Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

02/11/2016 10:00 AM House FISHERIES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:03:06 AM Start
10:03:18 AM HB251
10:47:51 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 251-ELECTRONIC TAX RETURNS & FISHERIES TAXES                                                                     
10:03:18 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  251, "An Act requiring  the electronic submission                                                               
of  a  tax return  or  report  with  the Department  of  Revenue;                                                               
relating to  fisheries business tax and  fishery resource landing                                                               
tax; relating to refunds to  local governments; and providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
10:04:10 AM                                                                                                                   
KEN ALPER,  Director, Tax Division, Department  of Revenue (DOR),                                                               
directed  attention to  the  committee packet  and  a three  page                                                               
letter, from  DOR to Representative  Stutes, dated  2/10/16, with                                                               
enumerated   questions   from    the   committee,   followed   by                                                               
departmental response.                                                                                                          
10:04:47 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES   paraphrased  the   first  question,   which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     1.   Who is defined as  a processor? Can we  see a list                                                                    
     of  taxpayers for  the Fisheries  Business Tax  [(FBT)]                                                                    
     and  Resource Landing  Tax [(RLT)],  and  get a  better                                                                    
     understanding of exactly who is  paying the tax and who                                                                    
MR. ALPER  responded that, due to  federal regulations pertaining                                                               
to confidentiality, it  is not possible to disclose  the names of                                                               
the licensed processors; however,  definitions exist for who pays                                                               
taxes under the  statute which may provide  the information being                                                               
sought.   Anything beyond  basic heading,  gutting, and  icing is                                                               
considered  processing.     He  paraphrased  from   the  prepared                                                               
response, which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                           
     If a  fish business operator has  intentions to process                                                                    
     any  fishery resource  other than  what they  caught or                                                                    
     their  activities  are  limited to  roe  recovery  from                                                                    
     salmon caught  from a  vessel greater  than 65  feet in                                                                    
     length, then the activities  are defined as processing.                                                                    
     The   following    activities   further    define   the                                                                    
     undertakings of a processor:                                                                                               
     • Prepares, processes or stores a fishery resource;                                                                        
     • Recovers salmon roe;                                                                                                     
     • Custom processes fishery resources from others;                                                                          
     • A  fish business that  has a fishery  resource custom                                                                    
     processed; or                                                                                                              
     • Exports an unprocessed fishery resource outside of                                                                       
     Processing  is defined  as any  activity that  modifies                                                                    
     the  physical condition  of the  fishery resource.   It                                                                    
     should also be noted  what isn't considered processing:                                                                    
     heading, gutting, gilling or  icing seafood products or                                                                    
     decapitating  fish.    Processors  include  traditional                                                                    
     shore-based  facilities as  well  as at-sea  processors                                                                    
     such  as  catcher-processors and  floating  processors.                                                                    
     Direct   marketers  are   considered  processors,   but                                                                    
     catcher-sellers are  not because  they sell  only their                                                                    
     own unprocessed  fish.  Businesses or  individuals that                                                                    
     have fish  custom processed,  that recover  salmon roe,                                                                    
     or that  export unprocessed fish outside  of Alaska are                                                                    
     considered processors.                                                                                                     
     Only  processors pay  the  Fisheries  Business Tax  and                                                                    
     Resource  Landing   Tax.    However,  in   cases  where                                                                    
     processors buy  their fish from  independent commercial                                                                    
     fishermen, it is  possible that some or all  of the tax                                                                    
     burden to  be passed  on to  the fishermen,  since they                                                                    
     have  little control  over  what  price the  processors                                                                    
     will pay.                                                                                                                  
     Unfortunately,  DOR  cannot  provide  a  full  list  of                                                                    
     taxpayers, as this would violate confidentiality.                                                                          
MR. ALPER  explained that the  non-disclosure restriction  is not                                                               
unique to the fishing industry.                                                                                                 
10:06:54 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE    ORTIZ   noted    the    five   bullet    points                                                               
defining/describing processor  activities, and asked how  many of                                                               
the points  an operator  would need  to meet  to be  considered a                                                               
MR. ALPER answered one.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ revisited  the confidentiality consideration                                                               
for the  taxpayers and  ascertained that  aggregated data  can be                                                               
accessed, but not individual return information.                                                                                
10:09:06 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES   paraphrased  the  second  question,   which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     2.   What is the  origin of  the separate FBT  rate for                                                                    
     salmon canneries?                                                                                                          
MR. ALPER  responded that there is  a long history of  fish taxes                                                               
for the varying  aspects of the industry.   He suggested checking                                                               
committee records  to understand  the rationale that  resulted in                                                               
the different taxes.  Pointing out the lengthy period, 1967-                                                                    
2004, when the tax remained at  3 percent, and he speculated that                                                               
it may have been increased to  4.5 percent during another time of                                                               
budget  shortfall.   He paraphrased  from the  prepared response,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
     According  to  a report  from  the  Alaska History  and                                                                    
     Cultural   Studies    organization,   called   Alaska's                                                                    
     Heritage, chapter 4-16:  Fishing  and Sea Hunting:  "As                                                                    
     early  as   1899,  Alaska   Natives  appealed   to  the                                                                    
     government to  protect the salmon for  those who relied                                                                    
     on it  for food.   They  also asked  for the  return of                                                                    
     some of their fishing  sites that cannery operators had                                                                    
     occupied.   In 1900, Congress responded  to the appeals                                                                    
     by requiring  that anyone engaged in  commercial salmon                                                                    
     fishing  in Alaska  establish  a  hatchery for  sockeye                                                                    
     salmon.   Most cannery operators  waited to see  if the                                                                    
     regulation would be enforced  before investing money in                                                                    
     a fish  hatchery.  Congress failed  to provide adequate                                                                    
     funds  for  enforcement.   In  1906,  Congress tried  a                                                                    
     different  tactic  to  force  fish  conservation.    It                                                                    
     levied  a tax  of four  cents  on each  case of  salmon                                                                    
     From the  very beginning of Alaska's  history there has                                                                    
     been a  separate rate for  salmon canneries.   From the                                                                    
     beginning,  non-residents  have dominated  the  canning                                                                    
     industry in  Alaska.  The  changing tax rates  over the                                                                    
     years may have resulted from  a shift from a mindset of                                                                    
     resentment   of    non-residents   exploiting   fishery                                                                    
     resources to a mindset of  trying to help small Alaskan                                                                    
     fishing operators.                                                                                                         
     Examples of  different state  salmon cannery  tax rates                                                                    
     in Alaska's history include:                                                                                               
     1913:   the First  Territorial Legislature  adopted the                                                                    
     initial  "salmon pack  tax"  of $0.07  per  case and  a                                                                    
     separate "cold storage tax" for other fisheries                                                                            
     1951:   the territorial  legislature set  the fisheries                                                                    
     business tax on floating processors  to 4% of value and                                                                    
     salmon canneries to 6%                                                                                                     
     1967: the tax rate for  salmon canneries was lowered to                                                                    
     2004: the tax rate for salmon canneries rose to 4.5%                                                                       
10:10:33 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES   paraphrased  the   third  question,   which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     3.   How does the  Department of Fish &  Game determine                                                                    
     what  is a  developing or  established fishery?  Can we                                                                    
     get a list of them?                                                                                                        
MR.   ALPER   paraphrased   the   governing   statute   providing                                                               
interdepartmental cooperation for taxing purposes, which read:                                                                  
     Sec. 16.05.050.  Powers and duties of commissioner.                                                                        
          (10) not later than January 31 of each year, to                                                                       
     provide  to the  commissioner of  revenue the  names of                                                                    
     those fish and shellfish  species that the commissioner                                                                    
     of fish  and game  designates as  developing commercial                                                                    
     fish  species  for  that  calendar   year;  a  fish  or                                                                    
     shellfish  species  is  a  developing  commercial  fish                                                                    
     species if, within a specified geographical region,                                                                        
          (A) the optimum yield from the harvest of the                                                                         
     species has not been reached;                                                                                              
          (B) a substantial portion of the allowable                                                                            
     harvest of  the species  has been allocated  to fishing                                                                    
     vessels of a foreign nation; or                                                                                            
          (C) a commercial harvest of the fish species has                                                                      
     recently developed;                                                                                                        
MR. ALPER speculated that the list  is compiled by ADF&G based on                                                               
scientific   information  and   determinations.     He   directed                                                               
attention   to   the   committee   packet  and   the   six   page                                                               
interdepartmental  memo, dated  1/27/16, to  Commissioner Randall                                                               
Hoffbeck,   from   Commissioner   Sam  Cotten,   containing   the                                                               
developing  fisheries  list.     He  added  that  the  developing                                                               
fisheries comprise a relatively small  portion of the overall FBT                                                               
portfolio, perhaps $200,000 of the $25,000,000 received.                                                                        
10:12:29 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES continued,  with the  fourth  question, which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     4.  Why are charter boats not subject to the tax?                                                                          
MR. ALPER responded that charter  boat activities could be taxed,                                                               
but the precision  of harvest would be lacking.   The statute has                                                               
been  written around  the commercial  industry and  would require                                                               
amendment or new  legislation to address charter  activities.  He                                                               
paraphrased  from the  prepared  response,  which read  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
     There  is   no  reason   that  charter   sport  fishing                                                                    
     operations couldn't  be taxed if the  legislature chose                                                                    
     to  tax them.   Since  sport fishery  landings are  not                                                                    
     accounted   for  in   the  same   rigorous  manner   as                                                                    
     commercial catch  there would  need to  be a  new sport                                                                    
     charter  catch  accounting  system  developed  for  tax                                                                    
     assessment purposes.   If the  committee would  like to                                                                    
     develop legislation  that would  tax charter  boats and                                                                    
     similar commercial  sport fish operators, DOR  would be                                                                    
     happy to provide technical assistance as needed.                                                                           
10:13:26 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ asked  why  existing statute  could not  be                                                               
applied to tax the processing of charter caught fish.                                                                           
MR. ALPER  explained that the  commercial fisheries  represent an                                                               
excise tax on an item being  sold.  However, the charter industry                                                               
provides  a service  of  access  and prohibits  the  sale of  the                                                               
CHAIR STUTES  noted that a  charter's catch is  typically cleaned                                                               
and  packaged for  shipment,  which  seems to  lend  itself to  a                                                               
processing tax.                                                                                                                 
MR. ALPER  speculated that  the product would  need to  be valued                                                               
for sale purposes to meet  tax requirements.  He deferred further                                                               
10:16:10 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES  continued, with  the  fifth  question, which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     5.  What is the distribution  of the $18 million in new                                                                    
     fish tax revenue under HB 251?                                                                                             
MR.  ALPER paraphrased  from the  prepared  response, which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     The fiscal  note for HB  251 projects $18.4  million in                                                                    
     new revenue  from the  fish tax  increases in  FY 2017.                                                                    
     The Department  of Revenue  estimates this  new revenue                                                                    
     will be broken down by species category as follows:                                                                        
     Category                 New revenue ($ millions)                                                                          
     Groundfish: Pollock       5.4                                                                                              
     Groundfish: Non-Pollock   3.2                                                                                              
     Black Cod                 1.1                                                                                              
     Halibut                   1.1                                                                                              
     Herring                   0.1                                                                                              
     Salmon                    4.9                                                                                              
     Shellfish                 2.6                                                                                              
     Total                    18.4                                                                                              
     This   analysis  is   based  on   projections  of   the                                                                    
     distribution of  taxable fish  value by  species, which                                                                    
     are used in  DOR's annual fish tax  forecasts. For more                                                                    
     information  on the  current  distribution by  species,                                                                    
     please see the attached Fish Values & Poundage Report.                                                                     
10:17:07 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES  continued, with  the  sixth  question, which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     6.  What is  the distribution  of the  $140 million  in                                                                    
     budget cuts under the governor's proposal?                                                                                 
MR. ALPER deferred.                                                                                                             
10:18:31 AM                                                                                                                   
KEVIN BROOKS,  Deputy Commissioner,  Alaska Department of  Fish &                                                               
Game,  directed  attention  to   the  committee  packet  and  the                                                               
columned  page titled,  "FY2015-FY2017 Budget  Review Summary  by                                                               
Category,  Unrestricted  General  Funds  Only,"  and  the  fourth                                                               
numerical column  headed as "1  Year Change F&2017 from  FY16 $,"                                                               
and  the line  labeled,  "Agency Operating  Subtotal," showing  a                                                               
reduction figure  of $140,571.1.   The fourth  line entry  of the                                                               
same column,  he pointed  out, labeled "Fish  and Game,"  lists a                                                               
reduction of  $7,454.9, as the  cut to the department;  among the                                                               
other  agency totals.   He  directed attention  to the  following                                                               
page  titled, "Department  of Fish  and  Game, FY2015  Management                                                               
Plan  to FY  2016  Management Plan  to  FY2017 Governor,  General                                                               
Funds Only - UGF, January 20,  2016," listing where the cuts will                                                               
be  made  throughout the  department.    He indicated  the  fifth                                                               
numerical  column  total,  $7,454.9,  which  coincides  with  the                                                               
agency figure on the previously  mentioned chart.  He pointed out                                                               
the third column  total, headed "Difference FY15 to  FY16 MP," to                                                               
report the total cuts already proposed, equaling $14,292.4.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ  surmised  that  the two  figures,  if  the                                                               
governor's  budget is  adopted,  would  represent a  departmental                                                               
budget  cut of  roughly $21,747,000,  and noted  from the  totals                                                               
shown that  the department will have  an overall cut of  about 25                                                               
MR. BROOKS said, that is correct.                                                                                               
10:21:31 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   MILLETT  inquired   about  the   cost  of   test                                                               
fisheries,  could  the  activity  be  privatized,  and  do  these                                                               
fisheries generate  money for the  department.  She  expanded her                                                               
inquiry  to include:   how  many boats  are owned  by ADF&G;  the                                                               
number  of test  fisheries ADF&G  boats participate  in; and  the                                                               
rationale  for  not  using  ADF&G   boats  in  Bristol  Bay  test                                                               
MR.  BROOKS answered  that the  department operates  several test                                                               
fisheries  using  a  combination  of state  boats  and  chartered                                                               
vessels.    The  stock  assessment  projects  are  used  to  make                                                               
determinations for fishery  openings, such as herring  roe.  That                                                               
type of  project results  in dead  fish, which  are sold  under a                                                               
fish  ticket.   The department  also conducts  revenue fisheries,                                                               
and tension with  the fishing fleet can result.   In Bristol Bay,                                                               
ADF&G  operates  a revenue  fishery,  which  provides about  $3.5                                                               
million for its budget.   The department is proposing an increase                                                               
in  test fishing  in the  FY 17  budget, with  an expectation  of                                                               
generating  an additional  $800,000; spread  across all  regions.                                                               
He offered to  provide the committee with a list  of the proposed                                                               
test fisheries.   The revenue is  used to pay for  the management                                                               
of the  commercial harvest,  and the fishermen  of each  area are                                                               
consulted  and worked  with in  order to  maintain relations  and                                                               
have minimal impact to the fleet.                                                                                               
10:24:29 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for  a breakdown of costs, including                                                               
capital outlay  for gear,  which the  test fishery  represents to                                                               
the department.                                                                                                                 
MR. BROOKS said  ADF&G owns six research vessels,  with a primary                                                               
purpose of  fishery assessment and  other work, and he  agreed to                                                               
provide a list of vessel value and equipment.                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES  questioned if these  are the only vessels  owned by                                                               
the department  or are  there separate vessels  that do  the test                                                               
fishing for revenue purposes.                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS  answered that these are  the only boats owned  by the                                                               
department, and  the primary  purpose is not  test fishing.   The                                                               
agency  contracts with  commercial  fishing  vessels to  generate                                                               
CHAIR STUTES asked when the test fishing occurs.                                                                                
MR. BROOKS answered  that the fishing occurs prior  to opening an                                                               
area for fleet  access; perhaps a few  days or a week.   He added                                                               
that  a  significant  portion  of the  test  fishery  revenue  is                                                               
derived from crab  harvest.  He offered to provide  a list of the                                                               
test fisheries conducted.                                                                                                       
CHAIR STUTES  surmised that the  revenue generated from  the crab                                                               
represents less fishing effort and higher sale returns.                                                                         
10:27:10 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  MILLETT suggested  that,  rather  than the  state                                                               
owning  and maintaining  vessels,  it may  be  cost effective  to                                                               
lease boats as needed.                                                                                                          
MR.  BROOKS said  the large,  state owned,  research vessels  are                                                               
generally otherwise  engaged and  not available for  revenue test                                                               
fishing purposes,  often deployed to open  sea for 120 days  at a                                                               
time.     The  department  charters  boats   and  aircraft,  when                                                               
necessary, at a cost  of about $4 million per year.   He said the                                                               
department has  investigated using  charter vessels only,  but it                                                               
hasn't proven to be feasible.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT  asked for  cost and  timeline comparisons                                                               
for use of state owned versus contract vessels.                                                                                 
10:29:02 AM                                                                                                                   
SAM  COTTEN,  Commissioner, Alaska  Department  of  Fish &  Game,                                                               
explained a typical,  and harmonious, scenario of  a test fishery                                                               
in  Bristol  Bay, where  the  fleet  fished the  designated  open                                                               
areas, and the  department fished in an  otherwise closed locale.                                                               
The test fisheries for revenue  also provide important management                                                               
information,  along with  the opportunity  for  receipts.   These                                                               
actions  allow  the  department  to  meet  legislative  mandates.                                                               
Further, revenue  generated is  used to  manage fisheries  in the                                                               
same  area as  the fishery  tested,  and he  provided an  example                                                               
regarding crab  management.  The department  continually monitors                                                               
cost analysis  of the state  fleet, he assured members,  and said                                                               
charter  vessels  would  solely  be  used,  if  it  were  a  less                                                               
expensive  and feasible  approach  to  the situation.     The  MV                                                               
Kestrel,  which ADF&G  operates  out of  Petersburg,  is used  to                                                               
monitor  herring runs,  dive  fisheries,  and other  deployments,                                                               
making it a cost effective approach.                                                                                            
10:31:16 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  STUTES  asked  about  the  agencies  maintenance  of  fish                                                               
tickets  for  the  test  fisheries, and  requested  a  five  year                                                               
account be provided to the committee.                                                                                           
10:32:26 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  MILLETT  conjectured  that  the  additional  test                                                               
fisheries proposed  to generate  revenue for the  department, may                                                               
take away opportunities for commercial fishermen.                                                                               
MR.  BROOKS responded  that the  FY 17  budget includes  $800,000                                                               
comprised of  receipts from  test fisheries;  in addition  to the                                                               
existing  receipts.   These test  fisheries are  done because  of                                                               
necessity to generate funding, he stressed.                                                                                     
10:33:38 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES asked where the  $800,000 fits into the department's                                                               
budget, on the financial page previously reviewed.                                                                              
MR.  BROOKS answered  that the  $7.4 million  cut would  become a                                                               
$6.6 million reduction instead.                                                                                                 
10:34:17 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ said  fishermen  in his  district tout  the                                                               
world class  reputation of  the fisheries,  as managed  by ADF&G,                                                               
and  cautioned  that  the  proposed   cuts  will  jeopardize  the                                                               
agency's ability to  maintain that standard.   The test fisheries                                                               
are based on  the department's need to gather data  and to offset                                                               
the cuts being made to the general fund.                                                                                        
MR. BROOKS concurred.                                                                                                           
10:35:47 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT  inquired about  the information  that the                                                               
test  fisheries provide,  and expressed  concern that  conducting                                                               
the  fisheries removes  $800,000 from  the pockets  of commercial                                                               
COMMISSIONER  COTTEN   said  the  department  will   provide  the                                                               
committee with  an account of what  is being done and  the number                                                               
of fish/shellfish being  caught.  It is a  combination of science                                                               
and revenue  collection, conducted throughout all  regions of the                                                               
10:38:37 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ  conjectured that,  due to lack  of funding,                                                               
the  agency   may  not  be   able  to  collect   necessary  data,                                                               
particularly on  low priority  systems, which  would play  out as                                                               
fewer  opportunities for  fisherman,  due to  ADF&G's policy  for                                                               
conservative management practices.                                                                                              
COMMISSIONER COTTEN  voiced that  the mission  statement requires                                                               
the department to protect fish  and maintain a sustainable yield.                                                               
He  agreed  that  lack  of data  does  compromise  the  precision                                                               
required to manage a fishery for optimal harvest.                                                                               
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.                                                                                           
10:40:51 AM                                                                                                                   
OLIVER  HOLM, Commercial  Fisherman, recapped  the various  taxes                                                               
that  he   is  responsible  for,   as  a   commercial  fisherman;                                                               
assessments which include:   vessel registration, permit renewal,                                                               
borough  landing  taxes, enhancement  taxes  paid  to the  state,                                                               
individual fishery  quota tax for  halibut, vessel  observer tax,                                                               
and state fuel taxes.  The  price received for salmon in 2015 was                                                               
less  than  what was  being  paid  in  1974,  the year  he  began                                                               
seining.  If  the tax were being directed to  ADF&G for continued                                                               
management and  fishing opportunities, he said  he could possibly                                                               
support  the governor's  bill.   However, he  stressed, expecting                                                               
the commercial fishing industry  to solve gapping budget deficits                                                               
is not feasible.                                                                                                                
10:43:51 AM                                                                                                                   
RHONDA HUBBARD  voiced her  understanding of  the incompatibility                                                               
for charter  versus commercial catch taxation,  pointing out that                                                               
each  belongs  in a  different  tax  category.   She  recommended                                                               
consolidating,  or co-locating,  entities that  collect fisheries                                                               
data, such  as ADF&G, DOR, Commercial  Fisheries Entry Commission                                                               
(CFEC),  and the  Alaska Seafood  Marketing Institute  (ASMI), to                                                               
facilitate  information sharing  and  save costs.   Further,  the                                                               
business and  landing taxes  are in  need of  review, comparison,                                                               
and  streamlining,  she opined,  and  suggested  that a  taxation                                                               
floor could be helpful.                                                                                                         
10:47:38 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES  closed public testimony  after ascertaining  no one                                                               
further wished to testify.                                                                                                      
[HB 251 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB251 Backup Fish tax report by rates.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup HBADFG General Fund Cuts FY16-17.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup 2016 Developing Fisheries Memo.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup DOR & DFG Response to House Fisheries.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Fish Value by Species 2014-2015.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup ERG response to House Fisheries Questions.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Test Fish Overview FY16-FY17.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Schwantes.pdf HFSH 2/11/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251