types of taxes available, and some also have voter-imposed taxed on rates. The Kenai Peninsula Borough, for example, has a voter-imposed cap of $500 on taxable sales. Such limits reduce municipalities’ abilities to find revenue elsewhere, and many already struggle with deficits, Andreassen said. Some costs are fixed, such as municipalities’ participation in the Public Employee Retirement System and having to fund schools between the minimum and maximum funding allowed. “There’s already a struggle at the municipal level to have stable budgets,” he said. “I think we looked at (fiscal year 2017) budgets and roughly a third of municipalities budgeted for more expenses than revenues.” There’s no precedent in the state for boroughs ceasing operations, but cities have, Andreassen said. If the state preempts collection of certain taxes, the boroughs and cities will have to find other ways to make up the revenue, which may mean new taxes on industries, he said. “There’s not a precedent, but boroughs are statutorily required to tax, and if the state takes away one tax, it only means they have to find a different tax,” he said. “It means that industries and residents in those regions will have a different burden based on that. If you look at the petroleum tax and fisheries tax being preempted by the state, you can imagine that those industries would have other taxes levied on them.” The governor intends the impact on municipalities to be a conversation, one which began on Feb. 14, said Matt Shuckerow, press secretary for Dunleavy. “Where we are as a state is that we have spent $14 billion (from savings) in four years,” Shuckerow said. “We can no longer spend money that we don’t have, and we cannot spend on all programs … Municipalities have the option to do what the governor has done and find efficiencies and programs and find programs that may be no longer best serving their residents.” He said the governor has already talked with a number of municipalities and plans to continue to do so, including with the North Slope Borough. The hope with SB 57 is to find a fair and equitable distribution of the state’s wealth with the oil and gas property tax, he said. Dunleavy’s message is that the topic is “open for discussion,” he said. The budget was built on the principle of reducing state spending to match revenues without implementing any new taxes, and the governor is “fairly serious” about getting it done this year, Shuckerow said. “Here we are (six years after oil prices began to decline) and we’ve made very little changes to the amount of that we spend,” he said. “We’re up against the fiscal cliff, and we have to make a choice. The governor in the priorities of his campaign (said) that we have to put Alaska on a permanent fiscal plan. There’s no question Alaskans are now engaged. We hope that they continue to engage.” ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Board votes down personal-use priority proposal

The Board of Fisheries has voted down a controversial proposal that would have given personal-use fisheries priority in its allocation criteria as well as two proposals to change the way the Alaska Department of Fish and Game sets and manages escapement goals. All three proposals attracted testimony from stakeholders across the state, both for and against, during the board’s Statewide Finfish and Supplemental Issues meeting in Anchorage from March 9-12. Though the board turned down several proposals related to escapement goals and allocation priorities, the members indicated they’d be open to longer discussions on those subjects in the future. Proposal 171, submitted by the Kenai River Sportfishing Association, would have changed the criteria in the board’s allocation policy to include a priority for personal-use fisheries. The personal-use fisheries in the state, most notably the Chitina, Kenai River, Kasilof River and Fish Creek dipnet fisheries, attract thousands of participants every year. Because they do not have participation limits and harvest sockeye, a valuable species to the other user groups, they are a frequent source of allocation conflict, especially in Cook Inlet. The Board of Fisheries uses the allocation criteria as a checklist for considerations when making allocative decisions about fisheries issues. Subsistence users always get a priority, but in nonsubsistence areas, the board can weigh the different user groups and factors equally. In its proposal, KRSA asked that the board rewrite its allocation criteria in nonsubsistence areas with a number of changes, including considering the number of residents and nonresidents participating in the fishery, the importance of each fishery to provide residents with fish for personal and family consumption and the history of the fishery within the last 20 years. During public testimony at the meeting, KRSA fishery biology consultant Kevin Delaney told the board that the criteria does not block the board from making decisions in favor of other user groups but would add weight to the criteria when making allocative decisions in nonsubsistence areas. “If the desire is to prioritize historical use as it has been, rather than generating broad public support and maximizing economic value, that decisions would still be possible,” he said. “It would just be transparently obvious that that’s the reason.” Large numbers of commercial fishermen, particularly from Cook Inlet, came out to oppose the proposal. Many cited feelings of being marginalized by regulations in Cook Inlet, where families have generations of commercial fishing history, while others cited concerns about the biological wisdom of prioritizing the personal-use fisheries. Duncan Fields, who represented the communities of Ouzinkie and Old Harbor on Kodiak and as the chairman of the Kodiak Salmon Workgroup, testified against proposal 171, saying it would tie the hands of future boards on allocation decisions and that it would set a precedent for allocation based on the number of users. “That goes to the very heart of what we believe in as Americans with a constitutional government where we protect aspects of minority rights, people who are not in the majority,” he said. “We have a common use clause, which means that the resources are to be used for the good of all the people, not just those who happen to have a majoritarian point of view. I think I’m most offended by the change in language that would change your criteria based on sort of a numerical hierarchy.” The board voted down the proposal 2-5, with members Israel Payton and Reed Morisky supporting it. Payton, who lives in the Matanuska Valley, said many people in the area have “given up” on policies improving the quality of their fisheries. The board is charged with making allocation decisions, which are difficult, but it’s important to consider the needs of a growing population in Cook Inlet, he said. “I sympathize with commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet who have a long history in commercial fishing that feel like they’re getting squeezed out,” he said. “But the population has grown … we’re not providing the opportunity for that growing need.” Board member Fritz Johnson noted there are biological issues in the Susitna River impacting salmon returns there as well, and there are ways to remedy that using board processes, but said he would oppose the proposal because of the majority of users being against it. Both Morisky and board member Robert Ruffner noted that they would be willing to discuss the issue further in the future, as it’s a common issue brought up between user groups. It continued the thread of the meeting, as the board held an entire special meeting Friday to discuss issues related to hatcheries. No regulatory action was taken, but the board listened to public comment and information from ADFG about current hatchery programs and research to gather more information after several years of the public raising concerns about hatchery operations in the state. Two other proposals, 169 and 170, also raised long-term issues. Both dealt with the way ADFG sets salmon escapement goals in rivers, which impact how managers are able to open fishing and regulate harvest. The department sets a variety of different types of goals, including sustainable escapement goals, or SEG, biological escapement goals, or BEG, and optimum escapement goals, or OEG, and develops them based on the data available. Proposal 169 would have rewritten the state’s policy for developing escapement goals and required the department to release them earlier, before in-cycle Board of Fisheries proposals are due, and proposal 170 would have changed how escapement goals are set and required management targets based on maximum sustained yield. The board turned down both proposals unanimously, but several members noted that the escapement goal setting process may be due for a review. Currently, the department reviews and sets escapement goals, presenting information to the board at each three-year meeting cycle, but the board does not necessarily vote on setting individual escapement goals. Ruffner noted that the process of how Fish and Game decides whether to set an OEG, BEG or SEG can be confusing and could use clarification. “I think if we ignore this, I think in a couple of years we’re going to be right where we are with hatchery issues, where we have to do something,” he said. “I’d much prefer to get ahead of that now with a committee process or something.” Jensen said he agreed with Ruffner about the long-term considerations on the escapement goal policies. Payton said he thought the escapement goal policy is one of the stronger documents the department has but there could be some improvements to the board’s action on goals. “Process-wise, I think we could work on some things,” he said. ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Board of Fisheries to reconvene committee on hatcheries

For the first time in about a decade, the Board of Fisheries will reconvene its committee focused on the state’s salmon hatcheries. The Hatchery Committee — which actually consists of all the members of the board — is set to meet March 8, the day before the board begins its Statewide Finfish and Supplemental Issues meeting in Anchorage at the Sheraton Hotel from March 9-12. Rather than making regulatory policies, the committee meeting will focus on receiving reports from staff and hearing from the public on hatchery issues. Glenn Haight, the board’s executive director, said the committee will base its activities on a joint protocol on hatcheries developed in 2002. “The agenda shows that the department will provide a number of reports and then they were just going to open discussions not unlike Committee of the Whole,” he said. “It’s not clear to me what will come out of it. It’s an information session.” The Joint Protocol on Salmon Enhancement, signed in 2002 by the chairman of the Board of Fisheries and the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, outlines the authorities of the department and the board and outlines the board’s intention to hold meetings “on a regular basis wherein the department will update the board and the public on management, production and research relating to Alaska’s salmon enhancement program.” Most hatcheries in the state are run by private nonprofit organizations, funded in part by taxes paid by commercial fishermen as well as cost recovery revenue from harvests; the state also runs two sportfish hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Their permits for egg-takes and salmon releases are administered by the state and vetted through the Regional Planning Team process. The board has the authority to regulate harvest on those returning salmon and to modify hatchery permits relating to the source and the number of eggs harvested. Sam Rabung, the director of Fish and Game’s Division of Commercial Fisheries and the former section chief for the division’s Statewide Aquaculture, Permitting and Planning office, said the committee met annually until 2008 or so. “Quite frankly, I think the board at that time just lost interest because there was nothing new or exciting happening,” he said. “In the 10 years that went by, there wasn’t an opportunity for the public to receive information, and because that information wasn’t being made available in public formats, it kind of created an information vacuum.” In a series of meetings in 2018, the board considered petitions and Agenda Change Requests from the public raising concerns about hatchery production — particularly about pink salmon production in Prince William Sound. The Kenai River Sportfishing Association, a Soldotna-based organization which advocates for sport anglers, connected its concern to an ADFG analysis showing that unexpectedly large numbers of hatchery-origin Prince William Sound pink salmon were straying into streams in Lower Cook Inlet in 2016 and 2017. The organization submitted a number of scientific papers connecting pink salmon abundance in the Gulf of Alaska to concerns about the Gulf’s carrying capacity for fish as well. Hatchery representatives and commercial fishermen countered these papers, submitting their own review saying many of the studies were flawed or incomplete, and asking the board to have a broader discussion on hatcheries before modifying permits or capping production. Division of Commercial Fisheries Chief Fisheries Scientist for salmon Bill Templin presented an analysis of the papers as well, saying many of the papers either had flaws or lacked context. The board members repeatedly voted down the requests to cap hatchery production or modify current hatchery permits, but agreed to reconvene the committee on hatcheries to open up the opportunity for more public forum on hatchery production and impacts. Hatcheries are important to many commercial fishing communities, enhancing the salmon returns to many areas. The cities of Juneau, Valdez and Craig all submitted letters in support of hatchery programs in the state, as well as a number of Native corporations and commercial fishermen in various regions. The Afognak Native Corp. submitted comments for the meeting supporting hatcheries and the reconvening of the committee, calling the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association’s work “critical contributions.” “We specifically request that the State support the convening of the Salmon Hatcheries Committee Meeting and Joint Protocol on Salmon Enhancement,” executive director Alisha Drabek wrote in the letter. “This Joint Protocol is particularly essential as it provides a forum for open discussion on hatchery topics to improve dialogue and transparency between the Board of Fisheries, ADF&G, fisheries stakeholders, and the public to generate statewide perspectives on issues associated with hatchery production of salmon.” Conservation and sportfishing groups submitted comments asking the board to take action with concerns about the effect of pink salmon on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Alaska. The Homer-based Kachemak Bay Conservation Society criticized Templin’s analysis of the scientific papers on the effects of pink salmon on the Gulf in its comment, saying ADFG staff menbers are not able to act in an unbiased manner on hatcheries. The group calls for an independent Hatchery Impacts Advisory Group to advise the board’s Hatchery Committee. “An independent Hatchery Impacts Science Advisory Group must be formed to determine whether release sized need to be limited by the board and/or sanctuaries for significant wild stocks need to be created,” wrote Kachemak Bay Conservation Society board president Roberta Highland in the letter. The Hatchery Committee is scheduled to meet on Friday, March 8, starting at 8:30 a.m., followed by the Statewide and Supplemental Finfish meeting starting Saturday at 8:30 a.m. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

On-site cannabis consumption rules delivered to Meyer

The Marijuana Control Board has approved regulations and paperwork for on-site consumption endorsements and businesses are now waiting on Lt. Governor Kevin Meyer’s signature for final approval. At its Feb. 20 meeting, the board approved the permit forms that cannabis businesses will have to complete in order to obtain an on-site consumption endorsement. The paperwork may still have amendments in the future based on industry and local government feedback, but for now, the checklist of items license holders need to apply has the Marijuana Control Board’s approval. However, businesses still can’t submit applications for the paperwork, be approved and open up their spaces quite yet. After the Marijuana Control Board approved the regulations, they were sent to the Alaska Department of Law for review. After that, they require the lieutenant governor’s signature before becoming official. Meyer has not signed them yet; his office just received the packet from the Department of Law on Feb. 28, according to Meyer’s Chief of Staff Josh Applebee. If Meyer signs off, they will take effect 30 days later and applications may be submitted. In December, Alaska became the first state to pass regulations to allow people to consume marijuana on licensed premises in a 3-2 vote of the board. It was a long-championed item by the cannabis industry, particularly those who own licenses in areas with large tourist visitation. However, concerns about public health and safety dominated the discussion for some time as the industry and the board members tried to work out how to implement regulations. Not long after the Dec. 20 vote, Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy dismissed Sitka Police Chief Jeff Ankerfelt from his public safety seat on the board and declined to nominate industry representative Brandon Emmett for another term on the board. Dunleavy instead nominated Vivian Stiver of Fairbanks, who led an unsuccessful effort to ban local commercial cannabis operations in 2017, to replace Emmett. Both Ankerfelt and Emmett voted in favor of allowing onsite consumption. With the summer tourist season coming, some businesses are hoping to have their on-site consumption areas open and available this year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough, home to about 13,000 people, welcomes just about every Alaska-bound cruise ship every summer. As the first port a ship encounters upon entering Alaska, the city of Ketchikan can see days with 8,000 to 10,000 tourists in town. Mark Woodward, co-owner of cannabis retail shop Stoney Moose, says his store can attract about 10 percent of that influx — maybe 800 to 1,000 people per day on a busy day. Because the cruise ships don’t allow people to use cannabis on board and consuming cannabis in public is illegal, many of his customers have to resort to either smoking somewhere discreet around town or using edibles instead. “People will buy an edible and walk outside and open it up and pop it in their mouth,” he said. Opening up an on-site consumption area has always been part of the plan for his business, he said. Most Ketchikan locals will likely purchase their products and go home to consume them, so the site would be targeted mostly at the cruise ship industry. Set up in downtown Ketchikan where visitors can walk to and from the store, the shop has an advantage over others situated a little farther out of town. But it’s also a disadvantage for on-site consumption because of a clause the Marijuana Control Board included requiring businesses to be located in a freestanding building in order to allow smoking. While that may not be a problem for businesses in Southcentral Alaska, where the communities are more spread out and more buildings stand independently, it’s a huge hurdle for Southeast, where the communities are more densely developed. Woodward said he and his co-owners invested in a ventilated indoor room with the hope that on-site consumption would be allowed, but the inclusion of the “freestanding” clause negatively impacts that plan. They’d have to switch to a covered, ventilated deck instead. “We have a deck that it would be perfect,” he said. “It overlooks a salmon stream. We’re going to ventilate the deck. We have all these plans, but it’s just this unknown of can you have a freestanding building? Down here in Ketchikan, you just don’t.” The board discussed that consideration during its February meeting, noting the concern from some business owners who want to allow on-site consumption of edibles only. The freestanding requirement is a stipulation of the statewide Smoke-free Workplace Act and wouldn’t apply to an area that only allowed consumption of edibles. Board chairman Mark Springer asked if the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office could look into developing separate forms for someone wanting to only allow edible consumption that would allow them to bypass the freestanding regulation. “We’re approving this, but it’s still going to be a work in progress, so would it be fair to say that if people in industry, people in government, have got thoughts on what all should be included in this, what would clarify it for local government, what industry might think … that they can either throw it in the marijuana mailbox or flag comments on this and it will be administratively considered,” he said. “Partly that’s because this continues to be a high-interest issue.” Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Alcohol, cannabis investigators locked out of public safety info network

The enforcement officers charged with inspecting and investigating cannabis and alcohol business licenses have lost access to the statewide public safety information network, and that is hampering their ability to do their jobs according to a top official. On Dec. 1, the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, or AMCO, lost access to the Alaska Public Safety Information Network and the Alaska Records Management System, two public records systems that the investigators had relied on for years to check criminal history and records in relation to license investigations. The loss of the access prevents the investigators from doing their jobs fully under statute and compromises their safety, according to a report from AMCO Executive Director Erika McConnell to the Marijuana Control Board. “AMCO investigators make scheduled and unscheduled inspections of licensed facilities to respond to complaints or tips about unlicensed activity, bootlegging, over service, under-age drinking, and other activities that threaten public health and safety,” McConnell wrote. “With no access to these databases, the investigators may go to interview someone who is subject to a warrant or possibly armed and dangerous, without having any warning or information. In the worst-case scenario, AMCO investigators could interview a wanted individual without ever knowing there was a warrant for that person, and the person could go on to commit new crimes.” AMCO employs a number of investigators to respond to complaints from the public and to conduct licensing inspections and investigations. Prior to 2014, the office only regulated alcohol licenses, ranging from breweries in downtown Anchorage to bars in remote communities; after voters chose to legalize cannabis for recreational use, regulating cannabis was added to the office’s responsibilities. The office was given 30 days’ notice by the Department of Public Safety. In a letter to McConnell, Alaska State Troopers Acting Director Major Andrew Greenstreet explained that in the past, DPS had determined AMCO to be a criminal justice agency under federal and state statutes. “However, after further consultation and analysis with the Department’s General Counsel and Records Bureau Chief … DPS has determined that AMCO does not meet the statutory definition of a ‘criminal justice agency,’” Greenstreet wrote. State statute defines a criminal justice agency as an agency that “devotes a substantial portion of its budget to a criminal justice activity under a law, regulation or ordinance,” which AMCO does not, Greenstreet wrote. Most of AMCO’s work is regulatory in nature rather than criminal justice-related. He added that if AMCO employees need specific information, they can communicate with specific DPS employees to retrieve it. Greenstreet did not mention marijuana issues specifically in his letter, but McConnell drew the connection in her report. DPS fears the Federal Bureau of Investigation may revoke the state’s access to criminal justice information due to marijuana regulatory activity because marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, she wrote. While DPS is still working with AMCO to provide the information, it seems unnecessary based on activity in other states and doesn’t match the authority given to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the Marijuana Control Board in statute. During the meeting, she told the board that the change has implications broader than marijuana and alcohol business regulation. “There’s lots of ways in which the removal of these tools from our use is bad for public safety, bad for investigator safety and bad for the safety of other law enforcement officers,” she said. “I’m not so much talking about investigations of our licensees — we’re talking about particularly criminal investigations.” Enforcement officers sometimes have to investigate remote locations. They don’t have access to law enforcement radio networks to signal warnings or call for help, and they may not have access to public safety information for several days while communicating through DPS, McConnell wrote. AMCO also used the system to manage its enforcement cases. Without access, the office will have to purchase a new software system or find workarounds. Marijuana Control Board chairman Mark Springer and Alcoholic Beverage Control Board chairman Bob Klein have sent a letter on the topic to Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Commissioner Julie Anderson, who deferred action until after Dunleavy’s budget was announced on Feb. 13. AMCO may lose its investigative unit entirely from within the department as all statewide investigators move to the Alaska Department of Law. The change comes after Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an administrative order Feb. 13 to establish a Statewide Investigator Unit within the Department of Law and form a task force to consolidate all state investigators into it. If they are moved to a statewide department, they may have access to APSIN and ARMS there, McConnell wrote. ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Medicaid cuts threaten financially vulnerable rural hospitals

Proposed cuts to the Alaska Medicaid program may fall the hardest on organizations that can least afford it: rural hospitals and health clinics. Among Alaska’s budget line items, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services is the gorilla in the room, with an approximately $3.2 billion budget in the current 2019 fiscal year. Within that, Medicaid services consume about $2.3 billion. Gov. Michael J. Dunleavy’s proposed fiscal year 2020 budget, to begin July 1, would cut about $250 million directly from the Medicaid budget, though how those cuts would be implemented is still unclear. Overall, the 2020 budget would cut about 25 percent from the DHSS budget. Medicaid provides medical coverage for Alaskans with disabilities, the elderly and low-income residents. Since former Gov. Bill Walker accepted the federal expansion for Medicaid eligibility in 2015, about a quarter of Alaskans receive Medicaid. During a hearing Feb. 22 of the Senate Finance Committee, DHSS Assistant Commissioner Sana Efird said the biggest reduction in federal funds came from the Medicaid budget. The Medicaid program is administered by the state but funded in part by matching through the federal government. “The reduction, at this point, it is allocated in the Medicaid services component,” she said. “We are currently working on a plan that will show the specifics of that that reduction will be allocated for.” Finance Committee co-chairman Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, said Sen. Natasha Von Imhof, R-Anchorage, would lead a subcommittee specifically on the DHSS budget. Those cuts could take shape as a reduced reimbursement rate or eliminating covered services. Von Imhof specifically noted a proposal to cut adult dental services from Medicaid coverage. Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, noted that the department is counting on renewing the Section 1115 waiver program, which allows states to use federal funds to cover Medicaid programs in ways not otherwise allowed under federal rules for the purpose of a demonstration project. The state received a Section 1115 waiver in November 2018 to expand substance abuse treatment and would have to renew it in November 2023. Efird said the department leadership is currently working on another waiver application to cover other types of services. Hoffman said the administration has “the cart before the horse” when counting on obtaining waivers in the future to pay for services with federal funds. “You cannot balance this budget with federal funds,” he said. “You say may not affect people’s lives, but they may affect people’s lives.” The Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association asserted that the budget will force hospitals to close. Becky Hultberg, the organization’s president and CEO, said in a press release that the cuts will cost thousands of jobs. “While Governor Dunleavy may not believe government has a role in health care, his belief is disconnected from the reality that our current health care system relies on government payments for a significant percentage of total services, and our entire system will crumble without them,” she said. “This is a classic example of ideology taking precedent over practicality, and all Alaskans will feel the consequences.” Shaky Medicaid funding is already stressing rural healthcare infrastructure, and cutting it could push some rural hospitals and clinics over the edge. A report from health care consulting firm Navigant Health, released Feb. 22, noted that six hospitals in Alaska were at “high financial risk” of closing in 2018. That financial vulnerability comes from a “degradation” of the payer mix, leading to more reliance on the low reimbursement rates from Medicare, Medicaid or uninsured patients, declining inpatient care and inability to employ new technology or innovation programs, according to the report. Last summer, the state ran out of Medicaid reimbursement funds before the turnover of the fiscal year. For hospitals, that meant essentially holding their financial breaths until the state could appropriate more funding to pay for Medicaid patients; in 2018, that would have been longer than a month. For the bigger hospitals that have a higher percentage of private payers and more cash on hand available, that’s doable; for the smaller hospitals, which sometimes have less than a month’s cash on hand to pay for emergency expenses and payroll, those delays could spell disaster. Hospitals like Cordova, Homer, Seward and Wrangell rely on Medicare and Medicaid for about three-quarters of their reimbursements, according to a November 2018 report from ASHNHA. In Wrangell Medical Center’s case, the situation became dire enough for the hospital to strike a deal with the Southeast Regional Health Consortium to join its network on Nov. 1, 2018, taking some of the financial risk out of its hands. It’s been a huge relief for the hospital, said hospital manager Robert Rang. For one, SEARHC has invested in the facility, paying for new computer and phone systems. It’s also helped level off the concerns about the hospital’s cash-on-hand problem. “Suddenly, now we have the ability to cover the lows,” he said. “Before, it was peaks and valleys in our revenue sources. We’d get our long-term care money once a month … With SEARHC, your ups and downs are not quite as noticeable.” The other benefit to joining SEARHC was its status as a Tribal health organization. Tribal health organizations in Alaska operate a little differently on Medicaid; they draw down more on federal funds for Medicaid as opposed to relying on the state. Pending changes at the federal level, that may buffer hospitals and clinics within Tribal health networks if the cuts at the state level are only to reimbursement rates as opposed to cutting services entirely. For hospitals outside those networks, the hammer of those cuts may fall harder. At the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee hearing, Sen. Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna, asked that the state come up with a way to change program operations rather than just reduce appropriations because the shortfall lands in the laps of community hospital administrators. “Ultimately, the reason I’m saying that is this is a tax shift in that my community-owned hospitals picking up the cost,” he said. ^ Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]

Board adjusts some Chignik plans after 2018 fishery failure

Editor’s note: The original version of this story omitted two changes that altered some fishing opportunity for seiners near Dolgoi Islans and changing the opening schedules for setnetters in the area. The story has been updated to include these changes. With a year of poor sockeye runs, unfavorable ocean conditions and allocation fights before them, the Board of Fisheries chose to change part of the season for some nearby commercial fisheries to improve passage of sockeye salmon to Chignik. After a long debate, the board voted down some proposals to change the allocation in the Chignik management area at its meeting in Anchorage, but later passed two proposals to realign setnetting time and to close seining in June in parts of the Southwestern, Southeastern and Southcentral districts of the South Unimak and Shumagin Island fisheries. The proposals before the board were submitted before the 2018 season, when a disastrously poor sockeye run kept Chignik fishermen on shore for virtually the entire season, but they still scratched at an allocation itch between the terminal fishermen at Chignik and the commercial fishermen along the Alaska Peninsula.  During the public comment period, speakers oscillated between Chignik residents pleading with the board to restrict fishing to restrict offshore fishing so the fishermen in Chignik can harvest more sockeye and commercial fishermen pleading with the board to leave regulations as they are so the fishermen can make a living. “Sockeye salmon is the main and only industry in Chignik,” said Alana Anderson, a Chignik City Council member. “The city’s operating budget relies heavily on fish taxes … Chignik is a small fishery.” At the same time, further restrictions to harvest in other management areas — to the west and east of Chignik, respectively — would cut into the profit margins of the fishermen who have invested in boats and permits to fish in those areas. Multiple fishermen from Sand Point and Area M asked the board to leave regulations at status quo. The management plans of the Chignik area are complicated and rely on allocation percentages of the salmon passing through. The proposals the board considered were submitted before the 2018 season, but the poor runs last year played into board members’ discussion because of how significantly the Chignik economy depends on a single fishery. Within its allocation criteria, the Board of Fisheries includes a consideration for the importance of a fishery to a local economy. Board member Al Cain said during a debate over a proposal that would have changed allocation percentages that based on discussion with stakeholders in the area, he didn’t want to change allocation much during the meeting. “It seems there’s two very valid sides to every coin we’re looking at,” he said. “Both sides of the equation have valid points … it’s hard to make a decision when one side or the other may benefit or one side or the other may have something removed from them. The economy of the local area is very high in my decision.” The board members spent significant time debating the allocation percentages in the area, with several proposals failing on narrow vote margins. Board members Israel Payton and Fritz Johnson both suggested multiple changes based on one proposal to the Southeastern District Mainland management plan, which focuses on an area southwest of Chignik. Payton’s version of the proposal focused on changing some of the harvest patterns for seiners in Area M, reducing some of the harvest pressure on eastern-bound sockeye stocks. He noted that changes made to the management plan in 2004 resulted in increased harvest on eastern bound stocks, based on Alaska Department of Fish and Game data, and wanted to shift more of the harvest back to the west. “If you just add up all the harvest rates … it takes a pretty big chunk out of eastern-bound stocks,” he said. “Given the pressure, I think it is fair to shift the burden to the seiners.” With board member Al Cain absent from the debate on Payton’s amended proposal, the six remaining board members split 3-3, resulting in the proposal failing. During the debate, board member Robert Ruffner said he wanted to be cautious to make any major changes to fisheries that would result in shifting effort. Moving effort reactively based on one year’s poor run could result in damage to another stock in the future, he said. Plus, the poor sockeye runs in 2018 were most likely due to environmental conditions in the Gulf of Alaska, based on the fact that sockeye runs were poor everywhere from the Copper River to Chignik. “If we look at harvest and we think that this is going to solve those problems that are out in the Gulf that are apparent in all these stocks, I don’t’ think this is going to do it,” he said. “I’m just not confident enough at this point with what I know to think that we should start changing this allocation plan.” Board members John Jensen and Orville Huntington agreed with Ruffner and voted against the proposal. Payton replied that while the Gulf of Alaska conditions certainly had an effect, the board was obliged to do what it can. “What we catch is in our control,” Payton said. “That’s what we do. We control what we can. We can blame all these things, and kick the can, but this board is tasked with controlling harvest.” Later, the board moved to amend and passed proposals to limit commercial fishing time in sections of the fishery in the South Unimak and Shumagin Islands near Dolgoi Island. Proposal 138, which originally asked to reduce commercial salmon fishing time to 75 percent of the current level; the Board of Fisheries amended it to close the Dolgoi Island area to seiners throughout June. Ruffner noted that data showed that many of the salmon passing through the area in June are headed for Chignik and that removing the seine fleet could help the Chignik fishermen and the escapement to the river. “This would take the seine fleet out,” he said. “I know people want more, but if there’s one thing that we could do that according to the genetics data that we have, it does suggest … that this would be the most effective thing that we could do as one action to help.” On the proposal to shift setnet fishing schedules, the board amended the proposal to align the hours with the other commercial fishermen in the area. The final language allows setnets in the South Unimak and Shumagin Island fisheries to begin June 6 at 6 a.m. and fish for 64 consecutive hours instead of the previous 88, and then will open for 88-hour consecutive periods beginning June 10 until June 28. The board approved both the amended proposals unanimously. Elizabeth Earl can be reached at [email protected]


Subscribe to RSS - Elizabeth Earl